Poll Helps RNC Look to Defeat Obamacare

For the Huffington Post article and the RNC poll, click here

Cynics are often leery of polls and pollsters – believing they are mechanisms used by politicians to create inoffensive sound bites and policy that will get them and keep them elected. Usually this is not the case – polls are used to inform politicians where they are with the public and what aspects of their plan/policy needs to be emphasized, whether the electorate is informed about them and their ideas and, subsequently, the best message to use to inform them. They are not entirely evil.

However, the Huffington Post reports about an RNC poll that is just that – evil. Democratic polls on healthcare (click here for Democracy Corps’ poll) concentrate on the President’s plan and what aspects of that plan Americans support and which they might need more explanation on before they are convinced will create a better healthcare plan. The RNC poll, on the other hand, concerns itself with one focus – defeating Obamacare.

One line of the recommendations based on the polling data is especially stunning. As Sam Stein reports, the strategist at the RNC concluded, “If Obama is allowed to sell this…he wins.” Winning and losing might be appropriate terms when dealing with elections, but not with proposed reforms of the healthcare system. Here, it should not be about winning but about enacting the best reforms in order to insure that Americans have access to the best healthcare in the world while not breaking the budget. Michael Steele, apparently, is only concerned with beating the President – shameful!

All of this aside, let’s take a look at what the RNC poll says about healthcare and what it means for the Democrats moving forward.

(Note: the poll was conducted between June 15-17, 2009, thus the results are somewhat outdated; however, the messaging aspects of the poll are still somewhat relevant as we move into August without a healthcare bill. Another note, the poll segments the population into Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and ‘Ticketsplitters.’ While I have some idea what they might be referring to, without the full data, I will not discuss this segment.)

Findings and Insights: Disregarding approval ratings, favorability, and generic congressional ballot numbers (they are now over a month old) there is still some interesting gems hidden in this poll. First off, when asked if people would prefer a Congressional candidate that is a ‘check and balance’ on the President versus one that will help Obama with his agenda, 50% prefer the former (61% among independents.) With more than a year to go before the midterms, positioning candidates as checks on a popular President might be a successful strategy, especially if the President’s popularity keeps supporters home from the polls.

Turning to the healthcare debate, 51% of respondents say their biggest concern, when it comes to healthcare, is costs while only 20% say access and 6% say quality. Further, 59% (62% among independents) support the government having an active role in lowering the cost of healthcare, but not a government-run system (only 32% support this notion.) While Americans are split 56-44 on whether America has the best healthcare in the world, an overwhelming majority (70%) believe the system is in need of reform. And, when it comes to that reform 49% say they trust the Democrats to fix the system, whereas only 29% of respondents trust the Republicans to fix it.

Americans yearn for reform to healthcare, but want the costs to be controlled and do not want the government to run it. As House Democrats and the President look for ways to offset the costs of their healthcare plan, the faster they can show the public that it will be budget neutral, the faster they will gain support. Additionally, if they can emphasis that the public plan is not government-run healthcare but, instead, a system that keeps health insurance companies honest, they will win support on that side of the debate as well.

Public Opinion on Obamacare Specifics: 88% of Americans support making ‘quality healthcare coverage affordable and accessible to every America.’ Further, 71% support forcing insurance companies to cover Americans regardless of pre-existing conditions. And, when it comes to helping small businesses provide healthcare to their employees, an impressive 79% of Americans is in support of this aspect of Obamacare.

When it comes to what Obama is proposing, Americans are if full support; however, the devil is in the details here. If the President can get this accomplished without increasing the deficient, then he will, in the words of the RNC, ‘win.’

Messaging: Especially because Obamacare will not get through the House or Senate until after the August recess, messaging will be especially important – President Obama and his ‘opponents’ will have a month to move public opinion in their corner. The RNC’s poll focuses on messaging we have seen them using in the recent debates and, probably, will continue to use. One of the most powerful messages, that over half of Americans ‘strong agree’ with, is that Americans should not be forced into a government-run system where they will loose their current coverage and choice of doctor. An even more powerful message, which 77% of Americans agree with (57% strongly agreeing), concerns turning healthcare into a bureaucracy similar to the IRS and the DMV. Lastly, the most unfavorable message for Obamacare concerns the costs, which, when quoted at ‘over a trillion dollars’ makes 65% of Americans less favorable towards Obama’s plan. Summing up, Republicans are telling Americans Obamacare will drop them from their current coverage with their current flexible choices, create a system as loathed as the DMV (which isn’t even a federal agency), and will cost each taxpayer over $7,000.

