I had pretty much sworn off political coverage here but I did find a provocative post from the Managing Director of Landor's New York office, Allen Adamson, that I wanted to share.
Allen thinks Obama has the most effectively defined brand. "He’s identified the clearest, simplest brand driver of anyone running. His easily understood idea is sort of akin to Pepsi’s 'choice of a new generation.' And whether people agree with this choice of a new generation they’re in full agreement that everything he says and does is in alignment with his well-defined brand idea." I absolutely concur with Allen's assessment here. I think Obama has done a fantastic job evaluating the context of this election, and identifying widespread disillusionment with what hasn't been working. His positioning is genius because it lacks substance - it's all feeling. And what American doesn't want to at least hope for unity and progress?
Allen also likes the McCain brand. "His brand driver is more akin to Coke’s classic positioning, 'It’s the real thing.' As an American hero with a stellar military record and an equally stellar senatorial record, he projects himself, what he says and what he does, as the real thing, at least when it comes to presidential timber. He comes across as authentic." Clear yes, but motivating? Not so sure. Obama has defined the terms of engagement so far, and having 50 years of experience clearly flies in the face of "change." The challenge is, I don't think being "real" is relevant right now; I think people are fed up with the "reality" they've been experiencing and they're more than happy to take a chance on someone new who might be a bit "unreal."
Allen observes that Hillary "hasn’t identified a simple, clear way to define her brand. This could bode problems. As all brand professionals know, it’s really hard to win from the middle. It’s hard to win when consumers can’t quite figure out what you stand for. It’s hard to win when you don’t have a simple, clear idea driving all of your branding activities, be they ads or speeches, promises or platforms. If Hillary Clinton wants to make it to the top of the best branded list, if she wants to make it to the top, she’s got to get out of the middle. It’s hard to win from the middle. Just ask Dr. Pepper."
OK, Allen's post was written pre-Super Tuesday and we all now pretty much know Hillary's bid is over (click to enlarge NYT's assessments of Texas and Ohio). Actually there is a clear definition of Hillary's brand - she'll do whatever it takes to win. But I think Allen's making a good point. Both Clintons have defined themselves by what they think people want, rather than by what they intrinsically represent.
How is this different from Obama, who's taken the people's mantra of "change" to heart as his own? I think it boils down to authenticity. Obama comes across as a guy who is who he is (at least to me) - he'd be saying this stuff in any collection because it's part of his essence. Hillary on the other hand picks up whatever is coverage-worthy and makes it her own (with several tablespoons of vitriol and melodrama).
Thoughts appreciated as always!
Comments