Hillary Clinton Needs a Good MarCom Writer
I’m fortunate enough to live in New Hampshire, an early primary state.
This means my household, consisting of two voting adults (not including the kid and the dogs), gets postal mail from the various candidates — particularly two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.
(Full disclosure: My husband and I have what we call a “mixed marriage” — I’m a Democrat and he’s a Republican.)
After reading both candidates’ direct mail for a few weeks now, I’ve concluded Hillary could use a good marcom writer — one that can help her better articulate the benefits of her potential presidency.
In a recent mailer she laid out a “blueprint to rebuild middle-class prosperity”:
Restore fiscal responsibility and pursue balanced budgets. Work to ensure the federal government lives by the same rules as American families — don’t spend what you don’t have on what you don’t need.
Create millions of good American jobs, restore our infrastructure and use innovation as the engine of economic growth. Institute trade policies that work for American workers.
Restore economic fairness. Provide tax relief for middle-class families. End giveaways to corporations that ship our jobs overseas.
She has three additional points, but in the interest of brevity, I’m not writing them out.
The point is that her copy / message is vague, lacks specifics, and begs the question, “How will you accomplish all of this?”
Compare Hillary’s copy with Mitt Romney’s (his mailer arrived the same day, so it was fun to compare both side-by-side — and talk about them at the dinner table). His “plan for a strong economy” includes:
Lower income tax rates across the board.
Eliminating taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for anyone with Adjusted Gross Income under $200,000 — making it easier for middle class America to save.
Eliminating the death tax.
Fight for a Presidential line-item veto to allow the President to strip out unnecessary spending.
He has a few more, but again, I’m trying to be brief.
When I read Romney’s mailer, I immediately thought, “Now this message has some teeth to it.” Especially the last sentence: “Mitt Romney is the only major Republican candidate who has pledged to oppose any attempt to raise taxes on Americans.”
As any good marcom writer knows, benefits oriented action statements get one’s message across fast.
With Mitt Romney’s mailer, you know what he stands for and how he plans on getting it done.
Do you agree or disagree? Is Hillary Clinton’s copy lacking in specifics? Does Mitt Romney’s copy effectively use easy-to-understand benefits statements?
November 14th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I agree with you 100%. The sad thing is this copy most likely WAS written by a top political copywriter; presidential candidates can afford the best. But obviously Hillary is not getting her money’s worth here.
November 14th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Thanks, this kind of stuff is always interesting and I agree that Romney’s is a lot better. I would also argue that Clinton’s is not written for the audience, meaning I would like it to say more “you” in there; as in “Institute trade policies that work for you” or “you and your fellow American workers.” I’d say you would not have to do this for Romney’s since it is written in a different style than the conversational way Clinton’s is written.
November 14th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
2chey, I don’t want to get into a political discussion but thought Clinton’s first point was a bit off the mark given the foreclosure crisis. Americans certainly are NOT living within their means — and in fact, are spending in much the same reckless way as the government!
Bob, I agree Hill isn’t getting her money’s worth — and Mitt’s writer should have known how to make his bullet points have parallel construction.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I wasn’t commenting on that part (living within one’s means) but there are a lot of people spending too much (me included, a few years ago, but I am on track now). I think maybe Clinton was trying to appeal to this romanticized idea of Americans who are regular working people who worked third shift to put a kid through college, that kind of thing. The kind of people they show in their commercials.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Chey — I haven’t seen too many of her commercials but I like your phrase, “romanticized idea of Americans who are regular working people.” It’s true — the candidates do romanticize the idea about middle class workers.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:09 am
I used to be a political consultant and was involved in the creation of voter mail. Full disclosure: I’m a Repbulican and a Rudy supporter (I no longer work in politics).
I’d have to say that Hilary’s is actually better. People respond better to creative, feel good stuff better than they do to hard facts.
The other thing I can tell you is that political communications strategists love to cram as much copy onto a piece as possible. I was always struggling with my boss to let design have its function. He just always wanted everyone to know everything – but I knew the overall message would get lost if we did that. We usually had a good compromise in the end.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Nathania — How did you determine response per mailer?
I didn’t get “feel good” from Hillary’s message. I got “overpromise, deliver nothing.”
November 19th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Nathania — In Hil’s note (or at least the part we’re privy to), what is the message? All I read was general grandiose pablum that I think is what turns so many people off.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
One point that both mail pieces missed, in my opinion, bulleted lists.
A limited mailer size deserves highly scannable, concise copy.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Rob, Romney’s piece had a bulleted list. Maybe that is why I am so partial to it.
Seriously though, it was very easy to read and got his message across very fast.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Dianna,
Well, I’m glad to hear at least one candidate used a better method for the medium. I have not received any direct mail yet in NC. I’m sure we will have our turn.