These are powerful messages that score very well. If Democrats want to sway public opinion, they must overcome these messages by emphasizing that reform will mean getting to keep your current coverage (if you want to), decreased health insurance costs because the government will create more competition and more competition drives prices down, and that the plan will be budget neutral or save money in the long run (this, of course, still needs to be worked out in the final bills in the House and Senate, unfortunately.)

Democratic counter messaging: From a messaging basis, it is possible to confront the Republican attacks. The RNC poll has people split within the margin of error (2.9%) over support of Obamacare after they hear a description. This means there is much work to be done if public opinion will turn in the President’s favor; however, it is possible. Taken apart, 58% of Americans support creating a government plan that will compete with private insurers. Democrats have to stress the competition and the healthcare exchange that will provide people with ample information about all available plans – a market, which creates competition and will drive prices down. On universality, 57% of Americans support this notion of Obamacare – this works to counter Republican attacks of dropping people from their plan. Democrats can confidently say that in order to insure everyone (which has majority support) government needs to assist in creating a system and helping those who need the support (whether it be the poor or small business.)

63% of Americans do not support the government ‘setting prices for services and deciding what treatments it will and will not cover.’ This, of course, is not the case – if Democrats can stress quality medicine where doctors are compensated based on merit and not the number of tests they perform, this bleak figure can be overcome. If Democrats can frame this situation in a ‘merit pay’ argument (compensation for better care and not more care) then Americans will get behind Obamacare.

When it comes to ‘fining’ companies that do not provide health insurance or raising taxes and cutting Medicare to pay for this reform, 54% and 71%, respectfully, oppose this portion of the President’s plan. However, while these aspects of the plan have not yet been set in stone, Democrats need to do all that is necessary to cut costs – even if some taxes need to be raised to pay for healthcare, Democrats must stress creating budget neutrality and the reform paying for itself in reduced costs (both in Medicare and in general.) While Democrats do not have the strongest position here, especially in light of recent CBO scores, they can and must confront the increased tax argument Republicans are bound to throw them – tiny tax increases are a small price to pay to keep healthcare reform from increasing the deficit.

Lastly, 59% of respondents do not believe President Obama when he says that health care reform will be budget neutral. This, thus, makes it an even bigger priority and, once established, needs to be emphasized not only by Democrats but also by touting out experts to reassure the American public of the reform’s budget neutrality. Having this message come from people that appear non-partisan will go a long way in convincing the public that reform will fulfill the President’s budget pledge.

Conclusion: In any reform battle, the status quo usually has the better position; however, Democrats can successfully counter the Republican attack machine. By emphasizing that a government plan will compete with private insurance to reduce cost, create competition, and produce transparency will counter attacks about the government-run system. Stressing ‘merit pay’ for quality care over the quantity and complexity of care will counter the RNC’s attempts to paint Obamacare as having bureaucrats dictate care. And, lastly, budget neutrality must be achieved in policy and repeated over and over again to the American public by experts that appear non-partisan. If the Democrats can successfully do this, the RNC will not beat Obama and the real winners will be the millions of Americans who live in fear of being dropped from their healthcare plan or slipping into bankruptcy because of one illness. If they don’t, Americans will be the real losers in this debate – stuck with an inadequate healthcare system for the greatest nation in the world.

RT@Twitter: How effective are you? Update

Today, AdAge had another post about Twitter setting up a Twitter 101 website to help companies establish a presence on Twitter and communicate with their customers (link here.) If you take a look at the case studies they post, Dell is an excellent example of how Twitter can have a positive impact on a brand.

Dell began its venture into Twitter by thinking they would tweet to customers about deals, new products, etc... Little did they know that people would tweet back with their experiences, comments, and questions. Since Dell's first foray into the world of Twitter in 2007, they have come to think of the medium as a way to communicate with customers. And, it works! Dell has booked more than $3 million in sales as a result of Twitter (coupons and promotions on Twitter.)

