Focus vs. Inclusion Part IV

Okay, last political-related post...

Much was made about last week's Obama infomercial. From a marketing (not a political) perspective, I thought it was a great example of both brilliant techniques and missed opportunities.

To be honest, what I expected was a standard live "speaking from the desk" speech. Speechifying is one of Obama's strengths, after all, so one would assume that the leading candidate would stick with what works.

My initial reaction was a bit of a cringe. It was obvious from shot one that this was going to be a slick, scripted production. Given the fact that Obama raised eyebrows spending millions of dollars on the airtime alone, I thought it was a mistake to also make such a high-production-value piece. For some reason, it called to mind the practice of nonprofits printing their marketing materials on recycled paper in an effort to look like good fiscal stewards, even though that paper is actually more expensive than its glossy cousin. (For all I know, the production company shot Obama's piece pro bono. It doesn't matter. It looked expensive.)

Then I was impressed when Obama said in his opening remarks that he was going to feature the stories of three "ordinary Americans." This turned everything around, because now the candidate was spending millions of dollars to give prominence not to himself, but to other people (and thus, of course, himself). That, I thought, was an innovative idea--and a great example of using credible surrogates to back your message.

Trouble was, that's not how the piece played out. I expected three stories, roughly seven minutes each, with a pitch for the candidate as a "call to action" at the end. Instead, it turned into a classic choice of inclusion over focus. To be fair, when you're making one piece and broadcasting it on the big networks, you have little choice but to throw in the kitchen sink.

And that's what it was. Stories of people, mixed with photos and video of Obama, mixed with people talking about Obama, and Obama talking to the camera. As expected, the people featured were in swing states and represented a racial cross-section. Yes, it focused exclusively on the economy, which was smart. But when you have the candidate doing the voiceover, as if he's your host, and then you cut to shots of the candidate himself, or people talking about him, it opens up the "vanity" door, which I thought was risky.

(McCain countered well by going on Saturday Night Live, pretending to buy airtime on QVC, and quipping, "I'm a true Maverick: a Republican without money.")

We'll see if any of this makes a difference in the election (editor's note: it didn't). I suspect that it won't, except that infomercials will now become standard practice. But the marketing lesson is this: Focus beats inclusion. It's better to customize different infomercials for different stations (coming in 2012, a Sarah Palin Spanish-language infomercial exclusively for Univision!) than to be all-things-to-all-people on the big networks.