Brazen Branding
Americans love brands. And the rest of the world typically follows suit. Our brands are among our most powerful exports. Coke, Apple, McDonald’s, Nike, and Google are a few that bubble top of mind. People embrace brands because they’re compelling, simple and memorable. We trust they’ll consistently deliver. And we become attached to them because they say something about who we are and who we aspire to be in the eyes of others.
But today branding in politics is being taken to a whole new level: good and bad. On the positive end of the spectrum, candidates are branding their campaigns with genuine messages designed to engage and motivate constituencies. Barack Obama’s “Change You Can Believe In” campaign has spawned a movement that has drawn new voters into the debate and inspired many citizens long on the sidelines to jump into the game. When done right, political branding can make a world of difference. In the case of Obama, authentic, consistent brand messaging has helped establish a little known Senator from Illinois as a viable candidate for the Presidency in a matter of months. When done wrong, political branding can reflect campaigns and candidates in crisis. Contrasted against Obama’s steady theme, the Hillary Clinton campaign expressed a revolving door of constantly changing motifs. The only thing you could count on was that she’d have a new slogan the next time you saw her. In the end, the delay and difficulty her campaign evinced in defining and articulating her brand position undermined her ability to compete.
Most disturbing though is the brazen and misleading manner in which strategists and the media are negatively branding their opponents to serve their own ulterior agendas. In recent Presidential campaign history, Al Gore was branded as “wooden” by the media. John Kerry was labeled a “flip flopper” by the Republicans. And this year Barack Obama has been positioned as an “elitist” while Michelle Obama has been tagged as both “unpatriotic” and – insidiously – “ghetto” when referred to as “Obama’s Baby Mama” on Fox News Channel.
Obviously, political strategists understand that given the short attention span of most American consumers, the easiest way to undermine a lifetime of accomplishment and a complex nuanced platform of intelligently devised policies and positions is to burden the opposition with a catchy, memorable and repulsive brand identity.
Kudos to the Obama campaign for sticking to the high road. Otherwise, John McCain would be portrayed not simply as a “War Hero” but as a “Kept Man,” for this patriot’s path to prominence has been paved by two generations of admirals and his wife’s millions. Cindy McCain might be cast as the Queen of Vice. After all, she’s a pill-popping heiress who admitted stealing meds from the non-profit she founded and whose fortune is built on America’s unquenchable thirst for alcohol. And finally there would be the sitting President himself, whom I’d brand with a reference from my own cultural arsenal: “El Hijo de Papi.” Meaning “Daddy’s Boy,” the label disdainfully describes annoying rich brats who act as if the whole world is theirs for the taking thanks to their lineage. George W. Bush is the paragon of an “Hijo de Papi,” treating the Middle East like his frat house backyard while American soldiers, their families and hard-working taxpayers pay the price.
But as an optimist, I’d rather stay positive. I applaud the Obamas for sticking to the high road. And rather than dwelling on the negative, I’d like to focus on debunking the contradictory brand warfare being waged against these two Americans and their family.
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann points out that repeated efforts are being made to designate the Obama’s as “too different, too un-American” for the White House. It’s no surprise that the opposition is generating a range of labels to see what sticks. One moment Obama is an elitist; the next his wife is ghetto. They’re both proclaimed unpatriotic with claims about absent flag lapel pins, reluctant pledges of allegiance, and misconstrued quotes. The truth is that if you take the time to read these folks’ biographies they are jaw-dropping examples of human vision, perseverance and excellence. Between the two of them, they have four Ivy League degrees and over three decades of public service. They weren’t legacies. Barack Obama is the son of an immigrant and his wife the daughter of a municipal pump operator. They didn’t inherit their success; they earned it. They embody the American Dream. And their stated mission is to ensure that an ever-expanding community of diverse Americans continues to have an opportunity at achieving their Dream.
One of the greatest things the Obama’s have going for them from a marketing perspective is that branding must be authentic to endure. With that said, I’ll place my money on the American Dreamers any day. Let the false labels fall away and let the truth shine. The result will be a new wave of leadership and a new global brand that we – and the world – can mutually embrace.
