NB Essay produced for course, not whilst at KCLSU, probably a bit out of date and some figure may not be 100% accurate. More for the discussion of democracy as a product
Democracy as the mechanism of expression of the will of the sovereign polity of a students union in the most sacrosanct tenant of the student movement, but is it a product? Arguably it must be the most important product that any student union markets successfully since it bestows legitimacy on all its other actions. Much like a government at a general election, or a US presidential candidate, a student union seeks a strong popular mandate to drive it forward and to re-affirm its sovereignty.
But can a ‘democracy’ be treated as a product, and marketed as such? Through the examination of the product and the marketing efforts at KCLSU that accompany elections, we shall see that ‘democracy’ is treated somewhat like a product, but more successful outcomes could be obtained through a better application of marketing theory. However due to the rather unique position of a student’s union, i.e. a statutory obligation with a single source of funds, there is not much impact to be had by marketing of democracy on fundraising.
The Product
It is not immediately obvious that it possible to condense such a nebulous set of values as the cluster of ideas and actions that are ‘democracy’. Fundamentally the first step in seeking to market democracy is to try and distill democracy in the term laid out in marketing theory, however this is no easy task.
The goods-service continuum as laid out by Shostack (Shostack 1977) makes it easier to classify the ‘product’ of democracy than more rigid goods, services, ideas triumvirate. Where does democracy fall on this spectrum? Clearly since the product has no direct tangible artifact, it must clearly fall on the extreme side of intangible dominant. However, conforming to one of the rules of product composition as laid out in Bruce (2005), there are latent physical goods and services, and without these it would be impossible to construct a narrative about democracy to sell to students.
The goods in this case are the elected students, the President and the Vice-Presidents who become the artifacts produced by this election. This leads to the service, which is student representation provided by these elected students, representation at college, local and national levels. The broadest stroke is reserved for the idea, that of participative representative democracy as a means of concentrating and communicating the collective will. For those that already buy-in to this idea, the sell comes down to the individuals running, however to the majority of people, the primary purpose of the marketing effort is to demonstrate the importance of these ideas to both KCLSU and to their academic experience.
How is the product marketed?
The election ranks along side Fresher’s week as the two most important annual events for KCLSU, and therefore historically the election has always produced a large marketing effort. The marketing plan for the election calls for two phases of marketing, the first leading up to the close of nominations is designed to entice students into putting themselves forward, the second phase is the get out the vote campaign, and will be the focus of this analysis.
Key facts
- Total student body is circa 21,500 students (exact figure not explicitly known to the students union, and there are annual fluctuations)
- Total number of ‘involved students’ stands at circa 7000 and represents any student who is ‘involved’ by way of club or society membership, is a registered user of our services (such as gym or academic advice), is a member of the casual student staff, or is an elected official
- Spring elections are for the important roles of Sabbatical Officer (the President and Vice-Presidents), and since 2006 for Trustees as well
- The period that voting was open was 7 days in 2006, 5 in 2007, and 3 in 2008
- Total votes in those years were 1564, 1603 & 2125 respectively
- 10% turnout target, which is considered high for a large student union, University of Manchester (more than 40,000 students) have consistently been at around 1% for the past 5 years, whereas Courtauld Institute of Art (with 456 students, of which half are undergraduate, half post-graduate) regularly gets 90% or higher
- No separate budget line for the elections, comes out of several budgets (Operating, Policy & Advocacy, Student Services, and Marketing), and organised by an elections working group
The marketing mix (Bruce, 2005) provides a useful framework to breakdown the product and it’s marketing, and it contains several components that should be taken into account when marketing a product.
| Component | Details |
| Philosophy | The philosophy of the product is the central tenant of Student Unions, that ultimately the student body as a whole is sovereign over its union, and elections empower them to use their ownership to produce changes |
| Price | The price to the customer is free in terms of money, but costs a minute or two of time. The introduction of electronic voting has reduced the time taken to vote and has allowed for voting 24/7 over the internet, further reducing the time cost to the student. However the perception of many students is that even this low cost is too much since nothing is gained in return, and there is a reliance on buy-in to the philosophy rather than producing a gain for the customer. The cost to the organisation is high, in terms of time, staff, and resources, but this is a conscious decision commensurate with the importance of the product to the union. |
| Promotion | Takes the form of advertising in the student media, in all of our physical spaces, and prominent adverts in our virtual spaces (website, blogs etc). Also there is a form of coalition building involved since the candidates themselves act to promote the elections by promoting themselves. |
| Place | As described above voting largely takes place in our virtual paces, but the product is also marketed in our physical space using a bank of laptops to act as a voting booth, and the use of our spaces as places to promote the product. |
| People | The elections being so important to KCLSU, it involves many different groups of people: all permanent staff, including the elected sabbatical officers, get involved in ‘flash mobbing’ the various campuses at different times; many of our casual staff are also used to man voting booths; external promotional staff for flyering and manning voting booths, although at a higher cost than our own staff; as mentioned above, the candidates are also involved, although the controls on their behavior are tenuous and they present a risk to the brand of KCLSU and the elections. |
| Physical evidence | Reasons to vote are often left to the candidates, not enough is done by KCLSU to provide physical evidence of the importance of voting, or to reduce the proximity between the act of voting and the consequences, other than the results of the election itself. |
| Processes | The electronic voting system was introduced to streamline the process, and to make it far simpler to run. The process of nominations has also been shortened and simplified to reduce the burden on potential candidates. |
Gap in the market(ing)
Thanks to the creation of a marketing department, and it’s subsequent growth, more marketing know-how has been brought to bear on the election process, but more could be done to successfully market democracy to the student body.
