Academic Papers
The views of an advocatus dei: Political
marketing and its critics
Stephan C. Henneberg
Received: 12th January, 2004
University of Bath, School of Management, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK; tel.: +44 (0)1225 383 699;
fax: +44 (0)1225 386 473, e-mail: s.c.m.henneberg@bath.ac.uk
Stephan C. Henneberg is a lecturer at the
School of Management, University of Bath, UK.
His current research interests are in the areas of
strategic marketing, relational marketing, consumer
behaviour and social and political marketing.
He publishes regularly on political marketing, eg
in the Journal of Marketing Management and the
Journal of Political Marketing. Stephan has organised
several international conferences on political
marketing at the University of Cambridge, UK.
He has just edited a book of readings on The Idea
of Political Marketing (Praeger, 2002), together
with N. O’Shaughnessy.
ABSTRACT
This paper addresses 11 statements of criticism
of political marketing. These statements represent
the most commonly voiced issues and were
collected from marketers and political scientists.
While marketing theorists are more concerned
with the state of political marketing theory,
political scientists concentrate much of their criticism
on aspects of political marketing management
as it is experienced in practice. Each
statement is discussed and general conclusions are
identified. While presenting the personal opinion
of the author (advocatus dei), these conclusions
and statements concerning political marketing
should foster critical discourse on issues such as
political marketing management, concepts and
ethics.
KEYWORDS: criticism of political marketing,
ethics of political marketing, political marketing
theory
POLITICAL MARKETING UNDER ATTACK
Political marketing holds a difficult position.
Research on political marketing appears to
be constantly under an obligation to justify
itself and to defend itself against criticism of
its research ethos, ie the use of marketing
concepts and instruments in the political
sphere. It sometimes seems as though any
attempts at merely gaining insights into the
nuts and bolts of the application of political
marketing by parties and other political actors
are associated with sinister plans to develop a
political ‘Cacotopia’, to use Jeremy
Bentham’s term. Negative feelings evoked
by the use of marketing instruments in
politics seem to rub off onto political marketing
research itself (O’Shaughnessy 1990).
The result is that many researchers in this
area are confronted with the phenomenon of
being ‘guilty by association’. Yet, worse than
describing political marketing, one might
think, is the development of prescriptive
marketing management tools for the political
arena. Such a ‘Faustian’ pact immediately
disqualifies the research, and the researcher is
evicted from any decent discussion of how a
sustainable and successful democratic system
Page 225
Journal of Public Affairs Volume 4 Number 3
Journal of Public Affairs
Vol. 4 No. 3, 2004, pp. 225–243
& Henry Stewart Publications,
ISSN 1479-1854
should work. . . or so it seems to some
academics. Research on political marketing is
sometimes condemned per se purely due to its
link with political marketing practice that is
seen as harmful to our democratic party
political systems. In such a climate, it is
difficult for a, still new, research (sub-)
discipline to find and develop a sound theoretical
and empirical footing while developing
the confidence to engage in a meaningful
discourse with other disciplines, such as political
science (Scammell 1995, 1999).
While, invariably, political scientists voice
their critical opinions against political marketing
(as stated previously, this can indiscriminately
include the application of
managerial concepts as well as researching
them), the additional discipline that contributes
to the theoretical foundation of political
marketing, ie marketing theory, also has
reservations (Henneberg 2002). Any reservation
deserves to be taken seriously and needs
to be addressed. In the following discussion,
several of the principal critical arguments
against political marketing will be dealt with.
These were collected from discussions and
via e-mail surveys.1
From the rhetoric and
replies, it becomes apparent that there are
two distinct groups of issues: criticism of
political marketing practice and criticism of
political marketing research associated with
such practice. While this author does not
want to create the impression merely of some
convenient strawmen being built up and
then elegantly demolished, it must be borne
in mind that the selection of criticisms
selected to be tackled are based purely on an
idiosyncratic choice, guided by an understanding
of the most frequent and important
objections against political marketing. The
ultimate aim of this plea by an advocatus dei,
however, is not so much the ‘beatification’ of
political marketing, as it is to create a counter-weight
to the overpowering and omnipresent
voice of the advocatus diaboli. Only a
restrained and unbiased approach to the
topic, sine ira et studio, can help the emergent
subject of political marketing to develop into
an area of serious and rigorous academic
research.
To organise the following argument, some
of the main objections to political marketing
are described and analysed systematically. No
specific attention has been given to definitorial
distinctions with regard to whether or
not specific arguments were really about
‘marketing in the political sphere’ or about
‘propaganda’ (O’Shaughnessy 1999). Subsequently,
some implications for political marketing
theory and practice are explored.
Thus, it is necessary to introduce a distinction
between different levels of political marketing,
entitled: categories. The argument will
employ these categories to get to grips with
distinctions of the criticism raised.
CATEGORIES OF POLITICAL MARKETING
Discussions concerning political marketing,
in addition to research publications on the
topic, can suffer from a somewhat confusing
understanding of different categories of political
marketing. For the purposes of this
paper, a specific categorisation scheme has
been used.2
It is possible (see Figure 1) to
distinguish between three levels of involvement
with the explanandum at hand, and two
levels of focus (Henneberg 2002), as introduced
by Sheth et al. (1988).
Political marketing in general is defined as
facilitating the societal process of political
exchange,3
while political marketing management
describes the ‘art and science’
(Kotler 2003) of successfully managing this
(political) exchange process. Thus, political
marketing and its managerial application,
political marketing management, can be signified
as the research object (explanandum) in
question. Activities might comprise developing
a strategic political posture for a party,
micro-managing an election campaign, coordinating
the spin on certain communications
with ‘parallel’ organisations and using
political marketing research to focus marketing
spend resources, among others (Butler
The views of an advocatus dei: Political marketing and its critics
Page 226
and Collins 1999; Henneberg 2002; Newman
1999; O’Cass 2001; O’Shaughnessy
1990). In researching these phenomena,
however, one needs to distinguish two separate
levels (Sheth et al. 1988). First, the theory
of political marketing management encompasses
the academic interest in dealing with
the operational management issues of political
exchanges. It consists of a theoretical and
analytical examination of managerial behaviour.
Questions answered on this level are,
for example: What do political actors do to
manage the political exchange? Which instruments
and concepts are successful, and
under what circumstances? This operational
and managerial focus, however, means that
certain elements are not covered by the
theory of political marketing management.
One might ask: What about the wider impact
of political marketing activities on democracy,
or the interplay with different party or
electoral systems? Or the understanding of
how voters perceive political actors in an
electoral market system? Or the description/
definition of different exchange structures in
the political marketing, etc? These and more
fundamental questions, without direct managerial
relevance, are covered by the theory
of political marketing. They consist of the
crucial conceptual ‘backbone’ of research on
political marketing. The main thrust of this
paper, ie ethical dimensions of political marketing,
is in fact rooted here.
Conversely, for reasons included in the
following argument, it is also important to
distinguish two levels of focus: a descriptive
versus a prescriptive (normative) argument.
As these categories are widely used in marketing
theory (Arndt 1982; Hunt 1976; Hunt
and Burnett 1982), a detailed description can
be omitted. Putting these categories together,
the categorisation scheme allows for a clear
focus of criticism of political marketing.
CRITICISM OF POLITICAL MARKETING
It is appropriate to introduce the contenders.
First, the advocatus diaboli: the following criticisms
of political marketing have been chosen
for further consideration, as described
earlier. They are paraphrased below as factual
statements. Some of the ‘accusations’ are not
mutually exclusive and therefore overlap.
Common criticism with regard to political
marketing management, ie the practical apLevels
of Involvement
Theory of
Political Marketing
Theory of Political
Marketing Management
Political Marketing
Management
Descriptive
Normative
LevelsofFocus
Figure 1: Categorisation scheme of political marketing
Henneberg
Page 227
plication of political marketing, can be summarised
by the following six statements:
• S1: Through the use of political marketing,
elections can in effect be ‘bought’
(also: only rich candidates can afford to
run).
