Marketing & Romney: A few thoughts...

Lately there has been a lot of talk about what Mitt Romney
said at a fundraiser months ago.  I think if you take what
he said (as "non-eloquently" as he supposedly said it) and
you analyze it within a marketing framework, I think you
would find he was doing what most marketers would tell
you to do:  know your audience.

It would seem that Mitt Romney does not believe that those
who do not pay taxes would be interested in voting for him.
If that was indeed the case, it wouldn't be so much that they
"did not matter" but rather, if one has resources to marshall
they might be best pointed in a direction that would bear
some fruit.

I am not certain that he believes those people "don't matter"
in the sense of the bigger picture, but rather that it is not
where he thinks those who would want to help should spend
their efforts.

Of course this could potentially translate to the Office of the
President, if he was to be elected.    At the same time, it might
be a bit naive to think that it doesn't already happen in some
form or fashion.  It just may not be as obvious or blatant.

One of the reasons I got to thinking about this was because
I was thinking about the fact that much of our culture these
days is marketer-driven.  Marketers will even tell you that
if you listen to them you are doing your customers a favor.

In part because I work for myself, and have struggled with
this, I have often wondered if there was another way to go.
I am not convinced that just because many tout it, and it often
seems to work, that it is the path that we are best suited to.
What it does seem to be is the path of least resistance:  let's
get those that are the closest to what we want, so that they
will do what we want.

Of course that sounds quite like a cynic.  But if I just leave
it alone, labelled as cynical, maybe I am missing something
valuable.  I find it interesting that the way I label something
will either further my interest, or potentially sway me in the
other direction, without my even noticing if I don't pause to
pay attention.

Having said that, I am not sure what that thing is, just yet...
but I have been thinking about this for a while, and it will
not go away. For that reason, I suspect there may be
something to it.

Of course I could be wrong.
But, you know what?
I hope I am not.

Anything can be crafted to make sense and fit in a context
that is desired.  Marketing can be that thing that does your
potential client a favor, or it can be a manipulative ploy.
Even though I said "or" I suspect another option is "and."
However few would ever admit that it could be both.

Maybe it is both, and we just choose to be on the side
that seems to fit for us the best.  At the same time, what
if life isn't about the HOW?

Marketing is about
HOW do we create ourselves so we are found?
HOW do we position ourselves so our product is purchased?
HOW do we succeed?
HOW do we fix another person's (perceived) problem?

Marketers say it is about the other person, when it can just
as easily be about us.  Not to say that there is anything
wrong with this, as we all live in a society that appreciates
the fact that we can eat and pay our bills.

BUT I still find
myself wondering
if there is more.
I still find myself
wondering if there
is a piece missing.

I kinda suspect, given the reaction to what Romney said,
there IS more.  The reaction seems to say that the individuals
want to count as individuals, and that whether or not they
fit a certain dynamic, they still count.  They still matter.

Most people are left out of many things.  But they don't
usually care or notice if the thing doesn't seem to matter
to them.  In most cases, marketing is quite narrow in its
focus.  All things can't and won't matter to all people.

A marketer would love to have almost 50% of the population
respond to its efforts.  It would be phenomenal because it
would be rare to have.  At the same time, the marketing
demographic was pretty wide, wider than most would go
for.

What Romney accomplished was fantastic.  It's too bad
for him that it was something that created such a negative
backlash.  Odds are he was only saying, and is only doing,
what those around him and before him are doing and have
done.  He just got caught with his metaphorical pants down.