Dear CMO:
Politics and products both have the same needs, but live in different time frames. Where one is a sprint with a finish line – usually an election -- the other exists freely in space, proving its relevance over an extended period of time. This makes drawing parallels between the branding of politicians and of brands particularly difficult, because what works for a presidential nominee won’t necessarily work for your breakfast cereal or blogging platform. However, certain unalienable rights still exist: both need clear propositions, both need to be differentiated, and both need breakthrough.
Let’s look at the marketing of the current election in purely “influence”-laden terms:
Barack Obama = “Liking”
We choose to like Barack Obama because he is appealing to us. He plucks certain chords of optimism, of “change” and “hope,” and returns frequently to America’s love affair with “new.” We like new things here. We have a short attention span as a nation and a culture. Even if things are going well, there’s a certain gravitational pull of “new” that appeals to us, where in other cultures it might be seen as a negative. Here, it works.
John McCain = “authority”
We choose to like John McCain because we look up to him. We see him as an authority figure who has suffered for his country and has put it first for his entire adult life. We see experience, dedication, and leadership – all things we look for in a commander in chief. We like performance in America, and he delivers against this desire.
If we view our election in terms of the vocabulary we’re developing around Killing Giants, we have a different competitive view of each candidate:
Barack Obama = “Aikido”
Obama chooses to use his opponent’s strength against him, portraying “experience” – his own Achilles Heel – as a negative. The Obama strategy suggests “experience” = “old” = “not new” = “out of touch.” As he said in his acceptance speech, “John McCain… just doesn’t get it.”
John McCain = “Show Your Teeth”
McCain says bring it on. Let’s compare qualifications. Coke versus Pepsi. I’ve done it, you haven’t. Where Obama runs an adroit flanking maneuver, McCain launches a frontal assault.
What makes this election that much more complex, particularly in terms of these two views, is that the choices of running mates both aim squarely at the opponent’s strategy:
Joe Biden is running on authority, McCain’s strength and Obama’s weakness. As a matter of public record, Biden is the only Senator in Washington who has served longer than McCain, which muddles the argument of “experience versus inexperience” for the Republicans.
Sarah Palin, a relative unknown on the national stage, has burst out of the starting gates and seized both “liking” and “aikido” from her opponents -- Obama’s strength and McCain’s weakness. She’s smart, accomplished, funny, attractive, and very human. And, not for nothing, she’s a she: by attacking her, the Democrats further drive a wedge through their own party, half of whom are still smarting from the absence of Hillary Clinton on the ticket. Further, her perceived “inexperience” is a trap: she’s served in public life as long as Obama has, and in an executive capacity, both as a mayor and a governor of a state. She’s the physical embodiment of our “Thin Ice” strategy – leading her opponents out over the thin ice of her own making.
Forget the politics of the above. I couldn’t care less who you want to vote for or whether you have an opinion at all. This is a fascinating series of events, and holds tremendous messaging, marketing, and communication lessons for all of us.
Regards.
PS: if you haven't seen the discussion over at The Daily Fix, analyzing the messaging of each candidate's acceptance speeches, take a look -- the Dem's are already hashed out, and the GOP will be up on Friday. Thanks, CK, for organizing and providing the graphic, above, too.
0 comments:
Post a Comment