BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

Geez, now what? As if the economy, world affairs, and health care reform weren’t enough, it seems President Obama has one more dilemma on his plate to deal with. According to recent reports, the technological infrastructure in the White House is not nearly as sophisticated as the digital tools the man and his campaigners used during the campaign, a factor that helped win the election. While this might seem like a minor issue, it’s actually a major issue. You see, Obama’s brand promise was all about change, especially when it came to making governmental workings as transparent, connected and inclusive as possible. Without a top-notch digital infrastructure, he can’t execute on this part of the brand promise, or not exactly in the way he promised. In this day and age, in a world where trust in brands, trust in all institutions, is at an all-time low, it’s critical to make sure that you’ve got what it takes to execute on a brand promise, especially something as important as a promise to keep the lines between brand and consumer open. While Obama’s promise of change was genuine, if he can’t get the geek squad out to the White House as soon as possible, it won’t matter how genuine it was. These days, if you don’t have what it takes to execute on your brand promise, your brand will seem just plain disingenuous.

How much did social networking have to do with the fact that we watched Barack Obama sworn in as the 44th president of the United States? From this voter’s perspective, a lot. Yes, it helped that there was a former Facebook member on the Obama staff, but more than this are the millions of Facebookers, voters all, who understand that social media sites now play two critical roles in their lives. First, it’s a way for them to keep track of their friends, virtual and otherwise, the initial reason for the existence of Facebook and the others. But more germane to politics and inaugurations, social media has become a way, if not the way, to spread and vet opinions about everything from music, to sports, cars, clothing, movies and political candidates. It’s the way a fast-growing and increasingly older number of people stay plugged in to what’s important. According to David Kirkpatrick, Senior Editor, Internet and Technology at Fortune magazine, Twitter and its tweeting are miniscule in their influence compared to the burgeoning communication power of Facebook. As he told me, “For anyone to dismiss it as a digital diversion for the younger set is a big, big mistake.” The net-net for brands is that anything with this much consumer engagement can – and will – be turned into a platform for consumer buying decisions. Ask brand Obama. He’ll tell you it’s branding change you’d better believe in.

In this economic climate of shrinking budgets and diminished consumer attention, there are two valuable lessons marketers should take away from the brilliant campaign run by the Obama team. Lesson one: Stay focused on a simple, core idea for your brand which, in the President-elect’s case was “change you can believe in.” Lesson two: Execute on this idea relentlessly. What Obama did so powerfully in his run for the White House was essentially taken out of the playbook in BrandSimple: Great brands are built on single-minded ideas and their branding is consistently aligned with this idea across all points of touch. Obama’s advertising, his Facebook presence, his talking points, his connection with youthful voters on gaming sites, his announcement of a vice presidential choice by text message, even his post-election thank you notes sent via email were branding executions that perfectly supported the one distinct idea he wanted to represent in the minds of voters.

With less money for marketing, with incessant noise and news, with brand clutter growing and confidence dwindling, it has never been more essential to adhere to the principles of focus and execution in brand building. This is not the time for over-strategizing and under-branding. This is not the time for wasteful careening from message to message. This is not the time for ambiguity in any way, shape, or branding form. A laser-like focus on a singular idea and virtuoso execution of this idea have always been key to successful branding, facts well understood by the Obama folks. To change this formula in these turbulent economic times is definitely not something any marketer should believe in.

While it was a coincidence that the 2008 Ad:Tech conference in New York took place on the days immediately preceding and following Obama’s presidential win, it was no coincidence that his win was due, in good part, to a brilliant understanding of how digital tools can and should be used to reach and engage consumers. It was apparent from the hundreds of attendants and many insightful presenters at the conference that digital tactics as part of a wise marketing strategy are no longer a “nice to have,’ but a “must have.” Obama’s team had them and used them wisely. It was also apparent from the number of digital organizations with booths or speakers at the Ad:Tech conference that players in the digital space have grown exponentially from 2007 to 2008. Unlike the first digital boom in 2001, most of these players have some tangible offer or service to provide. A money-generating business model is always a smart first step. Unfortunately, like many of the players in the first digital boom, a good many of these youthful businesses will most likely not make it to Ad:Tech 2009. Why? From my branding perspective there are three reasons. First, a good many of them have not found a way to differentiate their businesses in a way that is relevant to the consumers they’d like to reach. A commodity product on the detergent aisle is no different from a commodity product in the digital realm. Second, from what I saw, there’s a lot of atrocious branding out there. This mostly had to do with product and service names; either ultra-generic or ultra-clever, neither tied to the promise of the brand. This brings me to the third reason many newly-minted digital businesses might not make it. In this ultra-scary economy, everything a business does has to be incredibly efficient, especially the branding. If I can’t instantly tell from your brand’s name what it does, I’ll pass it by. If I can’t immediately understand what makes it different and useful to me, I’ll pass it by. If I don’t know how to use what you offer to successfully reach and engage the consumers I want to connect with, I’ll pass it by. Just as there was a shake out of less than exemplary brands in the first age of digital, there is going to be a shake-out in this new digital age. This time, however, it will be a result of not being able to communicate quickly and simply why your brand is different and better along with not having a brilliant understanding of how digital tools should be used to win voters, uh, I mean consumers.

