Marketers rejoice, for Obama is the nominee
Yeah, rejoice.
Consumers are at their rational best when they engage in purchases that have high levels of risks. The purchase risks could be of a nature, financial, health, social or even technological. At such times 'highly involved' consumers are expected to evaluate products on functional parameters. But the interesting aspect to note is that even in such instances consumers never really are devoid of their irrational impulses. Well, thank god for that, else, premium brands would never have stood a chance.
Now that's exactly what we need to read into Obama's nomination. For someone who's been riding on the rhetoric bandwagon, with a slogan that says 'change', its not shocking that the college going 'educated' youth have bought into this rhetoric.
Are elections, 'high involvement' scenarios? Surely, yes. Now, does that automatically mean voter decision making would be driven by rational evaluations. NO, not necessarily. Obama is the best example to demonstrate that, irrational, emotional impulses can dictate candidate choice. Even among voters who are the most educated amongst the total lot.
As Thomas Sowell stated, 'what should matter is not Obama's election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election. Yet so many people are so fascinated by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations.'
Are such irrational evaluations made by voters, based solely on rhetoric, good for society? Surely, not. But the ones that can take cheer are the marketers. After all most marketing communiques are pure rhetoric. For consumers to respond, they must keep aside their rational selves. The good news is, they do.
Afetr all, isn't Barack Obama the Democratic nominee?
Consumers are at their rational best when they engage in purchases that have high levels of risks. The purchase risks could be of a nature, financial, health, social or even technological. At such times 'highly involved' consumers are expected to evaluate products on functional parameters. But the interesting aspect to note is that even in such instances consumers never really are devoid of their irrational impulses. Well, thank god for that, else, premium brands would never have stood a chance.
Now that's exactly what we need to read into Obama's nomination. For someone who's been riding on the rhetoric bandwagon, with a slogan that says 'change', its not shocking that the college going 'educated' youth have bought into this rhetoric.
Are elections, 'high involvement' scenarios? Surely, yes. Now, does that automatically mean voter decision making would be driven by rational evaluations. NO, not necessarily. Obama is the best example to demonstrate that, irrational, emotional impulses can dictate candidate choice. Even among voters who are the most educated amongst the total lot.
As Thomas Sowell stated, 'what should matter is not Obama's election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election. Yet so many people are so fascinated by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations.'
Are such irrational evaluations made by voters, based solely on rhetoric, good for society? Surely, not. But the ones that can take cheer are the marketers. After all most marketing communiques are pure rhetoric. For consumers to respond, they must keep aside their rational selves. The good news is, they do.
Afetr all, isn't Barack Obama the Democratic nominee?
Comments