What would the president say?

It may seem like they do, but often CEO's, presidents and prime ministers do not write their speeches themselves. Mostly, a team of speechwriters is able to "translate" complex economic and policy issues into a clear message for the general public.

Writing a speech involves several steps. A speechwriter has to meet with the executive and the executive's senior staff to find out the broad framework of points or messages that the executive wants to cover and put forward in the speech. Then, the speechwriter does his or her own research on the topic, to flesh out this framework with anecdotes, news and examples. The speechwriter will also consider the audience for the speech, which can range from a town-hall meeting of community leaders to an international leaders' forum. Then the speechwriter blends the points, themes, positions, and messages with his or her own research to create an "informative, original and authentic speech" for the executive.

The speechwriter then presents a draft version of the speech to the executive (or the executive's staff) and makes notes on any revisions or changes that are requested. If the speechwriter is familiar with the topic and the positions and style of the executive, only small changes may be needed. In other cases, the executive may feel that the speech does not have the right tone or flow, and the entire speech may have to re-drafted (speechwriter - federal government job profile).

We know that Obama is famous for his speeches. Curious who writes them? Click here to view the profile of one of the best speechwriters at this moment.

Political marketing and communication

The Dutch elections are coming up and the campaigns are running. Is political campaigning and marketing misleading for the voter? Is it detrimental of actually beneficial for democracy?

Political marketing is cross-disciplinary and complex. It can be seen as part of the infrastructure of modern political communication. It is a set of techniques and concepts, which are of potential value to all political actors, from parties to candidates, whether left or right, conservative or radical (Palmer, 2002).

The impact of political marketing and the anxieties expressed about political marketing are based on exaggerated assessments of its impact. Although, marketing perspectives offers a fresh view on understanding electoral change. Marketing techniques have improved the quality of political marketing. Political marketing has improved to a certain extent, the quality and efficiency of communication between politicians and voters. Campaigns and other forms of political marketing contribute to political education among voters. Statements of policy in de form of advertisements will be better understood and absorbed by voters, than a dreary statement of policy which the voters will not read (Harrop 1990). It can be stated that political marketing must be seen in the context of the wider political process in which the politicians communicate, the media participates and the electorate decides (Butler & Collins, 1994). The increase of political marketing is a response to the incapability of the mass electorate, to make clear decisions in deciding which political party to vote for. Political marketing gives the electorate the opportunity to go into dialogue and to exchange ideas with politicians. Besides the attempt to influence voters, political marketing creates political commitment and education among the public. The public gets better informed about political issues (Wring, 1999). In this sense, political marketing can be seen as beneficial to democracy.

On the other hand political marketing can be detrimental to democracy when only the negative sides are associated with it, such as negative campaigning and manipulated political advertisements. Besides negative campaigning, spin-doctoring and public relations can be seen as beneficial or detrimental to democracy. It is difficult for the public to decide whether it is beneficial or detrimental, how they are being influenced by it and where they draw the line whether it is ethical or not. Political marketing can damage credibility and forfeit trust. As a result, political parties and politicians can be seen as suspicious and not trustworthy. In this sense, the political culture can be damaged deeply by the negative side of political marketing, which will be detrimental to democracy (Andrews, 2006).
Critics of political marketing state that if political marketing could be stopped, campaigns will become real debates about real issues. Political marketing around elections have always been agenda-setting games, which can confuse the voter (Harrop, 1990).

Political marketing is criticized in many ways, but it can also offer enlightenment in the constantly changing political arena. It is hard to define where the anxieties of the mass criticisms truly lie, but it is also hard to define which aspects of political marketing are beneficial to democracy. The discussion whether political marketing is beneficial and/or detrimental to democracy is one, which will never be final. The debate can be taken further, but not be answered.