Powerful brands stand for one thing or another, not one thing and another. Consumers make choices based on what they perceive this one thing to be. A strong, focused brand idea helps consumers filter through their options. Pepsi is the cola choice for a new generation. Coke is the traditional cola. Volvo is the car of choice for safety seekers. Porsche is for performance seekers. In the recent 2008 Presidential Imagepower ® Survey released by Landor and research firm Penn, Schoen & Berland, it seems that consumers are beginning to perceive both Obama and McCain as standing for more or less the same thing; change. The lines of distinction between the two presidential candidates are getting blurrier which could pose a problem. The thing is, while McCain has been gradually morphing his message from maverick to change agent, Obama signaled from the get-go that he was the candidate of change. His brand idea has been consistent from day one which, from my vantage point as a branding professional, makes his brand persona a bit more credible. When consumers are given the choice of two brands that make the same promise, they are more apt to go with the one that established the promise first. Once people associate a brand with a specific idea, it’s hard to get them to move away from this association. McCain had a simple, strong maverick of an idea. Trying to marry it with the idea of change is confusing to voters. Powerful brands stand for one thing or another, not one thing and another. As we get closer to the election, my advice is that both candidates stick to the one idea that they want voters to take to the voting booth.

On the eve of the most-watched VP debate in modern history I wrote that in order for both candidates to win hearts and influence the people they wanted to influence, they’d have to be true to their respective brand personas: Joe Biden, the knowledgeable voice of experience and Sarah Palin, the folksy, straight-talking hockey mom. From my branding perspective I believe they both succeeded in upholding the brand characteristics with which they are associated in the minds of the voters. While both strayed off-brand for a few moments here and there, Biden, a little too quick with dry facts and figures, Palin, a little too quick with overly-rehearsed talking points, each reinforced what they stand for as the brand-idates they are. What’s next? Let’s see how their running mates meet their established brand positions tomorrow night.

There has been no dearth of commentary on Governor Sarah Palin’s hockey-mom-working-mom-go-get ‘em personality. The idea that she’s the “street-smart, local-girl-makes good brand” is pretty solid. Given his tenure on the political scene, there hasn’t been as much commentary on Senator Joe Biden. But given this tenure, we’ve come to perceive him as the capable and established, know-the-ropes fellow he is. The idea that he’s the “voice of experience brand” is also pretty solid.

There has also been no dearth of commentary from political pundits, media pundits, and plain, old blogosphere pundits about how they believe Palin and Biden must perform in order to win the Vice Presidential debates (or, if not win, at least not lose ground for themselves or their running mates). As both a blogosphere pundit and a branding professional, I’d like to add my two-cents-worth. Every good brand is based on simple, clear-cut idea that is easy for consumers to understand and remember. All good branding, the brand-related tactics and activities, work to consistently support the simple brand idea. Having said this, for Sarah Palin and Joe Biden to succeed in the debate, they each need to be true to themselves, the brand personas they want to support.

For this to happen, I believe Palin must stick to the authentic local-girl-makes good style and responses that won her Alaska’s governor’s seat. She shouldn’t stray off-brand, attempting to portray herself as something she isn’t. She needs to present herself as the feisty, shoot-from-the hip politician she is and not be confined to over-rehearsed answers. Biden must stick to his authentic knowledgeable and conscientious brand demeanor. Trying to elude his past and familiarity with the workings of the world and Washington will only stand to confuse the voters’ perception of him. Any time a brand veers from the position that initially won it consumer votes, it weakens itself. I advise the same for our two vice presidential candidates. To win, you’ve got to be real.