• S2: Political marketing has transformed
politics into being obsessed with ‘spin’
and ‘packaging’ (also: politics has become
void of content because of political
marketing).
• S3: Political marketing has caused more
populism in politics, a ‘follower mentality’
prevails, based on focus group results
and perceived public opinion (also: politics
has become void of political leader-
ship).
• S4: Parties and politicians that use political
marketing are using the wrong reference
points/mindsets. Politics is
essentially not about ‘selling’ but about
something completely different.
• S5: Political marketing is not compatible
with how voters (should) make an informed
voting decision (also: political
marketing uses manipulative methods/
smokescreens to betray voters).
• S6: Political marketing causes campaigns
to be negative.
On the level of the theory of political
marketing, as well as the theory of political
marketing management, five more criticisms
can be distinguished with regard to how
researchers approach political marketing:
• S7: Research on political marketing is
not focusing on politics but on ephemeral
activities like communication tactics
and campaigning.
• S8: All research into political marketing
helps in the end to foster the adoption
and application of (inherently bad) management
practice and thinking in politics.
This is not only true of normative
research but also of purely descriptive
research.
• S9: Research in political marketing is not
sophisticated; it does not utilise the leading
edge political science and especially
marketing theories available.
• S10: The political arena is not really part
of the ‘marketing domain’ and should
therefore not be researched using marketing
concepts.
• S11: No theoretical and ethical framework
exists that allows (value-) discussions
about political marketing.
If these statements are clustered into the
categorisation scheme of political marketing
introduced above, the following picture
emerges (see Figure 2); this also indicates
whether a critical statement was typically
associated with a political scientist or a mar-
keter.
Most criticisms regarding political marketing
management come from political scientists.
Not surprisingly, few marketers find the
use of marketing instruments and concepts in
politics objectionable. The only concern that
some marketers have about ‘selling politics’
(S4) is connected to the fundamental theoretical
problem stated in S10: whether or not
marketing concepts as such can and should
be used to describe political behaviour (the
‘domain’ question).
Marketers’ criticism is concerned with
theoretical questions of how political marketing
management is researched. Interestingly,
marketers were the only researchers
that focused on critical aspects of the theory
of political marketing, ie thinking about
some underlying theoretical and conceptual
elements of political marketing that affect
and shape the theory of political marketing
management as well as the epistemological
position vis-a`-vis its research object.
ENTER THE ADVOCATUS DEI
In breaking with (clerical) tradition, the criticism
(see the 11 statements above) was introduced
first in this argument. Therefore, it is
time for the counsel of political marketing,
The views of an advocatus dei: Political marketing and its critics
Page 228
the advocatus dei, to address the 11 critical
statements. As some of these criticisms are
linked, they will occasionally be dealt with
together.
The practice — Political marketing
management
Elections can be bought. One of the most
damning criticisms of the use of political
marketing instruments in the political arena
is the accusation that democratic elections
can now be ‘bought’ (S1). The reasoning
behind this can be summarised as follows:
today’s elections are won by the candidate/
party that sets the agenda through political
adverts and media manipulation, planting of
sound bites in the news media, micro-targeting
of communication instruments, focus on
marginal seats, etc. In general, this means that
the electoral market is dominated by the one
that has the slickest and most professionally
run campaign management. Such professionalism
(as well as media slots, especially on
national television) comes at a price (Franklin
1994; Gould 1999; Newman 1999, 2001;
Steen 1999). Consequently, the party/candidate
with more resources or better fundraising
capabilities over the period of high
electoral competition wins, irrespectively of
the political argument (Wray 1999).
While it is certainly true that electoral
campaigns have become progressively more
expensive and that it is estimated that political
candidates running for the US presidency
spend more than half of their time fundraising
(including such activities as renting out
the Lincoln bedroom in the White House to
party contributors) (Gould 1999; Himes
1995), the direct relationship between campaign
spend and campaign success is certainly
overstated. Looking at commercial campaigns
in a for-profit market environment,
more campaign budget does not correlate
well with commercial success (Berkowitz et
al. 2001; D’Souza and Allaway 1995).
Furthermore, while there are certainly examples
where the big political spenders win
elections in the end, there are also counterLevels
of Involvement
Theory of
Political Marketing
Theory of Political
Marketing Management
Political Marketing
Management
Descriptive
Normative
LevelsofFocus
Criticism mainly from:
M – Marketers
P – Political Scientists
M/P – both
S10 (M)
S11 (M)
S7 (M/P)
S8 (P)
S9 (M/P)
S7 (M)
S8 (P)
S9 (M)
S1 (P)
S2 (P)
S3 (P)
S4 (M/P)
S5 (P)
S6 (P)
Figure 2: Criticisms of political marketing
Henneberg
Page 229
examples: in the run-up to the 2001 general
elections in the UK, the Tories spent
£12,751,813, in comparison with Labour’s
£10,945,119, and suffered a second humiliating
and crushing defeat at the polls (31.7
per cent of the national vote compared with
Labour’s 40.9 per cent). Furthermore, the
Liberal Democrat result of 18.3 per cent
sounds extraordinary if one looks at their
respective campaign spending: £1,361,377
(Electoral Commission 2002). In addition,
this statement would not be able to account
for the sometimes considerable electoral volatility
in party systems where the main
source of funding is state based and calculated
as a result of a party’s electoral success at the
last election (eg as in Germany) (Seidle
1991). While resource acquisition is certainly
a contentious issue on the political agenda
(Jamieson 1992a), it is more a discussion
about funding sources in a democracy than
about political marketing management itself.
Packaging without content. Political marketing
management is commonly accused of
having ‘emptied’ political communication, as
well as party politics, of any direct relationship
with political issues and deeply held
political convictions that are expressed in
coherent political and topical offers (S2). In
Franklin’s words: ‘Image has supplanted substance’
(Franklin 1994). Instead, political
marketing has introduced, so the argument
goes, an obsession with the way that political
messages are packaged. Political arguments
are cut down to what is now commonly
called ‘spin’ and ‘sound bites’ — void of
political content and meaningfulness, but
delivered in a bombastic and impressive shell
and pre-packaged for a two minute news
slot, solely relating to ‘image’ (Jamieson
1992b; Jones 1995; Moloney 2000; Wring,
2000). Consequently, image consultants argue
that politicians should become brand
managers and prime ministers and governments
should manage ‘the nation as a brand’
(O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy 2000;
Smith 2001). The obsession with spin has
even caused the unprecedented move by the
Speaker of the House of Commons in the
UK to attack professional ‘spin doctors’
(read: media advisers and communication
specialists) directly as being a ‘nuisance’
(Anon 2003).
From a marketing point of view, it is
certainly possible to agree with this criticism
to some extent. Politics is essentially about
managing a service in the form of promises
(public goods) to constituents (eg the electorate).
These constituents are not isomorphic
with customers but are better described as
clients. The promises evoke expectations in
the minds of the constituents that are measured
against political activities, once the
political actor (party or candidate) is in a
position to implement these promises, ie
once in government or able to influence
governmental activities. In a simplified way,
this means that if these expectations are not
met by delivering certain political outcomes
(eg tax cuts, political leadership, improving
the international importance of a country),
dissatisfaction follows (according to the confirmation/disconfirmation
model of consumer
behaviour) (Churchill and Suprenant
1982; Fournier and Mick 1999; Spreng et al.
1996; Tse and Wilton 1988). If expectations
are constantly not met and the constituents
perceive most promises to be empty, however,
a general disillusionment can follow.