Capitalizing on Twitter's unique social network requires interaction and persistence on the part of the brand, but it can have a pretty big pay-out, as Dell is a testament to. It might also help solve Twitter's persistence problem - 60% of new users leaving after one month (as reported by Nielsen and re-reported in the AdAge article.) Twitter working with brands to create value for Twitter users surely can raise all boats. How companies take these best practices and case studies to develop their own Twitter image will be worth watching, might even save you a few bucks and keep you on Twitter too boot.

For the article at AdAge, please click here.

@Twitter: How effective are you?

Newsworthiness aside, I feel as though I have heard more about Twitter as an engine for social media change than I have about the House’s cap-and-trade bill (though, admittedly, Twitter is much more fun to talk (or tweet) about.) From June of 2008 to June of 2009, Twitter’s audience grew by over 1,900% according to Nielsen (and, no, that is not a typo.) In comparison, Facebook only grew by 198% and Myspace lagged at a mere 6% growth rate.

The variety of opinions on what Twitter will become and what phase of growth it is in stuns the best two-handed economist. However, thanks to Harris Interactive, and their recently released poll, we know what advertisers and consumers think about the force that is Twitter. The poll makes one thing abundantly clear, most people don’t know enough about Twitter to answer questions about it – 69% of adults and 55% of adults age18-34 say they do not know enough about Twitter to have an opinion. Even the social networking generation, less than half can answer a question about that ‘big new craze’ Twitter. While I have not seen comparable stats for Facebook, to put this in perspective, Nielsen says that, as of June 2009, Facebook had 138,635,000 users, whereas Twitter had only 20,950,000. That means Facebook has over 6 times more users than Twitter – for anyone to say that Twitter can’t expand or isn’t in its infancy seems silly.

The more important question remains: will consumers find Twitter an effective way for marketers to reach them with information. The answer, unsurprisingly, is mixed. 50% of consumers believe that Twitter will either be very or somewhat effective in promoting products or ideas, while the other 50% believe just the opposite (with 19% stating that it will be ‘not at all effective.’) Meanwhile, advertisers have more faith with 58% believing that Twitter will be effective in communicating and promoting their ideas, products, and promotions.

Twitter does have one benefit, the ability to start a conversation that can become viral, global, and constant – all in 160 characters. In a Web 2.0 age, campaigns that stir up conversation will become successful, at least according to a recent piece in Ad Age (link here.) Campaigns like Dove’s ‘Campaign for Real Beauty’ might translate well to a Twitter age or Nike’s ‘athletic nirvana’ campaign. If, while following friends, consumers are also following, participating in, and shaping an ongoing conversation about a product and the idea behind it, there is no telling how effective Twitter may become. At least for now, we’ll just have to wait and tweet.

For the complete poll from Harris Interactive, click here

For the Nielsen information about Social Media, click here

Does Going Green Help Create Green?

For the released polling data from PSB, click here

In a recently released study by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates (in conjunction with Landor and Burson Marsteller), consumers are prodded to see if a company’s green efforts make a difference in their minds and at the store. This study shows that, not surprisingly, people say they are willing to pay more for socially responsible companies or take home less pay to work for these same companies but cannot identify any companies that truly stick out.

The Marketplace:

When it comes to paying more for a ‘socially responsible product,’ 86% of respondents say they would, at least, spend $1 more on the purchase (based on a $100 purchase.) Further, over one-third is willing to pay at least 16% more to purchase a socially responsible product, quite a difference. However, when it comes to identifying socially responsible brands, there are no clear winners. Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, and Microsoft score the highest when asked; however, these companies are cited 8% of the time in Wal-Mart’s case and 4% for the others – not a stunning display of public support.

This lack of public knowledge of socially responsible companies is also shown in the lack of knowledge about which brands are the most socially responsible. Comparing respondent’s perception of brands on a CSR index compared to the CRO 100 (a comprehensive index measuring the practices of brands and companies), Apple scores rather low with consumers, at 68, but the second highest on the CRO at 206. It seems that consumers’ perceptions of brands, when it comes to CSR, are not correlated with the actual CSR efforts of the company itself, which can create a problem for those companies attempting to create a value proposition using their CSR initiatives.

The Workplace:

At the work place, 56% of respondents believe that working for ‘a company that is socially responsible’ makes some difference (21% believe it makes a significant difference.) 25-34 year old and 35-49 year olds seems to put the most stock in working for a socially responsible company, with 62% and 61%, respectfully, saying it makes a difference. Another interesting trend emerges in income segmentation. Among people making less than $35,000 a year, only 52% believe that it is important to work for a socially responsible company; meanwhile, 58% of those making over $100,000 a year believe it makes a difference – not that surprising, given the current economic climate.