How does one make sense of the turbulence on Wall Street? Even the financial experts are having a hard time clarifying the situation. While there are hardly simple answers, my belief is that our presidential candidates missed an incredible opportunity during last week’s debate to express with any clarity their respective positions on the turmoil. Neither Obama nor McCain conveyed a distinct and focused point of view on the issue. Rather they they each played both sides, no make that as many sides of the situation as there were sides. Neither took advantage of this public forum to strengthen his respective brand persona. Lest you think otherwise, these candidates are brands. And from my public forum as a branding professional I can tell you this was infuriating. Great brands are built on simple, clear ideas. If consumers don’t understand what a brand stands for, they’ll opt for one whose promise they do understand and make their choice known at the point of purchase, in this case the voting booth. Although there are certainly no simple answers to our Wall Street meltdown, both candidates had the chance to take a clear-cut position in line with the brand position that each initially established for himself and his party. I can tell you that this was not helpful, to either their campaigns or for the millions of undecided voters who are looking for guidance.

One of the essential rules of successful brand building is to establish something you want to represent in the minds of consumers and stick with it. Don’t slip or slide or muddy the waters. Every branding action should be carefully aligned to reinforce the brand position originally created. The objective is to ensure that consumers permanently think precisely what you want them to think about your brand, especially when they come to the point of purchase. There are a number of well-known case histories of brands that lost out at point of purchase when they lost sight of their core brand promise. Burger King slipped and slid for a few years until it came back to letting hungry people “have it their way.” Coca-Cola was the “real thing” until it changed its original formula and wasn’t’. The iconic brand made a quick course correction and righted its place in the shopping aisles. Sears, long associated with great value on home goods, spent the better part of a decade wandering off-brand as it dabbled in real estate, insurance and financial services. It has since returned to its initial brand idea and its ledger sheets show the wisdom of the decision.

As Senators McCain and Obama prepare for the home stretch, they must do everything possible to stick to the brand position that initially resonated with their party platforms and take every opportunity to convey this position, no matter the specific issue at hand. As voters near the point of purchase they must be able to go to the polls with a solidly-entrenched idea of what each candidate stands for. Each candidate has about 40 days to pay heed to his original brand message and execute against it, relentlessly. As in all things brand, if consumers are confused about what a brand stands for, they’ll opt for the brand whose promise they understand.

Super Tuesday is upon us. Pundits are calling it the first national primary. I’m calling it a battle for the brands. From my BrandSimple perspective, the winner hands down will be Barack Obama. 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.

Second on my best branded list is John McCain. 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.

This leaves Hillary Clinton stuck in the middle, sort of between Coke and Pepsi. While she has plenty of supporters and just as many claims, she 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.

Whether they like to admit it or not, politicians are brands. Like all brands, they affix themselves to our psyches through “bumper sticker ideas.” Simple “sticky” associations we summon up whenever their names are mentioned. Nimble reductions of what they stand for with no details required. Whether we agree with a bumper sticker idea is not the point. It’s whether we “get it” and whether it’s gripping enough to stick.

For example, we got that FDR would give us a “new deal” and we got Reagan’s bumper sticker idea, cleverly posited as a question. “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Without a doubt, we also got – and continue to get – George W’s sticky idea. He likes the course he’s on. In fact, he’s stuck us with the notion that we’re “either on his side or the other side.” Which brings me to the inherent paradox created by bumper sticker ideas, whether they apply to political brands or traditional brands. Once they stick, it’s hard to peel them off mental bumpers. When people have your brand pegged one way or another, it’s hard to change their minds, whether you want to, or not.

So, what’s my advice for the political candidates of 2008? The easy part first. You need a brilliant bumper sticker idea. Given the way people think about brands, they’re required branding tools. The hard part? You need to get strategically focused and identify a simple promise people will care about for the long term.

None of this is rocket science. It’s plain and simple branding science. And while the obvious reality of all bumper sticker ideas is that there are no simple solutions to the complex issues they represent, they get our attention – for better or worse. So candidates, take heed. If you want people to “get it,” capture it in a bumper sticker idea. But before you do, make sure it’s something you’d like to be stuck with for the long term (or, at the very least, two terms).