In April 2001, President Bush had 56 percent approval, after the attack on the twin towers in September of the same year, he reached 90 percent. By the end of his term it was 42 percent. In Mexico, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador boasts figures of up to 60 percent approval —depending on the preferred source— and in the worst moments of the pandemic it reached 40 percent. Biden in contrast has struggled to keep his numbers above 50 percent. The problem with this analysis is to focus approval only on the total population and not on the segments that approval builds.
In other words, if the most influential and job-generating group in a country is outside the approval percentage, we will have a President loved by a group of people who probably cannot help much to move a country forward. According to William Neuman, author of the book Inside The Collapse of Venezuela: Things are Never So Bad That They Can’t Get Worse, support for Chavismo by the most unprotected sector of the country ended up affecting precisely that sector, the most dispossessed. Logically, there is no correlation between the acceptance of a politician and the benefit obtained by the policies he represents. This is true in the UK with Boris Johnson or with AMLO.
This teaches us that the use of approval is an incorrect measure to measure the success of a product, service or decision. Another great example is the Blackberry, a year before its death due to the arrival of the iPhone, it surely enjoyed tremendous acceptance. This happens in almost every human conduit or selection. Carbonated beverages went from being the heroines of consumer understanding to being vilified for supposed health issues.
In contrast let’s look at AMLO, for 59 percent of approval there is 41 who do not fully approve of the decisions. In a country like Mexico, this means that at a wedding, four out of ten people at a table will not agree with the course of the country. In round numbers almost 51 million people, in the case of Biden almost 165 million Americans. Democracy is built with majorities but voting preference (or purchase) is built from division. For example, dog owners are very different from cat owners, those who use iPhone versus Android, those who drink soda and those who prefer water. In all these examples there is a common denominator, polarization. In modern marketing it is easier to point out the differences against the leading product than to build an entirely new narrative. For that reason there is so much attack on politics and little innovation on products.
The scenario is very dangerous for social stability and now we also see economic. Again, confusing approval with preference has dire results. In the world, the sale of new cars has changed radically, today the distributors do not have inventory to deliver, it is a seller’s market, consequently the service is bad. When the inventory returns, the resentments of buyers who had to buy “what was available to what could be” will come out. Remember what happened to North American car brands, Chrysler sells one or two models in Mexico, Dodge probably less than 10. Since the 80s have not recovered, the consumer has not forgotten the times of few options.
The selection in points of sale is very similar, today the increase in prices makes the consumer have to bow to what is offered, but they will quickly leave those points of sale before options of better price or service. The arrival of Wal-Mart in Mexico and Latin America swept the local points of sale.
Something similar happens in politics, today the PRI in Mexico loses very frequently at the polls, but 25 years ago it was the leading voice of politics in Mexico. Today the electorate has not just forgiven him. This should serve as a warning to the strong party in Mexico: Morena. Also Chavismo or the Democrats or Republicans. In the latter, I wouldn’t be surprised if the North American voter at an early stage votes for an independent candidate.
History is littered with brands that were successful with high approval among consumers: Kodak, Pan Am or Marlboro come to mind. We should not confuse gymnastics with magnesia. Nor fool ourselves, there is no brand that serves all masters. President Bush is the best example, reaching 90 percent approval is something very rare in politics, a transitory phenomenon of support for the war against terrorism, the same thing happens with Ukraine, today unfortunately there will be those who think that it would be better surrendering to Russia, that is, unanimous support is a fallacy.
The modern consumer has experienced 20 years of growth and prosperity. For many, the crises of the seventies are —in the best of cases— anecdotes of grandparents. It is not understood what an inflationary crisis is; For the Mexican consumer in the last 20 years, buying a car was relatively easy, today a family SUV (the family sedan replacement of the 1970s) costs 40 thousand dollars. Not surprisingly, the used car market is on the rise.
The lesson is simple, the consumer never forgets the bad times he goes through to pay for a purchase or the bad experience and always returns to collect what he is owed. Homes are filled with phrases of dislike for brands, political parties and services, even though opinion polls show otherwise.