Having analyzed the product it is clear that KCLSU has relied too much on individual candidates to construct a positive narrative about democracy and its outcomes, rather than demonstrating thought leadership in the election process. Learning the lessons from past candidates, it can be seen that the often-unknowing use of case studies to demonstrate the impact elections have had in the past is a successful strategy in leading students up the ‘apathy staircase’, towards voting.
Rather than assigning KCLSU’s past successes to the organization, the election period could be used to highlight how past sabbaticals effectively campaigned for change, thus strengthening the value of the latent physical aspect of democracy. This in turn embellishes the narrative that voting is important to express a student’s desire for change, because voting produces four full-time individuals charged with delivering this change, and the case-studies show that not all election promises are vacuous.
However even if the above were perfected, the practical application of marketing theory must come up against the constraints of reality. Paraphrasing MacDonald (MacDonald 1998) a viable market segment must also be identified in order to be more successful in marketing the product. Is it realistic to expect all 21,500 students to vote in every election? Perhaps not, since UK Parliamentary General elections have seen a deep decline in participation, and are more important. So there is a need to examine the market, segment it, and try and maximize the impact of the marketing efforts.
Of the 21,500 students at King’s College, only 7,000 are ‘known’ to the union therefore two thirds of all students are totally uninvolved in their union. The cost to attempt to win each and every one of them is very high, since there is no relationship with their union and no reason to care about its leadership. The problem of union participation is arguably a failure in the brand KCLSU, or the marketing thereof, and not something that the product of democracy can solve.
So who then is the most opportune market for this product? It is surely the 7000 involved students who do have an existing relationship with the Union. To them there is a far greater chance of getting buy-in to the philosophy of the product for if you run a sports club you are more likely to care who gets put in charge of sports. However successful marketing has a balance of all aspects and it can be argued that in the past there has been too much made of the philosophy and not enough thought has gone into the other parts of the mix, and selling the narrative discussed above. But with a market segment identified, and a re-focus of resources onto those already involved with the union, a greater return should be seen.
It is important however not to abandon the other 14,000 students to disenfranchisement, and the narrative explaining why one should care about one’s union is a compelling one. But in the short period around elections the resources available may not be sufficient to effectively work on this group, however the application of this idea throughout the year by the growing marketing department should be seen as a long-term strategy to build and broaden the voting base.
In looking for other tools for success, it is necessary to do some analysis of the successes of other unions, the closest simile to ‘other player analysis’ available since the product democracy exists as a monopoly, there are evidently some successful processes to strengthen the goods and services on offer.
Imperial college union has decided largely, but not completely, to reject a blanket approach to marketing and has sought to motivate its target market of involved students into voting in higher numbers through the use of an incentive. A more sophisticated voting system allows for a system where the voter is given fifty pence to give to any sports club or society within the union. This simple and cheap process instantly strengthens nearly all parts of the marketing mix.
| Component | Change |
| Philosophy | Re-emphasises student ownership |
| Price | The small time cost is rewarded with a nominal fifty pence |
| Promotion | Creates a large number of coalition partners as the many clubs and societies actively encourage their members to vote in high numbers since they see the chance to get more money for their activities |
| People | The person now approaching a potential voter is more likely to be known to the voter since it will now more often be a club teammate or society president, rather than a stranger. |
| Physical evidence | Direct financial transaction involved in voting so the answer to the question ‘Why vote’ has a more succinct answer |
| Processes | Requires better election software, but allows more demographic information about voters to be gleaned |
With this simple addition, making a better product composition and a more balanced marketing mix, when marketed to a clearly identified target market, produces great results. ICU reports total turnout of 18%, which represents more than 60% of their involved students.
Impact on fundraising
Currently KCLSU has an operating budget of £4.5 million, with £2.5million coming from a block grant from King’s College and the rest generated through commercial services. The fact that the Education Act makes the running of a student union or association a statutory obligation would suggest that a student union can demand money from it’s parent institution, however this premise has never been tested in the courts. Clearly a strong and vibrant union can make a better claim for funding on behalf of it’s members if more of it’s members are seen to be involved in the request, something best evidenced by the mandate provided by high election turnout. It would seem to be self-evident that should an issue arrive which brings out the vote in elections to 50% or so, the mandate given to the elected Sabbaticals would be huge and it would be hard for any university to defy half the student body, but outside this extreme case, could a better marketed democracy impact upon fundraising?
There is no link between KCLSU’s block grant and voter turnout, and the risks involved in the establishment of such are not something the Trustees would ever condone. However in less tangible ways, the successful marketing of democracy at KCLSU could have an impact on fundraising since increasing voter turnout strengthens the brand of KCLSU as a whole, allowing for a better negotiating position. But since KCLSU’s funding is agreed in the long term and comes from a single source, there is not much that the marketing of democracy can do directly to affect this either positively or negatively.
Should the fundraising framework change though, it will certainly be advantageous in attracting new sources of funding to be able to boast of an active and engaged polity who have a genuine interest in their union, and who have a strong relationship with it, a relationship that might be worth something to a third party. Whether KCLSU would ever risk that trust remains to be seen, but with a well-marketed democracy feeding the heart of the union, the rest of the union will find it easier to attract the grant-makers eye.
