Political Marketing and Stakeholders Andrew Hughes and Dr Stephen Dann, The Australian National University Abstract The

explicit inclusion of stakeholder benefit in the 2004 definition of marketing means that stakeholder selection is now an integral part of all marketing which is derived from the disciplines commercial core. Consequently, political marketing, the adaptation of commercial marketing into political campaign, has inherited the strategic priority of identifying, addressing and delivering value to political organisation's stakeholders. How then, will political marketers determine who their stakeholders are, and which stakeholders should receive priority? This paper is focuses on examining the implications of political marketing now incorporating stakeholder benefit and stakeholder theory. This paper proposes the adaptation of four existing stakeholder identification and classification frameworks to produce a preliminary political marketing stakeholder list.

Introduction In 2004, the AMA released a revised definition an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders (A separate paper addresses the adaptation of the AMA (2004) commercial marketing to political marketing (Hughes and Dann, 2006)). The newly minted definition of commercial marketing introduced the need to deliver benefit to both the organisation and the stakeholder, whereas previous definitions had only focused on exchange between two parties (Dann, 2005). Since political marketing exists as an adaptation of commercial marketing for the political process (Hughes and Dann 2006, Lees-Marshment, 2001), this paper is focused on the practical implications of the need to incorporate the AMA (2004) component of managing customer relationships for the benefit of the organisation and its stakeholders in the form of examining the political marketing organisations stakeholders. The debate is not whether political marketing needs or wants stakeholder theory, but rather, now customer management for stakeholder benefit is integral to marketing, how is this operationalised in political marketing? The paper examines the political stakeholder identification process through the use of three commercial marketing stakeholder frameworks - Neville, Menguc and Bells (2003) stakeholder salience model; Mitchell, Agle and Woods (1997) generic stakeholder types; Grimble and Wellard's (1997) passive-active dichotomy; and, Scholem and Stewarts (2002) stakeholder mapping process.

Stakeholder Holder Theory and Political Marketing Stakeholder theory was originally identified as a component of the political marketing process by Gronroos (1990), Lock and Harris (1996), and Newman (1999). Commercial marketing stakeholder theory posits that stakeholders may be as broad as "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firms objectives" (Freeman (1984) or as narrow as shareholders, stockholders or owners of the organisation (Clement, 2005). Within the political marketing context, stakeholders have previously been identified as broadly as society (Gronroos, 1990), political entities and their environment (Lock and Harris, 1996) or

as diverse a group as candidates, political parties, governments, lobbyists, interest groups, people and society (Newman, 2002). Effectively, this applies the person+dog theorem of stakeholder engagement, where every unit in society is potentially (or actually) a stakeholder of the organisation. Consequently, to bring some degree of focus to the AMA (2004) definition, political marketing can make use of existing commercial marketing stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. For the purposes of this paper, and due to limited space, a limited number of stakeholder identification model will be examined to assess potential political marketing stakeholders.

Stakeholder Salience The model consists of power which is the extent to which the stakeholder can assert their will over the organisation (Maignan, Ferrell and Ferrell, 2005). Legitimacy is the appropriateness of the stakeholder's actions towards the firm (Mitchell, Agle and Wood, 1997) Urgency is the immediacy with which the firm had to act, and it was seen as a multiplier effect on the influence of the stakeholders claim (Neville, Menguc and Bell (2003, 2005). Within the context of stakeholder identification, the urgency and power of the stakeholder have often overruled the legitimacy of a claim perhaps justifying Harriss (2001) propensity to refer to political stakeholder influence as Machiavelli. The authors have adopted the Neville, Menguc and Bell (2003) three part model of stakeholder salience (Figure 1) as the preliminary model for determining the relative influence of the stakeholder. Figure 1: Stakeholder Claims (Power and Legitimacy)