Although this is lamentable, it inherently has
a built-in balancing mechanism: dissatisfaction
causes behaviour change, and behaviour
change means that certain beneficial activities
(votes, resources, donations) are withheld or
shifted to other players (sometimes out of the
electoral market) (O’Shaughnessy and Wring
1994). The often heard argument that the
electorate ‘forgets’ false promises and that
after an election period the lies and disappointments
of the previous campaign and the
first year(s) of the government are not relevant
for the decision-making process sounds
hollow: these are the same people who, as
consumers, are believed to become more and
The views of an advocatus dei: Political marketing and its critics
Page 230
more sophisticated, who quickly shift brand
loyalties when dissatisfied and who should
never be disappointed because their longterm
memory is better than that of elephants
(Antonides and van Raaij 1998; Kotler
2003). It seems astonishing that these very
same people, the scorn of modern marketing,
should transform into unthinking sheep who
believe in the packaging more than the
content, who forgive easily and who can be
(mis)guided by modern political marketing
techniques, just because these same activities
and instruments are concerned with the
political, rather than the commercial, sphere
(Holbrook 1996). Should the (rather unsophisticated)
political marketing have a much
stronger influence on behaviour and attitudes
than (extremely sophisticated and optimised)
commercial marketing? This seems to be
difficult to believe. What can nevertheless be
said is that more and more political actors use
a ‘follower mentality’ (see discussion of statement
S3 below), which inherently means that
the ‘packaging’ and customising of political
messages and promises becomes more important
in order to specifically address the needs
and wants of a certain target audience (Collins
and Butler, 2003; Henneberg 2005 forth-
coming).
Something should now be said about ‘spin’
and ‘image’: these are not modern phenomena
but are inherent in any attempt to ‘convince’
and make an argument. Oratory and
rhetoric (much nicer terms for what is now
simply called political communication), from
the Greek forum to Speakers’ Corner, from
Disraeli to Reagan, was always full of exaggerations,
the stage managing of effects,
etc, but not necessarily about deception
(Egan 1999; O’Shaughnessy 2002c; Smith
2001). Prima facie it is impossible to differentiate
‘images’ from ‘issues’ in an argument,
they are both socially constructed (Banker
1992). Furthermore, spin depends on the
media and therefore has to be seen in a
dialectic relationship between different
players (O’Shaughnessy 2002b), although
some critics assume that the ‘[m]edia are used
routinely by politicians to set news agendas’
(Franklin 1994). What is really modern about
spin is its professionalism and omnipresence,
eg the existence of political consultants
(Johnson 2002) and ‘Directors of Communications’
like Alistair Campbell for Tony
Blair, Karl Rove for George Bush Jr, or
Bodo Hombach for Gerhardt Schro¨der (during
his first term in office). It is interesting to
see that these communication and campaign
specialists have now become political influencers
and politicians themselves (sometimes
elected, sometimes not) (Newman 2001).
Karl Rove, for example, has a permanent
office in the White House. Besides accountability
problems, this professionalism has at
least caused the political process to be much
more efficient and effective.
Populism and no leadership. Parties and politicians
‘follow’; they run after the political
opinion and adapt to any small changes,
especially to perceived opinion shifts in crucial
segments of the electorate like opinion
leaders, swing voters or electoral areas with
‘marginal seats’ (S3) (Harris 2001a). To this
end, political market research (eg the ominous
and omnipresent focus groups) are
employed. Their outcome determines policy,
which, always running after the whims
of the electorate, is being driven by the
market, the vox populi. The argument attributes
this ‘following’ mentality to the essence
of marketing, namely the concept of customer-orientation
(Collins and Butler, 2003),
often misunderstood as being customer-led
(Slater and Narver 1998).
The central problem with this argument is
not that there is no tendency towards populism
in politics (a time-honoured accusation
in the political discourse). Although it can be
argued that recently the ‘tactical populist’
(Henneberg 2005 forthcoming) has become
the main strategic posture for mainstream
parties, it can also be argued that this is not an
optimal posture under many circumstances
and that it neglects crucial aspects of a
Henneberg
Page 231
customer orientation as postulated in the
marketing literature. Without going into the
details of the ‘market orientation versus customer
orientation’ debate of marketing theory
(Conor 1999; Kohli and Jaworski 1990;
Narver and Slater 1990; Noble et al. 2002;
Lafferty and Hult 2001; Slater and Narver
1998; Slater and Narver 1999) and the related
aspect of a ‘social orientation’ (Liao et al.
2001), it can nevertheless be stated that an
exclusively market-driven approach in politics
falls short of a consequent customer/
voter orientation (Newman 1999; Smith and
Saunders 1990). In fact, the dialectical interplay
of market-driven and market-driving
behaviour characterises successful (political)
marketing management in terms of building
long-term relationships. An element of ‘leading’
complements an emphasis on following
and satisfying customer needs and wants.
This is true for the economic sphere (eg
Sony’s walkman, Toyota’s Lexus or Lufthansa’s
introduction of e-tickets) as well as the
non-profit (Liao et al. 2001) and political one
(eg the emphasis by voters on leadership
qualities in politicians) (Henneberg 2005
forthcoming; Herrmann and Huber 1996).
Therefore, a political marketing approach
that is purely market-driven often constitutes
both bad politics and bad marketing. The
irony is that leading and following can sometimes
develop into a ‘devil and the deep blue
sea’ phenomenon, as Tony Blair has discovered:
Usually exposed as an opportunist that
depends on focus group results for policy
making, his leadership stance of siding with
the USA during the second Iraq War is now
characterised as being out of touch with the
people (Ritson 2003). It remains to be seen if
he can transform his image from a ‘follower’
to a ‘leader’, comparable to Thatcher’s
development (Scammell 1996).
Politics is not about selling. Equating politics
with selling washing powder, using inter alia
the same methods and mindsets for both,
corrupts politics and devalues it. The importance
of democratic political decisions and
their wide-ranging implications for the wellbeing
of many people constitutes a completely
different quality from picking up a can of
Coke in a Walmart hypermarket (S4) (Jones
1995). This truism is often used against
political marketing management and advocates
a ‘new public management’ concept
(Collins and Butler 2003). It is based on a
like-for-like equation of the political and the
economic market. As already alluded to
above, however, this is not a straightforward
case. While politics in fact bears little similarity
to normal products, an analogy with
services is not totally unreasonable. Many
characteristics are similar: both are promiseand
experience based, non-tangible, perishable,
partly public goods,4
prosumptive etc
(Butler and Collins 1999; O’Shaughnessy
2002b; O’Shaughnessy and Henneberg
2002). Furthermore, constituents, like voters
or grass-root supporters, are not really customers
but resemble clients (Newman 1999).
Therefore, while the equation of politics and
washing powder is in fact obscene, the
analogy of politics with a professional service
— law, for example — seems to be a more
reasonable one (Egan 1999; Henneberg
2002; Smith and Saunders 1990). Services
marketing, which is heavily committed to
building trust and commitment in a relational
exchange (Berry 1995; Bitner 1995; Gro¨nroos
1990; Gro¨nroos 1994; Gro¨nroos 1997),
can therefore be a guiding concept for political
marketing management.
Another and more fundamental issue of
the ‘selling politics’ argument has to do with
the question of whether or not marketing
management practices or concepts are applicable
in non-economic exchanges. Nonprofit
and social marketing (eg cause-related
marketing, health management, sports or arts
marketing, to name but a few) has developed
into a sub-discipline of marketing, but not
without discussions about the boundaries of
marketing, ie the marketing domain. This
fundamental discussion will be addressed
below in S10.
The views of an advocatus dei: Political marketing and its critics
Page 232
Voters vote differently. This argument is
grounded in an understanding, or, to be
precise, a premise about how voters go about
making sense of, and an informed choice
about, political issues. This choice can consist
of forming a political opinion or it can be
behaviourally relevant in the sense that it
triggers certain political activities. The one
activity that is normally discussed, and which
is arguably the determining behaviour in
democratic political systems, is voting. The
argument against political marketing management
insists that voters need to be able to
gain access to political information and ‘facts’
in order to form a ‘rational’ opinion on
which they can base their voting decision
(S5). Nowadays, however, voters do not get
the information about important political
issues that they need, and political campaigns
are about personal characteristics and empty
arguments, images, catch-phrases and soundbites
(discussed above). These stimuli do not
consist of the right kind of political information
for voters to be able to form an informed
opinion. The voter’s opinion remains a onedimensional
image of the shallow political
discussions fostered by political marketing
management (Franklin 1994; Jamieson
1992b).
