Exploring the Art & Science of Marketing
Hillary Clinton: I’m in. And I’m in to win.
Smart choice on her first words. Very smart. The press will have a heyday with it, and the word “win” will be attached to her name in all the articles. “Win” will also likely be attached to her name throughout her campaign as the press gives the background on her and the initial launch of her campaign.
A Few Thoughts
I’ve said this before; I love the presidential elections because of the plethora of announcements and statements that come out of candidates mouths. Some will turn into puppets who do what their campaign staff tells them to do. Roll up the sleeves. Take off the tie. Have lunch with “middle class americans.” It’s cannon fodder for PR analysis. These folks are masters at using the press to get their “message to the people.”
Analysis of her Team
I don’t know who they are, but it’s already obvious she has a very smart staff in terms of their understanding of PR strategy. You would think this is a no-brainer to have if someone is running for the White House, but it just isn’t the case for all candidates.
Speaking of the other Candidates
I’ll be following them all very closely with analysis of statements, things they do, even appearances. It’s all a very planned strategy separated into key publics who need to believe in their candidate.
One thing I already like about Hillary’s first words out of her mouth: “I’m in to win.”
Welcome to the race Hillary. I’ll be watching you.
UPDATE: From what I can tell, Clinton’s chief media/PR guy is Clint Rolfson of the Glover Park Group.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Russ on January 20, 2007 at 9:11 am, and is filed under Branding, Business, Consultant, Consulting, Marketing, Media Relations, Salt Lake PR, Strategic Marketing. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |

about 5 years ago
Hey Russell
One thing I found interesting with these campaigns is the podcasts. Its been really interesting to listen to the difference between John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s. In the first two, Edwards and Obama, it seems in their podcasts that they are the ones rolling up their sleeves and talking frank about things. When finished listening to their podcasts, you know a little more about THEM and their personality. When you listen to Hillary Clinton’s you don’t know HER any better-which I think is very important in a race.
(PS I’m not democratic, just a podcasting fanatic!)
about 5 years ago
Russ,
Once again you’ve ensnared me with your insight and opportunity to set up what should be some interesting posts. I look forward to your analysis and continued discussion. As a PR professional analyzing the campaigns is something I love as well–which is why I still contest GW must be a pretty smart guy, or just follow directions really well from some very smart people. Please point out the slip ups along the way as well as that makes for entertaining reading!
(P.S. Lori–I think you meant to say “I’m not a Democrat” since not being democratic might mean you are socialist, communist… Anyway, I don’t mean that in a rude way just thought you’d want to know!)
about 5 years ago
Welcome to the race? She’s been in it since 1992.
about 5 years ago
Well said Chris…
about 5 years ago
That\’s the big difference about Hillary as a candidate. You get Barack Obama saying he didn\’t even imagine himself being in this position a year go, and Hillary has wanted this for years.
I agree with your 1992 statement wholeheartedly.