Brand Games
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc3a4/fc3a433290a006f8eade17279fcb7219dd7cda12" alt=""
In 1982 Extra-strength Tylenol was deliberately contaminated
with cyanide and 32 people died. In what is now a textbook crisis response the
company pulled 31 million bottles from shelves at a cost of $100 million. 10 weeks later the company introduced the
first-ever tamper-proof packaging and the company retained 100% of its
pre-crisis market share. They were able to do
so because the response of withdrawing its product and introducing the
triple-sealed safety container was consistent with taking care of people, what the
core product is intended to do.
In 2008 Fast Company published an extensive piece “The Brand Called Obama” which showed the meticulous transformation of a State Senator to leading Presidential contender thanks to a carefully calibrated marketing and branding plan. “Change we can believe in” and “Yes we Can” were brand slogans that propelled Barak Obama into the White House. The candidate’s speeches, television commercials and media hype were all aligned around these themes. The country responded to the message and elected the first term Senator to the nation’s highest office.
Upon entering the Presidency Mario Cuomo’s quote proved to be accurate: “Your campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.” The reality of governance by compromise, the Republican
strategy of near universal opposition to anything the President proposed along with
the on-the-job learning curve has resulted in the Obama brand being
tainted. His approval ratings show a
steady decline in positive opinions and a rise in negative feelings. This is not unexpected or new to the
Presidency. The lack of enthusiasm
came after a number of legislative battles.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/698c5/698c50429eda8413f366184d3151fa0cdc1a412d" alt=""
President Obama’s re-election team announced this week the
tagline “Forward” to replace “Change” for the 2012 election. It is an astute choice. It both sends the message that the President
is focused on the future and wants to keep propelling his 2008 promises onward
while not so subtly framing the opposition as “Backward” and reminding people
of the messes he inherited.
The slogan is very effective at communicating the President’s
message, which is distinct from his record. Presumptive Republican nominee
Mitt Romney’s “Believe in America” tagline is less effective because (thus far)
the candidate hasn’t framed his messaging to resonate with the slogan and his track record isn't aligned with the catch phrase. None of this, of course, has to do with actually
policy or the ability of which man can deliver on their promise.
Nearly a billion dollars will be spent convincing voters
that the actions of the candidate are consistent with what actions they will
take after the election. Given that the Executive branch is just a third of
a very divided government there will be a further disconnect between brand message and accomplishment. The more that these slogan don't align with practial results in people's lives, the more it becomes a marketing gambit. That’s the joy and the frustration of democracy and why the whole
branding effort is silly.
Comments
Post a Comment