These arguments are clearly inspired by
political theory, and a prescriptive understanding
of how democracy ought to work
and how voters are supposed to make up
their minds (Brennan and Lomasky 1993).
The assumption that voters (could) decide in
a rational way, and that they (could) form
opinions in a ‘power and dominance-free’
environment, however, is certainly based on
a fallacy. Such deontological abstraction
might serve some purpose in underpinning
micro-economic theory (in political science,
for example, embraced by the economic
school of voting behaviour); to derive from it
such information as how a political discourse
should look, and what kind of information
shall or shall not be part of political campaigns,
is not realistic (Kaid 1999; O’Shaughnessy
2002a), eg the demand for a ‘fair,
accurate, contextual, comparative, engaged
campaign discourse’(Jamiesson 1992b). Any
‘rational’ voting behaviour theory shows
only part of the complex human processes of
deciding and acting. Consumer behaviour
theory, although indebted to micro-economic
models, has accepted this, and there
have been attempts to integrate the findings
of consumption studies with those of voting
behaviour theories (Bartle and Griffiths
2002; Newman and Sheth 1987). In its
essence, the voting decision is a very complex
and difficult process. Therefore, nonrational
elements or decision shortcuts, such
as the reliance on heuristics and decision
cues, help voters to make up their minds
(Brady and Sniderman 1993; Brennan and
Lomasky 1993; Newman 2001; Sniderman et
al. 1993b). This could mean taking the
perceived personal characteristics of the main
candidate as a pars pro toto of the attractiveness
of a political party and their programme.
Such reasoning does not constitute a demeaning
of politics but is an expression of
the coping strategies innate in human beings
(Kaid 1991; Popkin 1994; Sniderman et al.
1993a). Political marketing management accepts
these shortcomings and uses them to
develop an appropriate communication strategy.
Therefore, any arguments against political
marketing on the normative grounds of
an optimal decision-making process need to
be qualified. More appropriate and realistic
voter behaviour theories (ie better description
and less prescription) can provide the
basis for a criticism of certain political marketing
management phenomena.
Campaigns have become personal and negative.
With the advent of political marketing management,
so the argument goes, the political
discourse, and especially political campaigns,
have become obsessed with negativity and
sometimes personal insult (S6). Negative
campaigning can be concerned with political
issues but, more often than not, a direct and
personal attack on political opponents (their
Henneberg
Page 233
character, their biography, their personal
relationships, etc) becomes the focal point of
political discussions (Egan 1999; Franklin
1994; Harris 2001a; Jamieson 1992b). Political
marketing has changed the political culture,
away from issues and towards
individuals; with this, the political discourse
has entered the arena of show business and
character assassinations. Negative campaigns
create counter-campaigns until the political
discourse has disintegrated into a mud-wrestling
contest. Worse, there is the fear that
these methods actually work and that negative
campaigns can win elections.
Negative campaigns are a nuisance and
watching them is sometimes not a pleasant
experience. It is important to deconstruct the
argument into two aspects, however, focusing
on persons on the one hand and the
negative content of the communication on
the other. In line with the service characteristics
of the political offering, the importance
of the ‘delivery’ people for assessing the
(anticipated) quality of a service does not
come as a surprise (Lee et al. 2000; Swan and
Bowers 1998). In services marketing, ‘people’
are an additional instrument in the
marketing mix of the 7Ps (Zeithaml and
Bitner 2003). As the service is intangible,5
the contact and delivery personnel (as well as
the tangible elements of the delivery channel)
become an important cue in forming expectations
and, indeed, also satisfaction/experience
judgments. The mere content of a
political programme does not say everything
about a party; for voters, it is also important if
they believe that the politicians have the
necessary characteristics (eg leadership, expertise,
emotional balance, pragmatism, international
standing) to implement the
programme and deliver on their promises
(Popkin 1994). The political offering needs
to be seen as an amalgamation of different
elements, like the programme and personal
characteristics, and it is therefore beneficial if
political marketing management (as well as
media coverage) provides both (Axford and
Huggins 2002).
Negative content in political discourse is
often condemned in general; however, this
means ‘throwing out the baby with the bath
water’. Comparative advertising can help
the voters and other political decision
makers to clearly see differences between
offers, and allows political parties and candidates
to emphasise differentiating elements
(this can enhance voters’ understanding of
the political market at times when most
parties compete in a very small option
space, ie the political centre) (Banker 1992).
In fact, it has been shown that negative
advertisements are more issue oriented than
positive ones (Kaid 1999); however, character
assassinations and constant personal
attacks (founded or unfounded), and the
routine scrutinising of opponents’ private
lives (sometimes going back decades), is
unquestionably an unsavoury aspect — not
one necessarily of political marketing management
but of general media coverage
(sports and movie celebrities will testify to
this). The political culture and the structure
of the party system, however, might foster
or dampen this tendency (Holtz-Bacha and
Kaid 1995; Kaid 1991). In countries with a
party-oriented system, in contrast to a candidate-centred
and presidential system, these
negative campaigns might be less prevalent.
Furthermore, a strong political culture can
also counteract interest in private aspects of
politicians (citing the example of France,
and President Mitterand’s ‘private life’,
which was not discussed by the media
during his lifetime, underlines this point).
The tendency of an increasing emphasis on
people, however, might have an impact on
the political culture and the degree of
privacy that politicians are allowed. To
emphasise this point, political marketing
management does not always show the
appropriate restrictiveness (and can in fact
be counterproductive to its own goals), but
comparative research nevertheless shows
The views of an advocatus dei: Political marketing and its critics
Page 234
(against expectations?) that in most countries
election campaigns focus on political issues,
not on individuals (Kaid and Holtz-Bacha
1995).
The research — Theory of political marketing
(management)
Too much communication focus. Research on
political marketing has often been criticised
for being overly focused on one aspect of
marketing theory (ie communication) as part
of an election campaign. Political campaigns
and political marketing activities are often
exclusively defined through their communication
content and the media vehicles employed
(Franklin and Richardson 2002; Kaid
1999; Kavanagh 1995; Wring 1999). This is a
shortcoming which means that many aspects
of marketing theory are neglected, and that
the focus is purely operational and is mainly
on one specific marketing instrument (S7)
(Egan 1999; Scammell 1995; Scammell
1999). A classification of existing political
market research literature found this emphasis
clearly substantiated (Henneberg 1995).
These findings have since been repeated in
the literature (Lees-Marshment 2001; O’Cass
2001). This oversimplification of political
marketing research in fact constitutes an
impoverishment of the sub-discipline which
can endanger its development. Strategic aspects
of political marketing management,
other marketing instruments and, for that
matter, the underlying functions of political
marketing management have been neglected
(Newman 1994; Henneberg 2002). Current
research appears to channel too much emphasis
towards comparative campaign studies,
looking at different countries and describing
instrument use and communication content,
without synthesis or conceptual work appearing
alongside (see also S9).
While this state is lamentable and the
criticism certainly justified, the emphasis in
research on campaigns and communication
mirrors the emphasis of political marketing
management itself. It seems that the practitioners
share the reductionist approach towards
marketing. Political marketing
management, in most cases, does not focus
extensively on strategic issues and also has a
very narrow view with regard to the underlying
tactical functions of political marketing
management (Henneberg 2002). This becomes
more understandable when one looks
at the background of political marketing
managers or consultants: more often than not
(at least in Europe), they are trained in
advertising/communication or have worked
as (commercial) campaign managers.
Research insinuates management practice. Research
on political marketing management
helps to spread management practice and
ethics in the political sphere. It encourages
the use of such marketing instruments and
concepts and redefines the way everyone
thinks about politics (S8). This ‘imperialism’
of management theories crowds out more
appropriate ways of thinking about politics.