(sourced from Neville, Menguc and Bell 2003) For the purpose of this paper, the three component elements of the stakeholder framework will be briefly further examined to establish the composition of the stakeholder selection framework. Power Stakeholder theory posits that power is the conditional ability of the stakeholder to exert their will over the organisation. Yukl (1998 in Bourne and Walker, 2005), outlines three forms of power. Position power is derived from a combination of formal authority, or control of rewards, or control over the administration of punishments. For example, the elected leadership of the political party exerts formal authority over the rank and file membership. Personal power, which is the influence generated by the individual, either through reputation, skill, charisma, networks of friendship, loyalty or personal expertise. A charismatic leader is able to influence a caucus vote on strength of personality, however, less charismatic party members with stronger networks of friends or faction loyal followers may be able to exert

similar levels of influence. The third component of power is the politicised power which arises from convergence of opportunity and the objectives of the two parties (e.g. mutual benefit), or through control mechanisms such as control over decision making processes. For example, control over the agenda of a Senate Committee determines what it can debate, irrespective of the charisma or formal authority of the individual committee members. These three forms of power can be combined to create seven different types of power (Appendix 1) From a political marketing perspective, each of these forms of power may be exhibited by a stakeholder over the party. For example, the factional strength of X can influence the selection of candidates, which is a combination of coercive, connection and reward types of power. The value for the political marketing process in determining the method and type of power being exerted by the stakeholder to examine the extent to which this also determines the urgency and legitimacy of the activity. For example, coercive power is likely to be used where the stakeholder lacks legitimacy, but is seeking urgency. In contrast, information and expert power may also indicate legitimacy, although it may not hold as much urgency as a coercive power display. Urgency Urgency is the speed with which an organisation should respond to a stakeholder's influence, and is heavily influence by both the legitimacy and real world power of the stakeholders (Agle, Mitchell and Sonnenfeld 1999). Within the commercial marketing literature, pragmatism and perceived pressure tends to determine the urgency of a stakeholder's claim Clement (2005) argues urgency is a predicted by the relative power of the stakeholder in the situation, and the level of dependence the organisation has on the stakeholder group. Within the political sphere this is most often evidence where disproportionate power is held by minority parties during hung parliamentary terms. Legitimacy Legitimacy consists of the appropriateness of the influence, the broader social support for the position held by the stakeholder, and function of the stakeholder in the organisation. Core functions, such as consumption or production, are assumed to have greater legitimacy ahead of the external stakeholder influences of the environment context. In the political arena, legitimacy is a complex area that requires further research are the demands of a minority interest who are stakeholders in party (eg demands from a faction) more or less legitimate than the demands of the broader public who may or may not vote for party? Within the political marketing arena, the question of legitimacy of stakeholder influence requires further research, particularly within regards to the legitimacy of servicing stakeholder needs ahead of broader community interests, which is often seen as pork barrelling or cronyism. Similarly, political parties risk alienating their support base if they regard the needs of swinging voters or not voters as more legitimate than that of their core voter support base.

Eight generic classes of stakeholders The second framework used in this paper is the Mitchell, Agle and Woods (1997) eight generic stakeholder types model. This model posits eight theoretical ideal types based on their relative levels of power, legitimacy and urgency. These are briefly outlined in Table 1 Table 1: Composition of Mitchell, Agle and Woods (1997) generic stakeholder types

Present

Dormant Stakeholder Power Discretionary Stakeholder Legitimacy Demanding Stakeholder Urgency Dominant Stakeholder Power, Legitimacy Dangerous Stakeholder Power, Urgency Dependent Stakeholder Legitimacy, Urgency Definitive Stakeholder Power, Legitimacy, Urgency Non stakeholder Power, Legitimacy, Urgency Understandably, classification of stakeholders into their respective categories is situational, and requires the organisation to carefully consider the relative priority, and composition of the priorities of the stakeholder. Further, the stakeholder needs to be considered in light of whether they are influenced by the organisation, influencers of the organisation, or move between both categories depending on the situation.

