Shoestring Marketing: Marketing professionals should handle elections

|tab|

We haven't heard the last of the Florida election mess. It is still a source of amazement to me that we can dispense cash from a hole in the wall and consume our cheese from a spray can, but we can't guarantee a citizen's most cherished right to have one's vote recorded and counted correctly. |ret||ret||tab|

Which leads to an intriguing question. What if we were to put the voting system and its polling procedures in the hands of those who know how to do it right, the marketing professionals somebody from, let's say, Proctor & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Charles Schwab or the NRA? |ret||ret||tab|

Marketers already influence or control a significant chunk of the election process. We've established the rules for raising the money. Our advertising messages, particularly the negative ones, carry great weight in influencing opinion about the candidates. We've provided the research technique that leads to the overnight polls that guide the candidates on an issue-by-issue, region-by-region basis. |ret||ret||tab|

It's logical, therefore, that we should manage the actual polling process as well. |ret||ret||tab|

Remember, less than 40 percent of eligible voters went to the polls in the most recent presidential elections. No self-respecting marketer would accept that level of trial and/or repeat purchase in a product category of such importance to so large a target audience. |ret||ret||tab|

As any good marketer knows, we should always view the transaction through the eyes of the consumer (the voter). With that fundamental shift in mind, we should make the existing process much more voter-friendly. |ret||ret||tab|

|ret||ret||tab|

|bold_on|Extend the time|bold_on||ret||ret||tab|

One day is not enough and the absentee ballot process is simply too hard to navigate. It had to be designed by Rube Goldberg. Why can't we extend it to a week? |ret||ret||tab|

What's so important about cramming it into one day anyway, a Tuesday no less? Why not a weekend day? Why the rush? |ret||ret||tab|

|ret||ret||tab|

|bold_on|Easier locations|bold_on||ret||ret||tab|

I want polling booths at supermarkets, post offices, banks and shopping malls. Any place I normally visit, except bars. Will somebody please explain why the local high school gym is such sacrosanct territory? |ret||ret||tab|

|ret||ret||tab|

|bold_on|Ignorance is not bliss |bold_on||ret||ret||tab|

Give the voters information to peruse before they commit. Candidates should be seen expressing their opinions on video loops that can run on a simple television monitor (every candidate gets a set three-minute time limit). Get the candidates to answer the same set of questions and post the responses on large bulletin boards at the entrance to the polling booths. |ret||ret||tab|

We may know the policy difference between a Bush and a Gore, but I suspect that the vast majority of voters have no understanding of the policy differences between candidates for the position of tax commissioner. |ret||ret||tab|

|bold_on|An offer they can't refuse|bold_on||ret||ret||tab|

I know it sounds tacky and tawdry, but why not a promotional offer, the equivalent of that dollar-off on a bottle of detergent? For example, local retailers could offer an additional 10 percent off with proof of voting. How about a line item deduction on next year's federal tax return? Put the best marketing minds to work and I guarantee that they will find an inducement that will bring out the disenfranchised, the disconnected and the "don't cares." |ret||ret||tab|

|ret||ret||tab|

|bold_on|No exit surveys|bold_on||ret||ret||tab|

They don't allow pre-polling on "Survivor II" and they shouldn't allow it in presidential elections. It kills the mystery and, God forbid, we have so little of it now that the candidates are all playing to the center. To add insult to injury, the poll results are quite often wrong, as was evidenced in the Florida debacle. The networks are destroying the process.|ret||ret||tab|

|ret||ret||tab|

|bold_on|Give technology a try |bold_on||ret||ret||tab|

We need a consistent system nationwide that does away with anything printed that can be fondled, punched, mutilated, abused or lost. Ultimately, we need to go to Internet voting. Already 135 million Americans have Internet access from home or work. It's convenient; it will increase participation; we will get the results more quickly and efficiently; and we won't have turn-of-the-century chads to clog the process. |ret||ret||tab|

Initially, Internet voting will discourage some turnout, particularly with the technologically illiterate. We'll have the inevitable security/hacking problems and, worse still, any sense of community that was exhibited as we all got together at the physical polling place will be supplanted by the chat room thread. But can any of that be any worse than the dysfunctional system that is now in use? |ret||ret||tab|

Of course, it won't be cheap to develop the system. But, if corporations can give close to half a billion dollars in soft money to influence policy and candidate selection, let's hope that we can call upon their good graces to put some of that money into designing a system that actually works. Let's at least test the concept of Internet voting before 2008. |ret||ret||tab|

|bold_on|(Alf Nucifora is an Atlanta-based marketing consultant.)|ret||ret||tab|

[[In-content Ad]]