This is not just true for research that helps to
optimise political marketing management
tools and concepts but also for purely descriptive
research. Thus, this radical argument
goes, one should either abstain from
research grounded in marketing theory or
use it with circumspection.
That such objections are still voiced shows
not just the level of critical vigour but also
the fact that (political) marketing theory has
not yet been able to convince its critics
through meaningful and seminal analyses
which show that, in fact, research into political
activities by actors in the competitive
world of politics can gain considerable insight
through using political marketing concepts
without ‘harming’ its research object. Three
issues can be addressed with regard to the
objection at hand: first, it is commonly stated
that political actors use instruments and
concepts that are influenced by marketing
(Lees-Marshment 2001; Newman 1994;
O’Shaughnessy 1990). Therefore, marketing
theory is uniquely positioned as a research
tool in order to make sense of these phenom-
Henneberg
Page 235
ena and to interpret them in an appropriate
way. Secondly, much research that is published
in the field of political marketing uses
marketing theories only tangentially or inappropriately
(see S9) and is still steeped in
political science and communication studies
methodology. Therefore, the influence of
marketing theory in describing politics as
well as prescribing political management is
still small and should not be overestimated.
The practice of political marketing management,
although limited, seems to be far ahead
of any catching-up efforts by academics.
Thirdly, the compatibility of the ‘professionalisation’
of politics with political concepts
of democracy itself is a very interesting subject
for the theory of political marketing.
This has not been addressed sufficiently so far
(see Collins and Butler 2003 for an exception),
either by political scientists and philosophers
or by marketing theorists. General
discussions on the appropriateness and domain
of non-profit marketing (see S10) are
not enough to resolve this underlying ethical
issue. S11 will touch upon this problem again.
Non-sophisticated research. Marketers in particular
often voice this concern. Two
(linked) aspects of this critical argument can
be distinguished: one is concerned with the
lack of connection between research in political
marketing and the forefront of mainstream
marketing theory, the other focuses
on the static nature of research in political
marketing (S9).
Although research at the level of the
theory of political marketing (management)
is still somewhat in its infancy [most research
in this area did not start before the beginning
of the 1990s, taking O’Shaughnessy (1990)
and Harrop (1990) as the seminal ‘kick-off ’
sources], it seems to be strangely decoupled
from several major trends that have dominated
marketing theory during this time. For
example, the discussions around market
orientation, as well as relational and network
marketing and the advancements of the
‘Nordic school’ of marketing in the area of
services marketing, have had little impact on
political marketing scholars (O’Shaughnessy
2002b).6
It has to be said that the present
author agrees with this criticism and perceives
this fact to be one of the main
stumbling blocks for the development of
political marketing as a research discipline.
Sometimes it seems (polemically speaking) as
if political marketing theory consists of not
much more than an analysis of the political
4Ps (with emphasis on promotion) and the
political marketing mix. The fact that mainstream
marketing theory itself has now advanced
from this concept, eg through
functionally orientated marketing theory
(van Waterschoot and van den Bulte 1992)
and relational approaches (Gro¨nroos 1997),
makes the limited use of marketing concepts
by political marketing researchers even more
worrying (Scammell 1999).
Furthermore, and this addresses the second
point of the ‘non-sophistication’ argument,
a tendency to ‘reinvent the wheel’
with regard to research content has been
observed.7
Although progress has been
made by adding to the research agenda on
political marketing, articles that fundamentally
do nothing else but cover the same
ground over and over again still prevail.
Many descriptive pieces on campaigning in
different countries appear without including
any new conceptual developments or a clear
impetus for further research. Evidence is
often anecdotal (Butler and Collins 1996).
Again, the present author would not want
to contest this criticism.
Not a marketing domain. This is a fundamental
criticism with regard to the essence of
marketing and whether or not political marketing
has a place within the domain of
marketing. Clearly, this issue hinges around
the theory of political marketing, and as a
criticism, if accepted, would mean that the
research community in political marketing is
actually ‘barking up the wrong tree’.
The ‘domain’ discussion, defining the
‘nature and scope of marketing’ (Hunt 1976)
The views of an advocatus dei: Political marketing and its critics
Page 236
was one of the focal points of discourse in
marketing theory in the 1960s and 1970s (for
a history of this discourse, see Meinert et al.
1993), linked to the clarification of the
exchange paradigm in marketing (Bagozzi
1974, 1975, 1978; Foxall 1984; Martin 1985;
White 1986). Broadening the concept of
marketing beyond classical product-based
for-profit organisations (Kotler and Levy
1969a) meant, first, to incorporate explicitly
services organisations and, secondly, nonprofit
organisations like charities, hospitals,
political parties, etc. The inclusion of nonprofit
or social marketing that was grounded
in a wide definition of the marketing domain
(Arndt 1978; Enis 1973; Hunt 1976; Kotler
1972; Kotler and Levy 1969b) was not
universally accepted and is, to some extent,
still occasionally contested. The use of marketing
theories and concepts to explain and
frame research on political issues in a nonprofit
market place (ie shaped by competitive
but non-economic exchanges) can be rejected
for theoretical reasons, as part of a
narrow definition of marketing, limiting
marketing to economically motivated exchanges
in which values can be directly
quantified through an exchange price (S10)
(Luck 1969; Luck 1974). In the past two
decades, however, social marketing has
gained importance with regard to practice
and research, and it is now generally accepted
as being part of the marketing domain. The
wide definition of marketing is now prevailing
in marketing textbooks, and the proliferation
of social marketing studies in all
varieties (eg church marketing, arts marketing,
sports marketing, cause-related marketing)
shows that such a conceptual grounding
in marketing theory has become accepted
(Andreasen et al. 1994; Cornelissen 2002;
Levy 2002). The present author would
therefore suggest leaving the ‘Pandora’s box’
of the domain question closed (at least in the
context of political marketing) and accepting
political marketing as an integral part of the
many explananda of marketing (Hunt 1983).
Value discussions are not grounded. Marketing
management in the political sphere needs to
be judged and supervised from a moral and
ethical point of view, especially with regard
to the possible (positive or negative) ramifications
for democratic practices. Tendencies
towards professionalisation and ‘political
management’, increased populism and ‘market-driven’
behaviour by political actors, and
expensive and negative campaigning (see S1
to S6) make it inevitable that the influence of
such factors on the functioning of the political
system needs to be assessed and also
judged. The widespread use of political marketing
management has the potential to
change the way our democracy works (Collins
and Butler 2003; Lees-Marshment 2001).
To understand these implications, it is necessary
for value discussions to have a theoretical
and ethical framework which can make sense
of political marketing management
(O’Shaughnessy 2002a). It is the conjecture
of S11 that we are currently lacking such a
framework. Thus, political marketing has no
normative instrument or yardstick of its own
to assess the explanandum in question. Many
value discussions do not take into consideration
the specific stance of political marketing
and its underlying conceptual tenets. Therefore,
it is difficult to judge the value of
political marketing through more common
(deontological) theories of democracy,
which see any political marketing management
activity as an alien (exogenous) element
to politics and are thus possibly somewhat
loaded against its usage.
It is remarkable that many marketers have
identified this as one of the main research
shortcomings of political marketing. There
seems to be an understanding in the research
community, shared by the present
author, that genuine ethical and normative
research on political marketing has been
neglected, especially by marketing theorists
(O’Shaughnessy 2002a). It therefore seems
valid to shift the responsibility for some of
the shortcomings with regard to discussions
Henneberg
Page 237
about political marketing (eg S8 and S9) on
to the level of the theory of political
marketing and hope for more involvement
in normative discussion within political marketing
research.