In these rough economic conditions, 40% of respondents said they would be willing to take at least a 1% cut in pay to work for a socially responsible company, while 15% were willing to take at least a 6% cut in pay. This might be a growing trend with 21% of young people age 18-24 and 28% of respondents’ age 25-34 saying they would take cuts of at least 6% to work for a socially responsible company.

Side note: More and more in polling data, I have seen a disconnect between young people (18-24 or 18-29) and middle-aged people (25-34 or 29-39). While the middle aged seem more idealistic and ‘liberal’ this new generation of young people seems a bit more self-centered and ‘conservative.’ Hopefully, I will get a chance to explore this further in another post. As of right now, this is just a generic observation – hopefully to be flushed out soon.

But, while people are willing take home less pay to work for a socially responsible company, 71% cannot name any socially responsible practices of their employers. However, again we see the young-middle complex, where 70% of 18-24 year olds cannot name a practice that is socially responsible but only 64% of people aged 25-34 can’t name such a practice. Overall, though, employees are unaware of their employer is doing when it comes to social responsibility creating a disconnect between their desire to work for a socially responsible company and their current place of employment.

Communicating to Capitalize on CSR:

Companies that value CSR can clearly profit from their stance; however, if consumers do not know a brand is socially responsible, they won’t be willing to pay extra for its products. When it comes to stressing its CSR values, emphasizing fair, just, and equal treatment of employees, environmentally responsible practices, and community outreach and philanthropy top the list of what consumers are looking for in a company they consider socially responsible, at 20, 17, and 10% respectively. Furthermore, companies looking to increase sales through CSR messaging should focus on ‘honesty and trustworthiness,’ ‘treating employees fairly,’ ‘ethical leadership,’ and ‘community values and philanthropy.’ Among statements that will most likely influence consumers, these are the CSR messages that rank above average and, if a company is looking to tap into the extra profit afforded to socially responsible companies, these are the messages they need to send to their consumers.

Overall, people are interested in social responsibility when it comes to their purchases and employment, but companies need to do a better job providing the consumers and employees with the CSR they want a company to perform and communicating those types of CSR initiatives to the prospect. If a company can succeed in doing that, they may see an increase in sales and gain a better position at the bargaining table.

Advertisers: Do They Really Know What We’re Thinking?

For the full polling data from Harris Interactive, please click here

In a recent poll released by Harris, in collaboration with LinkedIn, they survey consumers and “advertisers from agencies or corporations who are involved in the advertising decision making process.” The results are quite interesting.

The first apparent finding is that, overall, advertisers believe that their ads will be more effective than consumers actually find them. When it comes to the effectiveness of characteristics of advertising, in each characteristic advertisers consistently rank the characteristics very effective more often than the consumer does. However, taking this into account, there are some similarities and a few differences in the effectiveness the professionals are delivering and the characteristics the market wants.

First, the top five advertising characteristics are the same for both advertisers and consumers (they are: ‘ads that make me stop and think,’ ‘ads that give me new information,’ ‘ads that are entertaining,’ ‘ads that are informative,’ and ‘ads that are funny.’) Of these, consumers rank ‘ads that are entertaining’ and ‘ads that are funny’ as the most effective, with 34% and 33% saying these types of ads are highly effective, respectfully. Advertisers, on the other hand, rank ‘ads that make me stop and think’ and ‘ads that give me new information’ as the most effective.’ While these two categories are not far off from the effectiveness of the consumers top two choices, at 30 and 29% saying they are very effective respectfully, they are slightly lower. And, though some might think that while ‘funny’ or ‘entertaining’ ads might also have a high percentage of respondents saying they are ineffective, that is not the case. In the long run, it seems that advertisers, while overestimating the effectiveness of their ads, know what the consumers find most effective.

