The true task of the politician, like the salesperson, is to persuade people to agree with them
In an interview with CBS the weekend following his final appearance as host of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart was asked if he enjoyed talking to politicians.
“I despise it,” he replied. “They’re salespeople. They live in a world of conjuring and denial. It’s very strange to talk to people who have lost their awareness that that’s what they’re doing.”
Jon Stewart is hardly alone in his disdain for sales and in rejecting its influence on politics, he joins the growing ranks seeking a ‘better’, more substantive discourse. None are doing so as loudly as the left, and nowhere has this had more impact than in the recent Labour leadership contest.
It makes sense, of course. More than most, lefties like to see themselves as purveyors of principle. Their raison d’etre is to solve problems, to help communities, to change lives.
That’s why they lose.
At every turn the true task of the politician, as of the salesperson, is to persuade people to agree with them, and then to act on that agreement. A salesperson knows that to achieve this they must convince the customer to believe not just in the product, but also in them, their company and their pitch. Ultimately in their ability to meet the customer’s needs.
In calling for more substance Stewart and the rest are saying we should concentrate almost exclusively on policy (ie. ‘the product’). This approach also forms the basis for Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘new politics’. As appealing as this might sound, it represents a massive misunderstanding of how most ordinary people interact with politics.
Throughout the leadership race the charge against Corbyn was that his policy prescriptions rendered him ‘unelectable’. It appears that the only conclusion his opponents drew from the general election result was that the electorate was put off by Labour’s policies. The reality was more complex.
While the policies surely played a part in Labour’s defeat, other factors – their leader, the message, and the party’s overall reputation in the eyes of the average voter – were at least as significant. In their desperation to be rid of every last trace of the Blair era, what Labour forgets is that It wasn’t Blair’s centrist policies that won them elections, but Blair himself.
For the fact is that Labour’s electoral difficulties will lie less in products that are difficult to push, than in a salesman with no appetite to push them. Jeremy Corbyn stood for the Labour leadership not because he wanted to do the job, or thought he’d be good at it, but to ensure ‘a broader range of candidates and a thorough debate’.
A salesman likes the sound of his own voice, welcoming any opportunity to speak to the customer. Since his coronation, Corbyn, cancelling interviews, running from reporters, in his conference speech that spoke only to the choir, has shown that he does not care for the business of pitching his case.
In thirty-two years as a rebellious MP, he has shown neither the willingness nor the ability to persuade anyone of anything they didn’t already agree with.
In his favour he has sincerity, authenticity and a reputation for caring about his constituents – all valuable attributes. However, if he can’t – or won’t – communicate, these qualities will do little to help establish his own image and rehabilitate his party’s.
Which is crucial. Because since the financial crisis Labour’s is a tainted brand. That they didn’t cause the crisis is pretty much irrelevant. They were the ones in charge at the time and as far as most people are concerned, that’s what matters. It was on Labour’s watch that 3.7 million jobs were lost.
However, that this belief in Labour’s culpability is so deeply ingrained can be attributed to the the party’s weak, incoherent pitch to the contrary. In the end the Conservatives, with their own messaging, didn’t have to do much more than remind the voter of what they already believed to be true. They had simple attack lines, that were easy to understand and delivered well.
The idea of reducing complex policy to a fifteen-second sales pitch may seem anathema, but it doesn’t change the fact that that might be all the time you get. It’s not about embracing Blair’s centrist policies but some of his other talents, which were so crucial in giving Labour thirteen years in government.
The Tories, although they didn’t understand this for a while, do now seem to grasp it.
David Cameron wasn’t chosen to lead the Conservative party because of his own ideas and principles but because he, better than anyone else they had, could sell the ideas, principles and vision for governing of the party he represents. The left needs to remember how to do the same. Because like it or not, sales is a feature of politics, not a flaw.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
14 Responses to “Comment: The left needs to understand the power of sales”
steroflex
Nick, this sentence is very cruel: “Since his coronation, Corbyn…”
Like most English and British people, I certainly prefer HM the Queen, who was truly crowned and who has served her country with enormous and faithful hard work.
Mr Corbyn, like President Bob Mugabe and President Hugo Chavez would make an awful head of state. Thank heavens he can see this and is not going to insult Her Majesty again.
Please be more careful with your words.
Omoba Oladele Osinuga
Nick Christian is spot on in his analysis and for those of us who didn’t support Corbyn but wish him all the best and success as party leader these are the home truths they should be listening to. Labour can only be an instrument of change if it’s in a position to persuade waverers and win elections be the party of government. It can’t do anything by being seen and perceived as a protest movement or by the number of members who have signed up.
peterfreemansix
Weren’t Keir Hardie and Clement Attlee ‘poor salesmen?’
Gerry Toner
There is substance in the proposition that Corbyn, as yet, has not got his communications established. I am not concerned by the he has disdain for some of media or that he does not follow the automaton pitching [selling] that most politicians engage in. He does however need to communicate with the people and he needs a strategy to do that. Here is a challenge as how does he do it without the media he avoids. I do not share the view there is any parallel with selling. Selling is a push concept that seeks to achieve one organisations objective irrespective of others. Corbyn, particularly as the ‘saviour’ of politics, must not push but offer. He should lead not command. It is a mistake to confuse the tactics of selling with the philosophy of values at the core of a leader. Corbyn needs to ignore not just the media. Campaigning is about identifying and sharing values, perceptions and agreeing to act in some form of collective way. Selling is positioning a narrow and partial view of a product or service, ignoring its negative externalities and concentrating on its alleged positives. This is what Blair did about the war. This is what finance does in selling its dubious products. It may be the case that a good salesperson could be an effective campaigner but that would be the person and their values not the ‘salesperson’ talking. This idea is a shimmer.
DemSoc93
This is a good article. I think the problem with Labour for a long time has been that they don’t believe in their product, that is, stated on party cards and publications, “democratic socialism”. Because one thing about advertising, as the Tories well know, is the clear repetition of the message you want to send about your “product”, or politics in this case. Bang and the dirt is gone, washing machines live longer with Calgon, Labour can’t be trusted with the economy, Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to the nation’s security. Simple, consistent messages. The problem with Labour is that for a party set up to be the voice of the “common” people, it has lost the ability to talk to, and like, them. The simplicity and consistency of the Labour message is blunted by its obsession with caution. I think Jeremy has a better chance than the other three at constructing a Labour message that can be “sold” with simple consistent pledges but as you say that needs to start now, not in four years and 6 months from now. Another genius move of the Tories is the ability to express one’s views in a way that doesn’t sound at all ideological but sounds like the plainest common sense, “we should live within our means”. We need rhetoric like that, that sounds so obvious that it sounds moderate. Radical policies expressed moderately can do well in Britain. That’s how Clem managed it after all.