SO WHAT? CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH
PROPOSITIONS
This discussion has dealt with 11 statements,
all critical of political marketing on a practical,
as well as research, level. To conclude
this discussion, the advocatus dei pleads for
more time and renewed efforts to find further
insights. A recommendation for a beatification
of political marketing can certainly not
be made in light of the above discussion, but
a condemnation as requested by the advocatus
diaboli, on the grounds of the 11 discussed
accusations, can also not be upheld. It has
been argued that statements S1 to S6, which
address the shortcomings of political marketing
management, cannot be accepted in toto.
More fundamental criticism with regard to
political marketing research, however, shows
some structural shortcomings: not enough
rigid and conceptually grounded research has
been done, especially with regard to the
holistic nature of political marketing and its
ethical implications.
It has to be said, however, that each of the
11 statements merit further discussions and
that there exist many more valid criticisms of
political marketing which have not been
touched upon in this paper. Thus, the argument
above will hopefully stimulate further
discourse by representatives from other disciplines.
Political marketing is still somewhat
of an ‘academic parvenu’ (O’Shaughnessy
and Henneberg 2002). Fundamental conceptual
issues are still unresolved. For example, it
is still not clear what impact the use of
marketing and managerial concepts might
have in and on politics (Harris 2001a). The
assumption that there is a distinction between
policy making on the one hand and the
management of government/politics on the
other is seen as somewhat unrealistic (Collins
and Butler 2003) but the interactions and
repercussions are more often than not implied,
rather than analysed.
Therefore, the critics of political marketing
should lose their sometimes exaggerated
fear of the impacts of political marketing
(Butler and Collins 1999) as well as their
grounding in normative reasoning, which in
fact transforms the advocatus diaboli into a
promotor fidei (‘promoter of the faith’, its
precise clerical name). A better understanding
of political marketing theory through
more conceptual discussions, as well as the
laying of the foundation for an ethical debate
(eg that of O’Shaughnessy 2002a), is needed.
Similar considerations in the area of social
marketing could lead the way (Brenkert
2002). For example, questions on how far
political marketing shifts the system towards
plebiscitary democracy (O’Shaughnessy
1989/90) and why this has not happened
(yet?) can enrich the critical discourse. To
make sure that political marketing research is
innovative, more conceptual inventiveness is
asked for, fostered by a link with the newest
developments in marketing theory and political
science. It has to be said that marketers
have not always fulfilled this Bringschuld
(‘duty to deliver’) of inventiveness in the area
of political marketing and should be held
responsible for some of the shortcomings
exposed in S7 to S11.
NOTES
(1) E-mails with a request to state the three to
five most serious and/or most commonly
heard criticisms of political marketing (its
application in politics and also its use as an
academic research subject) were sent to
around 25 researchers in this area (approximately
equal numbers of political scientists
and marketers). In addition, a request was
circulated via the Political Science Association’s
Political Marketing Group, thanks to
Jennifer Lees-Marshment.
(2) This categorisation scheme was originally
presented at the Political Science Association
Conference in London (Henneberg 1995)
The views of an advocatus dei: Political marketing and its critics
Page 238
and subsequently has been further developed.
A simplified version is used here.
(3) For analytical and managerial definitions of
political marketing, see Henneberg (2002),
Kotler and Kotler (1999) and Newman
(1994).
(4) Some elements of a service experience have a
public goods character. The experience of
(and satisfaction with) a trip on an underground
train is heavily influenced by the fact
that other people are present, ‘consuming’ the
same service. Their influence and behaviour
(loud music, overcrowding, body odour, etc)
constitutes a public good (mostly of negative
utility) which also determines the individual’s
satisfaction with the overall service (Bitner et
al. 1997; Swan and Bowers 1998).
(5) Services nearly always consist of some tangible
elements as part of the offering or the
delivery (eg the shop of the barber, the plane
for the airline). This is often called the
‘physical evidence’ (Parasumaran et al. 1985),
another added element of the 7Ps (Zeithaml
and Bitner 2003).
(6) Relevant literature for these concepts:
• Market orientation: Harris, 2002; Jaworski
and Kohli 1993; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990;
Lafferty and Hult, 2001; Narver and Slater,
1990; for a comprehensive overview of
seminal sources see Deshpande 1999.
• Relational and network marketing: for the
IMP group, Anderson et al. 1994; Leek et
al. 2003; for a comprehensive overview of
seminal sources see Naude and Turnbull
1998; Ford 2001; for CRM, Gro¨nroos
1994; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Sirdeshmukh
et al. 2002; for a comprehensive
overview of seminal sources see Sheth and
Parvatiyar (2000) or the special issue of the
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
1995; 23(4); for the Nordic School, Gummesson
1996.
(7) The author’s students call this ‘doing a Harrop’,
referring to an article by Martin Harrop
(1990) which had already set out most of the
main basic tenets of political marketing.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. C., Hakansson, H. and Johanson, J.
(1994) ‘Dyadic Business Relationships within a
Business Network Context’, Journal of Marketing,
58: 1–15.
Anon (2003) ‘Speaker Attacks Spin Doctors as
‘Nuisance’, The Independent, 2nd January: 5.
Antonides, G. and van Raaij, W. F. (1998)
Consumer Behaviour. Chichester: John Wiley.
Arndt, J. (1978) ‘How Broad Should the Marketing
Concept Be?’, Journal of Marketing, 42:
1001–103.
Arndt, J. (1982) ‘The Conceptual Domain of
Marketing: Evaluation of Shelby Hunt’s Three
Dichotomies Model’, European Journal of Marketing,
16(1): 27–36.
Axford, B. and Huggins, R. (2002) ‘Political
Marketing and the Aestheticisation of Politics:
Modern Politics and Postmodern Trends’ in,
N. J. O’Shaughnessy and S. C. Henneberg
(eds), The Idea of Political Marketing, 187–207.
Westport: Praeger.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1974) ‘Marketing as an Organized
Behavioral System of Exchange’, Journal
of Marketing, 38: 77–81.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1975) ‘Marketing as Exchange’,
Journal of Marketing, 39: 32–9.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1978) ‘Marketing as Exchange:
A Theory of Transactions in the Marketplace’,
American Behavioral Scientist, 21(4): 535–56.
Banker, S. (1992) ‘The Ethics of Political Marketing
Practices, the Rhetorical Perspective’,
Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 843–8.
Bartle, J. and Griffiths, D. (2002) ‘Social-Psychological,
Economic and Marketing Models of
Voting Behaviour Compared’, in N. J.
O’Shaughnessy and S. C. Henneberg (eds),
The Idea of Political Marketing, 19–37. Westport:
Praeger.
Berkowitz, D., Allaway, A. and D’Souza, G.
(2001) ‘The Impact of Differential Lag Effects
on the Allocation of Advertising Budgets across
Media’, Journal of Advertising Research, 41(2):
27–36.
Berry, L. L. (1995) ‘Relationship Marketing of
Services — Growing Interest, Emerging Perspectives’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 23(4): 236–45.
Bitner, M. J. (1995) ‘Building Service Relationship:
It’s All About Promises’, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4):
2246–51.
Bitner, M. J., Faranda, W. T., Hubbert, A. R.
Henneberg
Page 239
and Zeithaml, V. A. (1997) ‘Customer Contributions
and Roles in Service Delivery’, International
Journal of Service Industry Management,
8(3): 193–205.
Brady, H. E. and Sniderman, P. M. (1993)
‘The Likeability Heuristic’, in P. M. Sniderman,
R. A. Brody and P. E. Tetlock (eds),
Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political
Psychology, 93–119. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brenkert, G. G. (2002) ‘Ethical Challenges of
Social Marketing’, Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 21(1): 14–25.
Brennan, G. and Lomasky, L. (1993) Democracy
and Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Butler, P. and Collins, N. (1996) ‘Strategic
Analysis in Political Markets’, European Journal
of Marketing, 30(10): 25–36.
Butler, P. and Collins, N. (1999) ‘A Conceptual
Framework for Political Marketing’, in B. I.
