360DigitalInfluence

Branding and politics in America have been inextricably linked since the founding of the Republic – long before “branding” was even a well-defined concept or discipline.  “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too” evoked in a single poetic phrase and song the powerful image of military hero William Henry Harrison and the well-known John Tyler on a single ticket, carrying them to victory in the 1840 presidential election.

Albert Lasker a well-known and successful advertising man, played a pivotal role (albeit well-hidden) in packaging and selling the candidacy of Warren Harding in 1920, resulting in the election of arguably America’s least qualified and least successful president. 

In 1969 Joe McGinnis published the “Selling of the President” describing in detail how Richard Nixon was “marketed” and “sold” to the American people by a cynical group of advertising people much like a bar of soap.  The book caused a minor sensation reinforcing doubts many had about Nixon’s trustworthiness.

Perhaps the best use of branding principles and tools was the 2008 campaign of Barack Obama.  Using a thoroughly 21^st Century approach to branding, his campaign captured the themes of Hope and Change in a way that resonated with millions of new voters and traditionally independent-minded Americans and propelled him to a very unlikely victory.

When it came to governing, however, the Obama team has apparently jettisoned the branding approach – either by design or by terrible mistake.  Rather than wrapping the significant achievements of the first 18 months of his Administration in the themes of renewal and change, he has settled for a communications strategy that lurches from issue to issue, with no discernable thread tying it all together.

In the absence of the appearance of a coherent strategy, opponents on the right and the left have filled the vacuum with their own interpretations – he’s a socialist; he’s a corporate sellout, etc…

Had the Administration wrapped their major initiatives – stimulus, health care reform, financial reform, energy legislation – in the language of brands, it would have blunted the impact of the relentless attacks and delivered on the brand promise of his campaign.

Instead, many of the attacks have stuck; the significance of the achievements has been misunderstood and diminished and the Democrats’ majority in Congress looks increasingly in jeopardy.

Capitalizing on the Administration’s failure to brand its approach to governing has been a rag tag bunch of malcontents, cranks and fringe players who would have been largely dismissed by the media and pundits of all stripes had they not discovered their own powerful brand positioning as the “Tea Party.” 

Had they decided to reclaim the brand of a similar “movement” in the 1850s – the Know Nothings – or a more recent incarnation as the John Birch Society they likely would have been written off as fringe players so far outside the mainstream as to deserve contempt but not coverage.

However, by evoking the image of the Founding Fathers, Sam Adams and the American Revolution and wrapping themselves in the Constitution, they captured the attention of the media who have bestowed a level of credibility on what is likely a moment, not a movement.

But like all good brands, the Tea Party struck a chord and filled a need with a portion of the population – anger, frustration, anti-Washington and anti-establishment.  The question now is will it have staying power – to the election and beyond. 

As all marketing practitioners know, the worst thing you can do for a lousy product is great branding.  Great branding will lead consumers to try your product and if it disappoints they will be driven away and very hard to lure back.

Come January, those voters full of anger and captured by the allure of the Tea Party brand may find themselves terribly disappointed by the actual brand experience. That disappointment would likely land the Tea Party brand in the dustbin of history beside the Know Nothings and the John Birch Society.