When a Presidential candidate, any Presidential candidate, campaigns and makes promises to those US citizens of the national electorate who support him, or her, and end-up voting for that candidate, those voters expect that person to make good on those campaign promises. Currently, Donald J. Trump is floundering terribly during his first year as US President in fulfilling the promises he made to the Republican, Tea Party, and independent voters who upset the 2017 Presidential Election by electing him; and by keeping a corrupt Democrat from being elected. Those voters are also the ones who elected a majority of Republicans into the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Trump's very descriptive language that he has used in describing what he intended to do as US President and Chief Executive in order to eliminate the federal status quo in Washington, DC, such as "drain the swamp," and "rid the republic of the political swamp creatures (illicit politician) "who have corrupted the federal government, excited those voters who placed him into office. These hard-working rank-and-file patriots have looked forward to a dynamic shifting of Constitutional power back to the States, in accordance with the 10th Amendment, from an abusive and regulatory federal government. Yet, this vision of a severe reduction of federal power and regulation has not been realized since Trump took office, and the President's promises to end illegal immigration, to build a Southern border wall, to end DACA, and the many other specified set during his campaign, which are of paramount concern to Republican and Tea Party voters, have not been kept.
Mr. Trump needs to fully realize that what he was given by concerned Republican, Tea Party, and independent voters was not only a 2017 win as US President, but also, and much more importantly, a mandate to keep his promises. That is, Trump needs to realize the salient and perilous fact that, if he wants to be reelected to a second term as President, and continue to enjoy the support of a republican controlled Congress, he's going to have to change the way he's doing things . Currently, as of Friday, March 23, 2018, President Trump needs to understand that he will definitely lose the support of those Republican, Tea Party, and independent voters who elected him in 2017 if he signs into law the $ 1.3 trillion spending bill that has been passed by the Republican-controlled House and Senate. But that's not all he will lose! His signing of this bill into law will allow the liberal opposing minority party to get everything it wants, which will be inexorably detrimental to the republic. Above all, signing of this bill will diminish the support of those many Trump voters in a Republican congress and assure the retaking by the Democrats of a majority status in the House and the Senate during the mid-term elections.
Mr. Trump desperately needs to learn from, and heed, the history of the splendid lesson set by the great President Andrew Jackson during the time he served two presidential terms, from 1829 to 1837. The significant lesson that Jackson provided to future presidential candidates, through his deportment as President, was, "keep your campaign promises." I have compared Donald Trump to Andrew Jackson in their bids, during different centuries, for the Presidency and the winning of the confidence of the common voter, and there are numerous similarities. The comparison set forth one very important similarity, which was Trump's independent voice calling for change during his campaign. Andrew Jackson campaigned primarily on the evil of the Bank of the United States, the forerunner to the Federal Reserve Act, and Trump campaigned on the evils of illegal immigration, DACA, and unconstitutional federal regulatory power. Jackson's campaign promises to de-charter, and end, the Bank of the United States made sense to the voters in 1829, and Trump's vow to end illegal immigration by building a wall, by ending DACA, and the draining of the federal swamp, or Washington, DC, made great sense to many more voters in 2017, Republicans, Democrats, the Tea Party, and independents. By keeping his campaign promises, Andrew Jackson won reelection in 1833, and Mr. Trump must realize that he was elected to do the job that he represented, during his campaign, he was going to do. The President needs to stop trying to entertain his constituency with his colorful bargaining motif and his television savvy. He needs, rather, to get serious about doing what he was elected to do, and remember that he's in a dirty swamp that drastically needs to be drained, and its creatures eliminated, not Las Vegas, and that he's the President, and not Wayne Newton.
This article is brought to you by Kokula Krishna Hari Kunasekaran! Visit Website or Follow back at @kkkhari
While the Clinton campaign went about the more traditional tasks of evaluating past voter analytics, developing messaging and using research tools like focus groups and polling analysis to develop their positioning statements, Donald Trump was out in the field making human contact at hundreds of live events, learning firsthand what was on people minds and in their hearts.
The results of Clinton's campaign development in the end was not really being in touch with the hearts and minds of voters, while the Trump campaign at every event gathered key research data that formed a foundation on which he built a campaign of consensus and momentum.
Like the Clinton campaign, marketers face a danger, in depending solely on focus groups and other tools when developing research, because people opinions often do not indicate how they actually feel about issues presented to them in such controlled theoretical environments.
Focus group research of this kind often ends up not developing many new ideas, but it is accepted in confirming most marketing concepts already established. In many cases, the data developed are flawed by pre-established concepts, and while people might share their ideas freely, they aren't telling you the truth about how they really feel.
It reminds me of the typical responses to research among some executives. When research goes against their conventional ideas, management questions the techniques used, and when it agrees with what their conventional ideas are, management often says it is a waste of time and money.
Focus group members are often simply sharing their general opinions about something without making a commitment to their true beliefs until asked to take personal action, like purchasing something or, in this case, casting their vote.
At a focus group organized to determine the marketability of a new consumer product, it became evident that our panel was being polite but not totally truthful about how they perceived the products we were presenting. They were being paid, and most wanted to go along to get along. After one session of general acceptance, I suggested we go a step further by asking the members of the group if they would want to purchase the product at the end of the session.
We then discovered an entirely new level of concern and consideration by asking them to make a personal financial commitment. Now their answers became much more valuable than the entire focus group exercise. Instead of asking for their opinions, we now asked them to make a purchase and the complexion of this research tool took on entirely new dimensions.
As sales professionals well know, asking for the order opens new doors and serious dialog along the route to making a sale.
Another important factor in depending solely on focus group research is the limited number of paid people involved as compared to those found on the trade show exhibit floor. In three days at a trade show, hundreds of attendees can be questioned, polled and asked to purchase show only specially priced products to determine their honest personal product opinions. But how many exhibitors actually consider using the trade show exhibit environment to conduct such important primary research?
Exhibitors using the trade show activity as a research tool are seriously interested in hearing both positive and negative answers to show special purchasing questions. Those exchanges open discussions where objections can be stated, confirmed as accurate and be successfully addressed and overcome.
The trade show research technique transforms people safe opinions into serious purchasing considerations and promises to provide the exhibitor with honest answers. That, in turn, can lead to more solid marketing and sales strategies and tactics.
Donald Trump's campaign was created and built on thousands of people personal feelings, while the Clinton campaign was created on a relatively small number of paid, uninvolved people's opinions in focus groups.
Today's marketing and sales executives cannot afford to go down the path of just listening to uninvolved people's opinions to plan future business. As Trump's campaign showed, it takes hundreds and thousands of people feelings gathered firsthand, largely at events and mass gatherings. A similar approach to trade shows and the exhibiting research that they can provide can spell the difference between success and failure.
Asking for the order will always provide challenging yet manageable information on which to build successful marketing and sales campaigns, especially when the prospect says no to your proposal. That's the time when marketing and sales professionals earn their stripes by figuring out how to overcome those pesky objections and bring the sale to a close.
This article is brought to you by Kokula Krishna Hari Kunasekaran! Visit Website or Follow back at @kkkhari