Skip to main content

Barack Obama as a "Product"

Positioning a product against a competitor is much like positioning a political candidate against a competitor.

Barack Obama, though he still trails Hillary Clinton in most polls, is the current "darling" of the Democratic field of presidential candidates. Clinton's "positives" may be high, but so are her "negatives" (most people have formed an opinion about her one way or the other).

According to polls, Obama's "positives" far outweigh his "negatives". His biggest strength is that he is a fresh face.

A good marketer - and a good campaign strategist - knows that the best way to defeat a competitor is to find the weakness within his strength and attack at that point.

If being a fresh face is Obama's biggest strength, then it's also a weakness. Maybe he doesn't have the foreign policy experience needed to confront the threat of terrorism. Maybe he doesn't have the executive experience to lead a nation. Whoever runs against Obama should find a focused issue, or something specific in his past, that exemplifies Obama's lack of experience and the liabilities of it.

Obama, on the other hand, should embrace his weakness. He could, for example, acknowledge his inexperience with foreign policy but find a way of spinning it as a strength. Perhaps the world has become so disenchanted with the United States and its leaders that a fresh face with a new approach is just what the United States needs. Whatever; Obama can't deny his lack of experience, so he should find specific ways of showing how it is a strength.

It will be interesting to see which Democratic candidate's campaign strategists understand and apply the principles of product positioning.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the