By Louis Avallone
–
Long ago, in a world far, far way, before status updates on Facebook or innumerable Twitter feeds, the power in “branding” an image in American society was well understood.
In fact, 30% of the world’s 100 most valuable brands were developed before 1900.
And these brand names can often become so recognized that they become a generic name for the product itself, such as “Band-Aid” or “Kleenex” or “Coke.” Brand names become the “personality” of the product or service, and since 75% of buying decisions are based on emotion, the personality of the brand is a powerful motivator, and can be financially lucrative, as well.
For example, in 1988, Philip Morris purchased Kraft Foods, Inc. for six (6) times what the company was worth on paper because what they were really purchasing was the over forty (40) brand names, including Maxwell House and Oreo. But the effectiveness of branding is not limited to coffee and cookies, branding works with people too. The “Oprah” brand is worth an estimated $2.5 billion, for example.
Similarly, some have said that presidential candidates are engaged in “branding” their candidacies, much like McDonald’s or Nike appeals to their respective target markets to sell milkshakes and shoes. But there is really something here, to this so-called “branding” of candidates.
Consider, for example, that the Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008, edging past runner-up Apple, whose brand value is estimated at $153 billion. Seriously? A U.S. presidential campaign was lauded as a “marketer”?
Some say this candidate “branding” is “junk politics” because it shifts a political campaign from a platform-centered, or ideas-based campaign to a candidate-centered campaign, emphasizing image over substance. Perhaps this is why Obama, for example, uses the personal pronoun “I” so repeatedly in his speeches (132 times in one recent speech alone).
Historian Warren Susman suggests that the emphasis on image is consistent with a shift in our society from being production-oriented to being presentation-oriented. In other words, the seemingly dull values of hard work, integrity and courage, that ordinarily accompanies thrift and moderation, becomes much less important than charm and likability.
A candidate, if effective as a “brand,” will only say and do whatever the polling data (like consumer research) indicates will be most effective to get them elected (or sell their product or service). Marketing professionals and psychologists alike have long recognized that emotional reactions can be as influential as rational ones, which explains the carefully chosen and controlled images in political campaigns.
In essence then, branding helps us organize, and simplify, the estimated 3,000 marketing messages we receive everyday. 65% of Americans already feel overwhelmed with marketing messages and 61% feel the volume of advertising is out of control. I mean, even at the nationally televised memorial service, following the Tucson shootings last year, where Obama addressed the nation, the memorial service included a branded T-shirt for each attendee that included a logo advertising, “Together We Thrive: Tucson and America.”
You see, the gravity of the situation involving the branding of candidates is that it masks reality because our candidates steer clear of the complicated issues, and into more marketable ones. And the longer we live in an illusion, absent the discussion of the complicated issues, the less capable we are as a nation to cope with the reality of those complicated issues.
Branding in politics, unfortunately, oversimplifies the inconsistencies, while seemingly bringing a sense of order to our complicated world at the same time. Out of a job? Vilify the rich. Price of gas too high? Demonize the oil companies. Destruction of the planet? Blame the burning of fossil fuels. Want to reduce the size of government, increase personal accountability, and promote self-reliance? Pigeonhole those folks as compassionless, mean-spirited, right wing extremists. You see how this branding works, now?
In reality, the candidates, and the issues, are not so neatly and succinctly packaged. Yes, reality is complicated…and often boring, and there is much more to a campaign of ideas, than of carefully choreographed images and manufactured dramas.
But the campaign for the presidency in 2012 must not be reduced to a national branding campaign, or boy band parade. It must be about setting the course for the kind of hope and change that cannot be discussed completely in a 30-second sound bite, staged photo opportunity, or in using trite stereotypes. We cannot risk again having a president that is branded as all things to all people because, in the end, a president that becomes all things to all people becomes nothing to no one.