Absent Legitimacy, Urgency Power, Urgency Power, Legitimacy Urgency Legitimacy Power

Active, Passive and Switch Stakeholders Grimble and Wellard's (1997) outlined a framework of stakeholder identification based on whether the stakeholder is influenced or exerts an influence over the organisation's activities. Although presented primarily as a dichotomy, the framework has been expanded (Dann and Dann, 2007) to incorporate the third category of "switch" stakeholders who shift between passive and active depending on the situation and context. For the purpose of this paper, stakeholders are divided into either active (exerts influence), passive (is influenced) or switch (influence is context dependent) to assist in the group and categorisation of the stakeholders identified in Scholem and Stewarts (2002) stakeholder maps.

Stakeholder Maps of the Key Political Stakeholders The fourth framework to be examined for use in the determination of the political marketing stakeholder context is Scholem and Stewarts (2002) stakeholder mapping process. This process maps stakeholder groups into generic clusters. From these primary groups, each generic stakeholder can be further subcategorised (e.g. media can be local, national or specialist media) to improve the depth of the map, with the ultimate aim of the process being to generate a list of individual, or named, stakeholders (eg media is refined to national media then to The Australian then to the name of the individual editor or journalist). Fourteen different types of stakeholders have been identified from the broader marketing and management literature (Donaldson & Preston 1995; Scholem and Stewart 2002). This generic stakeholder map is outlined in Appendix 2. Figure 2 Stakeholder Map

(Scholem and Stewart 2002)

Applying the models to the political marketing Mix Using the components of the four models, generic stakeholder types (eg media, unions) can be classified by their influence role (active/passive/switch), source of influence (power, urgency, legitimacy) and generic stakeholder type. Table 2 represents an attempt to present a preliminary group of political marketing stakeholders based on the combination of the four theoretical frameworks outlined above. Table 2: A Preliminary Series of Political Marketing Organisational Stakeholders
Source of influence (Neville, Menguc and Bell (2003) salience model) Passive Stakeholders: Influenced by political marketing Government (parliament) Power and Legitimacy Government (public service) Legitimacy Society / citizens / community Legitimacy Party members / supporters / Power and Legitimacy volunteers Political opponents Urgency Active Stakeholders: Influences political marketing Political candidates Legitimacy, and Urgency and/or Power Private lobbyists Legitimacy and varying level of Power and Urgency Social pressure lobby groups Varying levels of Legitimacy and / or Urgency and / or Power Industry Lobby Groups Legitimacy / Urgency plus varying level of Power Party Donors Power / Legitimacy Media Power and Urgency and/or Legitimacy Electoral commission Power and Legitimacy/Urgency Unrepresentative Splinter Interests Power / Urgency Stakeholder Stakeholder Ideal (Mitchell, Agle and Woods (1997) ideal types) Dominant Stakeholder Dormant stakeholder Discretionary Dominant Stakeholder Demanding

Definitive, Dormant or Dependent Stakeholders Discretionary, Dependent or Dominant Discretionary, Dependent or Dominant, Dangerous Discretionary, Dependent or Dominant Dominant or Dormant Dangerous, Dominant or Definitive Stakeholders Dominant or Dormant Stakeholder Dangerous Stakeholder

Switch Stakeholders: Influences and is influenced Voters (between elections) Power Voters (election time) Power and/or Urgency and/or Legitimacy Unions (to pro union party) Legitimacy and/or Urgency Unions (to anti union party) Legitimacy

Dormant stakeholders Dominant, Dangerous, Dependent or Definitive Discretion, Dependent or Discretionary

