The Science of Communicating & Marketing Your Business

It was an incredible experience, some of which I've decided to document here because I found it so fascinating.

First, there were three of us there; myself, Tex (who did some excellent analysis during NextStage's 2004 political campaign analysis) and another individual whom I can't identify because their function as a participant observer (similar to the method described in Mapping Personae to Outcomes) would be compromised if I were to do so.

Our purpose was to observe and monitor the audience and the presenters from an athropologic communications perspective.

The rest of this blog comprises our observations and some conjectures based on those observations.

• We agreed that Bill Clinton completely believes that Senator Clinton would make an excellent President.
• We all also agreed that Bill Clinton does not believe she will become President (at least not in this election cycle).
• We all noted the choice of music; all following a theme of "this woman can do it." Ex: "She looked at me with those big brown eyes and said 'You ain't seen nothing yet'."
• Bill Clinton was the only person waving to the crowd when the motorcade pulled in.
• Senator Clinton could learn a great deal by studying Bill Clinton's public persona. Specifically in the way he delivers his message.
  • He demonstrated mastery of the points, not the words. It appeared both had memorized their speeches and Bill Clinton had memorized the points. This gave him the ability to modify the words based on his audience. It also gave him the ability to behaviorally prime his audience for what he was about to say next. Senator Clinton seemed to have memorized the words. It didn't matter how the audience was responding, all that mattered was that the words get spoken. This created several moments where she was completely disjunct from her audience and their mood shifted swiftly.
  • Bill Clinton signalled for lines from his prompters so elegantly we needed to see it multiple times to be sure that's what he was doing. Senator Clinton's signaling was much more obvious and deliberate. Bill Clinton anticipated his lapses and signaled before they occurred, Senator Clinton only signaled when they were occuring. Again, this caused discomfort in the audience because her discomfort was manifest.
• Everyone who was questioned regarding voting for Senator Clinton demonstrated that they would do so however they also demonstrated discomfort in doing so, specifically that they were aware she was not "the most popular choice".
• Senator Clinton demonstrated an awareness that something exists between her and her audience. We all conjectured, based on behavioral cues and demonstrations, that she believes Bill Clinton is between her and her audience.
• With the above stated, Senator Clinton could easily demonstrate that Bill Clinton's existing and obviously extant charisma ("glamour" is a term we thought was appropriate. Also "power") was being handed over to her from Bill Clinton, however no opportunities to do so were taken.
• All the women questioned said that their choice was either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.
• The audience was heavily populated by alpha females. The number of women demonstrating cultural matriarcy was amazing. These were not "earth mothers" or "madonnas" but definitely "goddesses", women who were aware of and comfortable with their own power.
• The number of male/female couples demonstrating equal partnership was incredibly high. The number of such couples that demonstrated equal partnership and in which the female was the real authority was even higher.
• Two of us noted the perfumes, colognes, aftershaves, etc., of the people in the crowd. This was very much a mid-middle to lower-upper class audience.
• Men whom we talked with were guarded in their statements, women were committed in their statements.
• There were obvious demonstrations of matriarchal herd behavior when women were gathered together, not so when women were gathered and there were males present.
• Females of all ages were demonstrating territorial displays and it was fascinating to watch. It was more fun to watch the men working hard not to pay attention to the female territorial displays as such displays tend to be elements of mating behaviors. Women engage is such displays when they feel safe, showing aspects of their core-selves.
• Everyone we talked with was not "undecided about who to vote for", they were undecided about "which democrat to vote for".
• There was an astounding number of alpha females among her campaign staff.
• There were no alpha males among her campaign workers.

It would be possible, though, based on the above and other observations not listed, to be able to walk through a crowd (say at a mall, at a downtown crossing, etc.) and predict with high accuracy who was going to vote for Senator Clinton.

Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.

Links for this post:

• Reading Virtual Minds, Chapter 4 "Anecdotes of Learning: Politics Aren't HorseRaces Any More"
• Predicting Election Outcomes Via NextStage's TargetTrack

• XChange on 20-21 Sept 07
• DC Emetrics Summit on 14-17 Oct '07
• Society for New Communications Research Annual Research Symposium & Awards Gala on 5-6 Dec 07 in Boston.