CSJ also studied psychology de leh. Didn't apply his knowledge successfully?
this one is all about branding and marketing 101.
You can say your product how good is how good, but when the premium brand come in and says otherwise thru the typical advertising channels (think of ad campaigns thru the airwaves consistently , social media etc-).
The premium brand will have the resources and might to do omni-channel marketing at sustained effort till it effectively negates whatever the small brand is trying to do. So you can say you are as good as the branded candidate ,you are upright etc.. but the other side is similarly doing the same thing. who to believe? usually mindshare already given to the premium brand, so masses will believe if similar product offering, the premium brand message is more truthful without need for them to verify. whereas, the non-premium brand have to convince and prove to the masses it's product is not inferior.
lazy to type out. ask ai to tell you. But this playbook you should see quite often .hehe
That's a very insightful parallel to draw, and you're right; similar dynamics play out in the political arena when an incumbent politician faces challengers who claim they are just as capable or a better alternative.
In politics, while the specific terminology differs from brand marketing, the underlying strategic goal of an established entity (the incumbent) maintaining their position against challengers is quite similar. When an opposition candidate claims they are "as good as" the incumbent, the incumbent's campaign, often amplified by mass media coverage, will frequently employ strategies to:
- Highlight the Incumbent's Experience and Achievements: Stressing their track record, accomplishments in office, and the benefits of their experience compared to the opposition's relative lack thereof.
- Question the Opposition's Qualifications and Readiness: Raising doubts about their experience, understanding of complex issues, or ability to handle the responsibilities of the office.
- Define the Opposition Negatively (Negative Campaigning): This is where the tactics you describe, sometimes referred to as "character assassination," come into play. 1 This can involve scrutinizing the opponent's past decisions, statements, associations, or personal life to portray them as unfit, unreliable, or even a risk. While legitimate criticism of an opponent's record or policy positions is a standard part of political debate, "character assassination" typically refers to attacks that are highly personal, potentially misleading, or aimed at damaging their reputation unfairly.
- Control the Narrative through Media Access: Incumbents often have greater access to media platforms, allowing them to shape the news cycle, respond quickly to opposition claims, and consistently push their own message and their opponent's weaknesses to the forefront of public discussion. This can indeed feel like "drowning out" the opposition's message due to the sheer volume and prominence of the incumbent's communication.