The Science of Communicating & Marketing Your Business

One of the things I'm always intrigued by is how messaging changes (if indeed it does) as campaigns move on through time, get their rhythm, find their stride, etc. For example, has the messaging changed since our first peek at campaign websites in this election cycle?

It's not what they say, it's how they say it

Perhaps you've known someone whose positions you agree with even though you don't like the person, or you like what they have to say and wish they'd use a little more tact in saying it? Politicians (more correctly, political speech writers) spend a great deal of time saying things just the way (they think) you want to hear it.

Given that a politician changing his or her stance in the middle of an election cycle would definitely make things interesting, I doubt it'll be done. Intentionally.

What they can do is change how they say it. This happened rarely if ever during the 2004 campaign season...except when the national conventions were being televised. The change in President Bush's campaign site changed (literally) overnight and didn't change back until the convention was over. The major change? Everything was geared to getting eyeballs from the computer to the TV.

So let's take a look at how messaging has changed over time this campaign cycle thus far...

Senator McCain's homepage on Saturday, 10 Feb 07 was a study in shades of gray. It was communicating using what we recognize as a V16 style (These people need to have information presented to them in pictures, charts or graphs, they finalize their decisions by using internal dialog, they need information framed in a positive manner before they can accept it and they have no sense of time or process). For those of you following along with Myers-Briggs concepts, NextStage's V16 covers ISTJ and ISFP personality types.

At that point in time the number of people in the US who would respond positively to V16 messaging was 0.

What else was the homepage saying about candidate John McCain?

Depending on who contributed most directly to the look and feel of this page, the strongest message of these was that Senator McCain had a vision for the country, followed by a belief that he was Presidential material and could lead us to a better place.

Who was the homepage appealing to gender-wise? It was designed to favor a male audience by a 69/31 ratio.

We next visited Senator McCain's site on Tuesday, 6 Mar 07. A few more colors are being used.

I don't remember if what he was saying changed. I do know how he was saying it shifted considerably. In one month the messaging went from v16 to K9 (These people prefer to experience something firsthand before making any decisions about it, they are hesitant to attempt anything new, they are convinced by arguments which end with a warning about what might happen, they make decisions which favor avoidance of future problems rather than acceptance of future rewards). Do remember this describes the type of person who'll be most receptive to what's on the homepage. There is no attempt here to indicate a candidate's personal or political beliefs or ideology.

Again, for those keeping track via Myers-Briggs, the site is designed to appeal to ISFP and ESFJ personality types.

What about messaging?

Here is an interesting thing. I don't remember if Senator McCain's platform changed, his politics changed, his "what he was saying when he said it" changed. What I do know is that his messaging (at least on his website) changed greatly. Before whoever had control of the homepage's look and feel believed Senator McCain could lead us to a better place, but was he Presidential material? Was he electable?

In one month's time someone (with their "hands at the wheel" so to speak) decided he definitely was.

And here it's important to recognize that changes in percentages tell only a part of the story because it's not only how you say it, it's how "loudly" you say it.

There is (in the concepts at work here) something equivalent to a very bright light shining in someone's eyes, shouting in someone's ears, tapping them repeatedly to get their attention. This bright light/shouting/tapping is very specific to western culture and shows up often in marketing and advertising directed to the western trained mind; confidence is demonstrated by brightness, loudness, action. These things signify boldness, a sense of having nothing to hide.

So was the new homepage shining a light, shouting and tapping vigorously? Compared to the 10 Feb 07 site it certainly was. In most cases the intensity of the message doubled or tripled with some messages being fairly "shouted from the rooftops".

One thing to note is the change in the "I Have a Vision for This Country" message. It's intensity decreased by more than half. Perhaps those in charge of the website, Senator McCain or his advisors lost their focus or decided having a vision for the country wasn't as important this time around?

Gender-wise, the site changed little if at all; it was 69/31. Now it was 68/32.

Just over two weeks later and another major change to the look and feel of the site, yes? Senator McCain is back to being front and center and now he's in color. He is "in the flesh" as it were, a real person with real possibilities, perhaps?

Gender-wise the numbers had not changed in the two week interval. They remained at M/F 68/32.

Messaging-wise, we see a return to the relative values and style (a return to the V16 messaging style) of Saturday, 10 Feb 07. Things like this cause me to wonder, "Wha' happened?" What caused the change over such a relatively short period of time and what brought things back? Did a new web team come on board and then get released? Did a new marketing or advisory group take the helm only to be cast out a few days later? And why?

These types of questions can often be answered when you look at messaging intensity. Here we learn that messaging values have returned to near 10 Feb 07 numbers but that intensities are now weaker than they were before.

Again, I don't remember what was happening about this point in time. Seeing changes like this my thoughts tend to be

• Some kind of push was made, some distinct effort, and that the results weren't those wanted, hence a return to what was working before
• An announcement was made -- think of a new or upgraded product release -- and once made things went back to the way they were
• Somebody did something and got caught
• ...

(more to follow...)

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

Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.