Some differences emerged when dealing with the current economic situation. According to consumers, the most effective way to position to them in the recession is using the ‘value proposition’ (i.e. discounts, coupons, etc…). Advertisers seem to understand this with 61% stating that they are using this in their branded communications. However, the second most effective position, according to consumers, is clearly ‘luxury for less’ with 34% believing this messaging works well or very well. However, advertisers seem to be using the ‘empathy’ proposition as their second gun in their arsenal, while only 18% are employing the ‘luxury for less’ position, which even losses to the ‘cheerleading’ message by 7%. There is, obviously, a clear message/position that can be employed and exploited here by marketers; especially for those targeting consumers aged 18-34 (51% believe the ‘luxury for less’ position works well or very well.)

As the recession continues, advertisers have and will continue to reposition their products to appeal to consumers who must tighten their belts. And, while they seem to be doing a pretty good job gauging which ads and positions are effective with their audience, it seems they are lagging in the ‘luxury for less’ position. Typically in a recession, consumers tend to treat themselves to small luxury items (i.e. higher quality chocolate) because they cannot afford more expensive luxuries. The lack of positioning seen within the advertising community and consumers willingness to purchase ‘smaller’ luxury items leaves a hole in the market that, if filled, could produce a huge return in this tough time.

President Obama’s Approval Ratings

Questions abound about what this decline means. Is the President exiting his ‘honeymoon’ period? Are Americans disillusioned with his handling of the economy and healthcare? Will this affect his attempts at reform on healthcare and environmental policy?

As of July 21, 2009, Real Clear Politics (RCP) puts Obama’s approval averages at 56.1 approve versus 38.6 disapprove – a 17.5% differential in favor of the President (link to averages here.) The most apparent change is an increase in those who disapprove of the President’s performance. And, while I have not examined the crosstabs, I would wager that this increase represents many independent voters and moderate republicans moving form the “don’t know” category to the “disapprove” category. If this is the case, Democrats running in 2009 (Corzine in NJ and Deeds in VA) and, possibly, in 2010 need to worry.

However, even as Independents and moderate Republicans come out of the woodwork against the President, this does not necessarily mean the President is in bad shape. Gallup has released a memo (link to memo here) showing that the President’s average approval rating in his third quarter as President exceeded his two immediate predecessors and is in line with several of his modern peers. (To view an interesting interactive chart from USA Today regarding Presidential approval ratings, click here)

Moving forward, it seems that Obama and other Democrats should be more worried about the ‘why’ when it comes to approval. According to another Gallup poll released on July 15^th, of those who approve of the President’s job performance, 54% cite his leadership, while only 17% name issues as their reason. Conversely, when it comes to disapproval, 65% Americans who disapprove of the President cite issues as their primary reason for disapproval (link to memo here.) As we have seen in recent polls, many Americans support/approve of the President though they may not approve of his policies. On healthcare, for example, 49% of people approve of the job he is doing. And, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll (link to poll here), of all the items asked, only the situation in Afghanistan garners more approval than the President himself.

This, of course, suggests that the honeymoon may still be ongoing and more erosion is expected in his approval ratings as people begin to learn more about healthcare and Republicans continue to link healthcare to the ever-growing budget deficit (the lowest scoring issue at 43% approval.)

Moving forward, Democrats and the President need to keep a close eye on why people approve/disapprove of Obama and how they view the President’s performance on the issues of the day. Though it seems, at least from this observer, that the President needs to retake control of his agenda. While letting Congress deal with the details on policy might create bedfellows on Capitol Hill, it confuses most Americans and makes them unsure of what is going on in Washington. Take healthcare as an example – the President continues to talk about what he wants in healthcare, but everyday Americans are bombarded with new proposals and new scores from the CBO. They do not understand this and don’t have the time to figure it out, which makes them frustrated, confused, and, most damaging to the President, upset that the President cannot present a clear plan on what he wants. Of course, the President knows what he wants on healthcare and a myriad of other issues; it is now time for him to dictate policy to Congress and allow them to tinker with it, as opposed to the other way around. If he does this, he will not only gain leadership points but also allow citizens to judge his policy for what it is, not a hodgepodge of suggestions and proposals that come in and out of fashion in a Congressional Committee. If President Obama does this, he will accomplish what he came to Washington to do and help propel his eroding poll numbers (or, at the very least, stabilize them.) If not, he will lose control of his agenda and the support of the people who elected him.

Down But Not Out

First, I would like to apologize for being MIA for the past week or two. I am trying to find a way to get more content into my blog, and that is what I have been focusing my efforts on in the past few days. More up-to-date posts will begin in the coming days. I look forward to getting back to blogging about all the glorious polling data available!