Newman (ed.), Handbook of Political Marketing,
55–72. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Churchill, G. A. and Suprenant, C. (1982) ‘An
Investigation into the Determinants of Customer
Satisfaction’, Journal of Marketing Research,
19: 491–504.
Collins, N. and Butler, P. (2003) ‘When Marketing
Models Clash with Democracy’, Journal of
Public Affairs, 3(1): 52–62.
Connor, T. (1999) ‘Customer-led and Marketoriented:
A Matter of Balance’, Strategic Management
Journal, 20: 1157–63.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2002) ‘Metaphorical Reasoning
and Knowledge Generation: The Case of
Political Marketing’, Journal of Political Marketing,
1(1): 193–208.
D’Souza, G. and Allaway, A. (1995) ‘An Empirical
Investigation of the Advertising Spending
Decisions of a Multiproduct Retailer’, Journal
of Retailing, 71(3): 279–96.
Deshpande, R. (1999) Developing a Market Orientation.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Egan, J. (1999) ‘Political Marketing: Lessons from
the Mainstream’, Journal of Marketing Management,
15: 495–503.
Electoral Commission (2002) ‘Election 2001
Campaign Spending’, Report, November.
Enis, B. M. (1973) ‘Deepening the Concept of
Marketing’, Journal of Marketing, 37: 57–62.
Ford, D. (2001) Understanding Business Marketing
and Purchasing. London: Thomson.
Fournier, S. and Mick, D. G. (1999) ‘Rediscovering
Satisfaction’, Journal of Marketing, 63: 5–23.
Foxall, G. (1984) ‘Marketing’s Domain’, European
Journal of Marketing, 18(1): 25–40.
Franklin, B. (1994) Packaging Politics. London:
Edward Arnold.
Franklin, B. and Richardson, J. E. (2002) ‘Priming
the Parish Pump: Political Marketing and
News Management in Local Political Communications
Networks’, Journal of Political Marketing,
1(1): 117–47.
Gould J. B. (1999) ‘You Can’t Teach a Dead
Dog New Tricks’, in B. I. Newman (ed),
Handbook of Political Marketing, 687–703.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gro¨nroos, C. (1990) ‘Relationship Approach to
Marketing in Service Contexts’, Journal of Business
Research, 20: 3–11.
Gro¨nroos, C. (1994) ‘Quo Vadis, Marketing?
Toward a Relationship Marketing Paradigm’,
Journal of Marketing Management, 10: 347–60.
Gro¨nroos, C. (1997) ‘From Marketing Mix to
Relationship Marketing — Towards a Paradigm
Shift in Marketing’, Management Decision,
35(4): 322–39.
Gummesson, E. (1996) ‘Relationship Marketing
and Imaginary Organizations: A Synthesis’,
European Journal of Marketing, 30(2): 31–44.
Harris, P. (2001a) ‘Machiavelli, Political Marketing
and Reinventing Government’, European
Journal of Marketing, 35(9): 1136–54.
Harris, P. (2001b) ‘To Spin or Not to Spin, That
Is the Question: The Emergence of Modern
Political Marketing’’, The Marketing Review, 2:
35–53.
Harris, L. C. (2002) ‘Developing Market Orientation:
An Exploration of Differences in Management
Approaches’, Journal of Marketing
Management, 18: 603–32.
Harrop, M. (1990) ‘Political Marketing’, Parliamentary
Affairs, 43: 277–91.
Henneberg, S. C. (1995) ‘A Theoretical Approach
to Categorising Research in Political
Marketing’, paper presented at the PSA Elections,
Public Opinion and Parties Conference,
London, 15-17th Septenber.
Henneberg, S. C. (2002) ‘Understanding Political
Marketing’, in N. J. O’Shaughnessy and S. C.
The views of an advocatus dei: Political marketing and its critics
Page 240
Henneberg (eds), The Idea of Political Marketing,
93–170. Westport: Praeger.
Henneberg, S. C. (2005 forthcoming) ‘Leading
or Following? A Theoretical Analysis of Political
Marketing Postures’, Journal of Political
Marketing, 5.
Herrmann, A. and Huber, F. (1996) ‘Candidatepositioning
via Customer-orientation: An Empirical
Study with Conjoint Analysis’, in
S. C. Henneberg, N. J. O’Shaughnessy and
S. Eghbalian (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference
on Political Marketing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Himes, D. (1995) ‘Strategy and Tactics for Campaign
Fund-raising’, in J. A. Thurber and C. J.
Nelson (eds), Campaigns and Elections American
Style, 62–77. Westview: Boulder.
Holbrook, T. M. (1996) Do Campaigns Matter?
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Holtz-Bacha, C. and Kaid, L. L. (1995) ‘A
Comparative Perspective on Political Advertising’,
in L. L. Kaid, C. and C. Holtz-Bacha
(eds), Political Advertising in Western Democracies,
8–18. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hunt, S. D. (1976) ‘The Nature and Scope of
Marketing’, Journal of Marketing, 40: 17–28.
Hunt, S. D. (1983) ‘General Theories and the
Fundamental Explananda of Marketing’, Journal
of Marketing, 47: 9–17.
Hunt, S. D. and Burnett, J. J. (1982) ‘The
Macromarketing/Micromarketing Dichotomy:
A Taxonomical Model’, Journal of Marketing,
46: 11–26.
Jamieson, K. H. (1992a) Packaging the Presidency.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Jamieson, K. H. (1992b) Dirty Politics. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Jaworski, J. B. and Kohli, K. A. (1993) ‘Market
Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences’,
Journal of Marketing, 57: 53–70.
Johnson, D. W. (2002) ‘Perspectives on Political
Consulting’, Journal of Political Marketing, 1(1):
7–21.
Jones, N. (1995) Soundbites and Spin Doctors.
London: Cassell.
Kaid, L. L. (1991) ‘Ethical Dimensions of Political
Advertising’, in R. E. Denton (ed.), Ethical
Dimensions of Political Communication, 145-169.
New York: Praeger.
Kaid, L. L. (1999) ‘Political Advertising’, in B. I.
Newman (ed.), Handbook of Political Marketing,
423-438. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kaid, L. L. and Holtz-Bacha, C. (1995) ‘Political
Advertising across Cultures’, in L. L. Kaid and
C. Holtz-Bacha (eds), Political Advertising in
Western Democracies, 206–27. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Kavanagh, D. (1995) Election Campaigning: The
New Marketing of Politics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kohli, A. K. and Jaworski, B. J. (1990) ‘Market
Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions,
and Managerial Implications’, Journal of
Marketing, 54: 1–18.
Kotler, P. (1972) ‘A Generic Concept of Marketing’,
Journal of Marketing, 36: 46–54.
Kotler, P. (2003) Marketing Management, 11th
international ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Kotler, P. and Kotler, N. (1999) ‘Political Marketing:
Generating Effective Candidates, Campaigns,
and Causes’, in B. I. Newman (ed.),
Handbook of Political Marketing, 3-18. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Kotler, P. and Levy, S. J. (1969a) ‘Broadening the
Concept of Marketing’, Journal of Marketing,
33: 10–15.
Kotler, P. and Levy, S. J. (1969b) ‘A New Form
of Marketing Myopia: Rejoinder to Professor
Luck’, Journal of Marketing, 33: 55–7.
Lafferty, B. A. and Hult, G. T. (2001) ‘A Synthesis
of Contemporary Market Orientation Perspectives’,
European Journal of Marketing, 35(1):
92–109.
Lee, H., Lee, Y. and Yoo, D. (2000) ‘The
Determinants of Perceived Service Quality and
its Relationship with Satisfaction’, Journal of
Services Marketing, 14(3): 217–31.
Leek, S., Naude, P. and Turnbell, P. W. (2003)
‘Interactions, Relationships and Networks in a
Changing World’, Industrial Marketing Management,
32: 87–90.
Lees-Marshment, J. (2001) Political Marketing and
British Political Parties, Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Levy, S. J. (2002) ‘Revisiting the Marketing
Domain’, European Journal of Marketing, 36(3):
299–304.