Issue Competitors Alternative Political Providers

Power or Legitimacy or Urgency Legitimacy or Urgency

Discretionary, Dangerous or Demanding Demanding or Discretionary

Conclusions, Limitations and Further Research The list of stakeholders in Table 2 is by no means definitive. Further research is required to identify and categorise different political marketing stakeholder groups according to each political organisation. The preliminary categorisation of stakeholders raises areas for further research and classification for example, the stakeholder of voter can be subdivided into loyal voter, swinging voter, switch voter, hostile voter and non-voter. Within these categories, the range of power, legitimacy and urgency will vary between the political parties, and the state of the electoral market. Power itself is a shifting variable the power of a swinging voter is highest when there are two or more strong competing political alternatives. Whilst there has been a great deal of discussion on stakeholders influence in marketing, this does not consider how stakeholders have influenced the political marketing process, as this work has. It has also identified the range and type of stakeholders, and how political parties are likely to decide priorities between competing stakeholder groups, based on the source of power of the stakeholder and the likely ideal and benefit that the stakeholder is seeking from the political organisation.

References Agle, BR, Mitchell, RK & Sonnenfeld, JA 1999, Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO Values, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, Issue 5, pp. 507 525 American Marketing Association 2004, "Definition" Marketing News, September 15, 2004 Clement, R. 2005 "The lessons from stakeholder theory for U.S. Business leaders", Business Horizons 48, 255264 Dann, S and Dann, S 2007 Competitive Marketing Strategy, Pearson, Sydney Dann, S 2005 Social Change marketing in the age of direct benefit where to from here? Social Change in the 21st Century, QUT Carseldine 28 October 2005 Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. 1995, The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications, Academy of Management Review, 20, 6591. Freeman, R. E. 1984 Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman. Boston Grimble, R., and K. Wellard. 1997 Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55: 17393. Gronroos, C. 1990 Marketing re-defined, Management Decision 28 (8) Harris, P. 2001, Machiavelli, political marketing and reinventing government, European Journal of Marketing, Vol 35 9/10, pp 1136-1154. Hughes, A. and Dann, S. 2006 "Political Marketing 2006: Direct Benefit, Value and Managing the Voter Relationship", ANZMAC, QUT, December 3-7. Lees-Marshment, J 2001, The product, sales and marketing-oriented party: How Labour learnt to marketing the product, not just the presentation European Journal of Marketing, 35 (9/10), 1074-1084 Lock, A. and Harris, P. 1996, Political Marketing vive la difference, European Journal of Marketing, 30 (10/11) 21-31. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. 2005 A Stakeholder Model for Implementing Social Responsibility in Marketing, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, #9.10, pp. 956-977. Mitchell, R.K., Agle B.R. and Wood D.J. 1997, Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts, The Academy of Management Review; Oct 1997; 22, 4; pg. 853-886. Neville B.A, Bell S.J. and Menguc, B. 2005, Corporate reputation, stakeholders and the social performance-financial performance relationship, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.39 No. 9/10, pp. 1184-1198.

Neville, B.A. Menguc, B. and Bell, S. J. (2003) Stakeholder salience reloaded: Operationalising corporate social responsibility, Australia New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Adelaide, December 1 - December 3. Norington, B, IR move a risk for Labor, The Australian, June 13 2006. Newman, B. 2002 Editorial: Broadening the Boundaries of Marketing: Political Marketing in the New Millennium Psychology and Marketing, 19 (12) 983-986 Scholem, P. and Stewart, D. 2002 Towards a Measurement Framework for Stakeholder-Issue Identification and Salience, Australia New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Melbourne, December 2 - December 4 Yukl, G. 1998, Leadership in Organisations, Prentice-Hall, Sydney in Bourne, L. & Walker D.H.T. 2005Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence, Management Decision, Volume 43 Number 5 2005 pp. 649-660.

Appendix 1 Power Outlined Type of Composition Definition Power Coercive Position power Compliance is enforced through punishment Connection Personal + political power Based on interpersonal links or links to important people Reward Position power Compliance is encouraged through rewards Legitimate Position + political power Organisational or hierarchical power structures Referent Personal power Personal traits such as charisma or interpersonal influence Information Position + personal + Possession or access to valuable information political Expert Personal power Expertise, skills, knowledge which are used to gain respect (derived from Green and Elfrers, 1999 in Bourne and Walker, 2005)