Goodbye to Hillary: voting on feelings
Hillary Clinton is extraordinarily intelligent, ambitious, and tenacious, but many people just can’t connect emotionally with her. As Prof. Drew Weston, author of The Political Brain, says:
“After party affiliation, the most important predictors of how people vote are their feelings toward the candidates.”
Here’s my view on Hillary’s failure to connect, excerpted from Beyond Buzz:
Bill Clinton gave an inspiring, emotionally charged, off-the-cuff speech at Coretta Scott King’s funeral, peppered with one-liners that the audience boisterously applauded, including “You want to treat our friend Coretta like a role model? Then model her behavior.”
According to many observers, Senator Clinton’s remarks were more formal than her husband’s, delivered in a measured, restrained, and deliberate style. The contrast between the two Clintons was vivid, as was the audience’s reaction. They cheered Bill, while they respectfully listened to Hillary.
“I think Bill Clinton delivers inspiring addresses,” explained Theodore C. Sorensen, one of John F. Kennedy’s best-known speechwriters, wrote in The New York Times. “Hillary is more likely to deliver learned lectures.”
A few years back, I had lunch with the late MIT professor Michael Dertouzos who had just returned from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he had heard Mrs. Clinton speak.
“She was absolutely brilliant,” he said. “Her understanding of complex issues and her ability to get up and talk about those issues was remarkable. I don’t think anyone else at Davos came close to her in being able to articulate such cogent perspectives on today’s social, political, and economic issues.”
Yet, because Mrs. Clinton speaks formally, in full paragraphs and with little emotion, it’s often difficult to see things from her point of view and to connect with her as a person. Like many CEOs and marketing programs, Mrs. Clinton’s knowledge is substantive, but because her style lacks emotion and the language of conversations, it often fails to move us.
To succeed in a conversational world, we marketers (much like Hillary Clinton) need to reset our style so people can more easily understand our points — and get who we are as people.
Activating change needs an emotional connection.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Well said. Old schools vs new school - and boy, the leap’s big, both in terms of behavior AND thinking.
Kind of the like the exec’s blocking blogs thinking that strategy was ‘a good thing’.
Old school marketers used to selling and telling people rather than serving and relating with their product/services’ tribe/s find it really hard to talk with people.
As I just read recently (can’t remember where), it’s like ’someone handed the key’s to the inmates’…
As seems to be true for Mrs. Clinton, talking at rather than talking with was the right way to do things for a long, long time - as was learning how to say well what research advised was what their market wanted to hear.
Looks like we’re finding out that being substantially knowledgeable used to be the primary currency of character (plus tenacity, et al): now emotive wisdom and relationship skills, combined with substantial knowledge, is.
As is authenticity and integrity - another matter, but oh so vitally related.
New game. New Rules. To my mind, better in both regards, but boy its painful to watch good, hard-working, tenacious people slam into them without even knowing they’re there.
And here’s some reverse prejudice for you: I would have thought a woman would have more naturally and adroitly navigated these waters of relational change (as so many of us probably have - how’s that for arrogant assumption?)
I was really hoping this woman would.
But in this new world, it seems clear that no matter what the product or service, if you’re talkin’ at us (smart, tough and knowledgeable though you may be) passing go just ain’t the sure bet it used to be.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Lissa,
I have to confess that I share some of the reverse prejudice. Just shows that when it comes to stepping away from what worked before humans have a really hard time changing — regardless of gender, age or race.
Lois
May 15th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Lois,
This is a great post because it comes down a fundamental truth about so many businesses and brands as well as politics … that “featurespeak” is ultimately not what people are buying. Hillary may have the best knowledge and facts at her disposal, for a politician that’s the equivalent of a product having the best features. The problem for her as for a hot product is that without the right personality you can’t make that connection. I love your book because this is a perspective that you share - that brands need to get beyond buzz. It’s also one that I just wrote a whole book about, and called it Personality Not Included. In both cases, something essential is missing - and the successful brands as well as the successful politicians are the ones that find a way to put it back.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Thanks Rohit. Look forward to reading your book. Why do you think big brands — especially B2B — are so reluctant to inject personality and emotion into their marketing?
Lois