Liao, M.-N., Foreman, S. and Sargeant, A.
(2001) ‘Market Versus Societal Orientation in
the Nonprofit Context’, International Journal of
Henneberg
Page 241
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(3):
254–68.
Luck, D. J. (1969) ‘Broadening the Concept of
Marketing — Too Far’, Journal of Marketing,
33: 53–5.
Luck, D. J. (1974) ‘Social Marketing: Confusion
Compounded’, Journal of Marketing, 38, 70–72.
Martin, C. L. (1985) ‘Delineating the Boundaries
of Marketing’, European Journal of Marketing,
19(4): 5–12.
Meinert, D. B., Vitell, S. J. and Reich, R. V.
(1993) ‘The Domain of Marketing: How Are
the Boundaries of the Marketing Discipline
Established?’, The Journal of Marketing-Theory
and Practice, 1: 1–12.
Moloney, K. (2000) ‘Nicco and Charlie: A Story
of Two Political Servants and of Political
Management’, in P. Harris, A. Lock and P.
Rees (eds), Machiavelli, Marketing and Management,
164-174. London: Routledge.
Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1994) ‘The
Commitment–Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing’, Journal of Marketing, 58: 20–38.
Narver, J. and Slater, S. (1990) ‘The Effect of
Market Orientation on Business Profitability’,
Journal of Marketing, 54: 20–35.
Naude, P. and Turnbull, P. W. (1998) Network
Dynamics in International Marketing. Oxford:
Pergamon/Elsevier.
Newman, B. I. (1994) The Marketing of the
President. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Newman, B. I. (1999) The Mass Marketing of
Politics. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Newman, B. I. (2001) ‘Image-manufacturing in
the USA: Recent US Presidential Elections
and Beyond’, European Journal of Marketing,
35(9): 966–70.
Newman, B. I. and Sheth, J. N. (1987) A Theory
of Political Choice Behavior. New York:
Praeger.
Noble, C. H., Sinha, R. K. and Kumar, A.
(2002) ‘Market Orientation and Alternative
Strategic Orientations: A Longitudinal Assessment
of Performance Implications’, Journal of
Marketing, 66: 25–39.
O’Cass, A. (2001) ‘Political Marketing’, European
Journal of Marketing, 35(9): 1003–25.
O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (1989/90) ‘Political Marketing:
An Ethical Conundrum?’, Irish Marketing
Review, 4(3): 39–48.
O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (1990) The Phenomenon of
Political Marketing, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (1999) ‘Political Marketing
and Political Propaganda’, in B. I. Newman
(ed.), Handbook of Political Marketing, 725–40.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2002a) ‘Toward an Ethical
Framework for Political Marketing’ Psychology
and Marketing, 19(12): 1079–95.
O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2002b) ‘The Marketing of
Political Marketing’, in N. J. O’Shaughnessy
and S. C. Henneberg (eds), The Idea of Political
Marketing, 209–20. Westport: Praeger.
O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2002c) ‘The Social Construction
of Enmity’, Journal of Political Marketing,
1(1): 215–22.
O’Shaughnessy, N. J. and Henneberg, S. C.
(2002) ‘Introduction’, in N. J. O’Shaughnessy
and S. C. Henneberg (eds), The Idea of Political
Marketing, xi–xx. Westport: Praeger.
O’Shaughnessy, J. and O’Shaughnessy, N. J.
(2000) ‘Treating the Nation as a Brand: Some
Neglected Issues’, Journal of Macromarketing,
20(1): 56–64.
O’Shaughnessy, N. J. and Wring, D. (1994)
‘Political Marketing in Britain’, in H. Tam
(ed.), Marketing, Competition and the Public
Sector, 246-70. Harlow: Longman.
Parasumaran, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, I.
(1985) ‘A Conceptual Model of Service Quality
and Implications for Future Research’,
Journal of Marketing, 49: 41–50.
Popkin, S. L. (1994) The Reasoning Voter. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Ritson, M. (2003) ‘We Lost our Say over War
When Labour Deprioritised Marketing’, Marketing
(UK), 20th March: 16.
Scammell, M. (1995) Designer Politics. Basingstoke:
St Martin’s.
Scammell, M. (1996) ‘The Odd Couple: Marketing
and Maggie’, European Journal of Marketing,
30(10): 114–26.
Scammell, M. (1999) ‘Political Marketing: Lessons
for Political Science’, Political Studies, 47:
718–39.
Seidle, F. L. (1991) Comparative Issues in Party and
Election Finance, Toronto: Dundurn.
Sheth, J. N., Gardner, D. M. and Garrett, D. E.
(1988) Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation.
New York: Wiley.
The views of an advocatus dei: Political marketing and its critics
Page 242
Sheth, J. N. and Parvatiyar, A. (2000) ‘The
Evolution of Relationship Marketing’, in J. N.
Sheth and A. Parvatiyar (eds), Handbook of
Relationship Marketing, 119–45. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Sing, J. and Sabol, B. (2002)
‘Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in Relational
Exchanges’, Journal of Marketing, 66:
15–37.
Slater, S. F. and Narver, J. C. (1998) ‘Customerled
and Market-oriented: Let’s not Confuse
the Two’, Strategic Management Journal, 19:
1001–6.
Slater, S. F. and Narver, J. C. (1999) ‘Marketoriented
Is More than Being Customer-led’,
Strategic Management Journal, 20: 1165–8.
Smith, G. (2001) ‘The 2001 General Election:
Factors Influencing the Brand Image of Political
Parties and their Leaders’, Journal of Marketing
Management, 17: 989–1006.
Smith, G. and Saunders, J. (1990) ‘The Application
of Marketing to British Politics’, Journal of
Marketing Management, 5(3): 307–23.
Sniderman, P. M., Glaser, J. M. and Griffin, R.
(1993a) ‘Information and Electoral Choice’, in
P. M. Sniderman, R. A. Brody and P. E.
Tetlock (eds), Reasoning and Choice: Explorations
in Political Psychology, 164–78. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sniderman, P. M., Hagen, M. G., Tetlock, P. E.
and Brady, H. E. (1993b) ‘Reasoning chains’,
in P. M. Sniderman, R. A. Brody, P. E.
Tetlock (eds), Reasoning and Choice: Explorations
in Political Psychology, 70–92. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Spreng, R. A., MacKenzie, S. C. and Olshavsky,
R. W. (1996) ‘A Reexamination of the Determinants
of Consumer Satisfaction’, Journal of
Marketing, 60: 15–32.
Steen, J. A. (1999) ‘Money Doesn’t Grow on
Trees’, in B. I. Newman (ed.), Handbook of
Political Marketing, 159-173. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Swan, J. E. and Bowers, M. R. (1998) ‘Services
Quality and Satisfaction: The Process of People
Doing Things Together’, Journal of Services
Marketing, 12(1): 59–72.
Tse, D. K. and Wilton, P. C. (1988) ‘Models of
Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An Extension’,
Journal of Marketing Research, 25: 204–
12.
van Watershoot, W. and van den Bulte, C.
(1992) ‘The 4P Classification of the Marketing
Mix Revisited’, Journal of Marketing, 56:
83–93.
White, J. (1986) ‘The Domain of Marketing
— Marketing and Non-marketing Exchanges’,
The Quarterly Review of Marketing,
11(2): 1–6.
Wray, J. H. (1999) ‘Money and Politics’, in B. I.
Newman (ed.), Handbook of Political Marketing,
741–58. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Wring, D. (1999) ‘The Marketing Colonization
of Political Campaigning’, in B. I. Newman
(ed), Handbook of Political Marketing, 41–54.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Wring, D. (2000) ‘Machiavellian Communication’,
in P. Harris, A. Lock and P. Rees (eds),
Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, 82–92.
London: Routledge.
Zeithaml, V. A.; Bitner, M. J. (2003) Services
Marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Henneberg
Page 243