Until Sarah Palin was selected, the Dems monopolized the imagery of the down-to-earth and every-day. Hillary “found her voice” when downing straight shots in working-class bars. The Democrats – party of working-class iconography by heritage – gagged on the brie-eating Obama until Biden renewed their street creds with his Irish-Catholic image of scrappy guy from Scranton and lunch-bucket constituency.
Now Sarah Palin confounds this imagery. She blurs the perceived gap between every-day Democrats and out-of-touch Republicans. Sarah Palin came from unremarkable background and serves macaroni and cheese to a hubby and five kids. She gives Biden, with his paunch and red tie, trouble saying that Republicans don’t hear Americans’ worries “around the kitchen table.”
This campaign will be a non-stop struggle to stake out meaningful differences via cheap shots and crude tactics. The Democrats have the easier time of it with this story line: The last eight years have been horrible. Bush is a nincompoop. A costly war and flagging economy comprise a solid case for change. The subtext is first African-American candidate and legions of (what my cousin calls) pants-wetting young supporters flocking to mystical cries for national renewal.
The Republicans – until Palin – have been all over the map in promoting their candidate. Now – with Palin – they are still all over the map, but they have a potentially powerful, differentiating case. Palin makes possible this winning brand story:
1 We are the same – same as you. Military brat and veteran McCain, and beautiful home-town Palin, fertile mom, and firebrand political reformer a la Jimmy Stewart and Mr. Deeds.
2 We are different – different from them. Different from Washington politicians (McCain as “maverick,” Palin as backwoods reformer). Obama is a wonk from Harvard, Biden a career Washington wind-bag and hack.
3 America is number one. The country is not in shambles, and Americans do not need or want to be like everyone else in the world. Though we screw up (Iraq) or over-reach (mortgage-backed bonds), we do so for constructive reasons. If we do wrong (racial prejudice), we correct it.
The potential winning line of this campaign – McCain to Obama:
“If you think America is a sad, declining, unjust country, just look in the mirror. You yourself are living proof of our greatness and justness as a people.”
brandsinger
16 comments:
Palin helping Number 3 is a giant stretch. The larger problem with Palin is that once you scratch the surface with Palin, you see that she is involved in a scandal with a state trooper, that she has no reform credentials; it's merely an assertion.
She's old school: she is a creationist who also thinks Alaska has enough oil to make the US energy independent. That is egregiously wrong, according to all known geological science. Then again, so is creationism!
Palin undercuts McCain's attempt to brand Obama as inexperienced. She has far less experience than he. However, perhaps McCain has polling that shows that this line of attack has not worked. (This is how strategic decisions are made in campaigns.)
VP vs. VP never truly plays out in campaigns. It's extremely secondary to the top of the ticket. And Biden comes from the middle middle class himself.
So your argument for Palin being reinforcing is, I think, too superficial. I could make a surface argument for a lot of candidates. That's only a part of politics that nonpolitico's add to the game.
Nonpolitico's DO have a lot to offer politics re: television production, and that has been happening in the last decade.
Thanks for your comment, Anonymous. Opening with Palin "is involved in a scandal with a state trooper" suggests that "anonymous" = Demo partisan. That's okay. It's probably your year to win. Enjoy the fruits of "change"... Just don't expect heaven on earth under a Democratic Washington. Brand promise must be backed up by brand delivery. We'll see.
Here's what I'd worry about if I were a Republican (you should live so long):
1. VP selections have a minuscule impact on the vote.
2. Brand management should be invisible. But the selection of Palin might appear as a blatant attempt at image-mongering, not as a representation of the party and its policies.
3. Despite Palin, the GOP still looks like the Buick Owners of America -- a group dominated by rich, old, white men. Like John McCain. Is that who voters want to be the same as?
4. A lot of Republican candidates for lesser offices are omitting party affiliation from their campaign materials, and for obvious reasons. McCain can't do that.
As a busy professional who doesn't have time to follow politics closely, this seems like a smart move. The naive brand voter in me (read: the majority of voters), buys into this positioning.
It softens up McCain's hard edge, or at least that's how it looks to me. The fact that she is unknown to me aides here, because I have no reason to doubt her image a this point.
The Biden choice was a "really??" for me. Since I'm familiar with his name from my pre-too busy for politics days. To me he represents the old system in a cantankerous package.
To me it's like going to Trader Joe's for fresh, organic, natural food and finding a section of the store devoted to Spam and Velveeta.
It's a brand weakener for me. I thought Obama was about change, about something different, hope for a brighter future. Not about foot in mouth partisan politics as usual. In my mind it removed the differentiation that made the Obama brand so strong.
Before:
- Obama: Professional, charismatic, agent of change, he's going to inspire us to build a better world together.
- McCain: Rouge maverick who doesn't care who he ticks off (Dems or Reps) in order for the best solution to get done.
Both are agents of change to the status quo, but Obama's message of inspiration seems like it's would be more effective. Once you tick everyone off, you don't get much done.
But now, with the VP's on the ticket, my naive brand voter now sees these choices:
- Obama/Biden: Inspiring agent of change trying to get us to work together for the better, but held back by having to keep the old guard happy. Wait, who's change are we pushing towards anyway? "Ours" or the Washington establishment's?
- McCain/Palin: The rogue agent of change working to find the best solution. Speaking into that change will be an empathetic voice for the people. McCain may tick people off in his quest, but he's got a people person there to help smooth things over. They seem to be for us, even if they have to buck the system for us.
Okay, it's all naive analysis based on a couple pictures and sound bites. But isn't that what the majority vote on anyway? Both sides promise similar things, so to the nominal voter, it's just a decision based on who they feel is really going to get it done.
In my mind, the VP choices flipped the brand winner.
In past past elections it has been pointed out that one of the most important decisions a candidate makes is choosing their running mate.
If the most important responsibility of the VP is to step in for the President, I would say the score is:
Obama 1, McCain 0
To give a sense how the progressive community will respond to McCain's choice I have included part of an email from moveon.org
___
Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.
Huh?
Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:
She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1
Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2
She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3
Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4
She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5
She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6
How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7
Sources:
1. "Sarah Palin," Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
2. "McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-4222456-GVqs8cx&t=1
3. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite," The Nation, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-4222456-GVqs8cx&t=2
4. "'Creation science' enters the race," Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-4222456-GVqs8cx&t=3
5. "Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science," Huffington Post, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-4222456-GVqs8cx&t=4
6. "McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-4222456-GVqs8cx&t=
5."Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-4222456-GVqs8cx&t=
6."Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-4222456-GVqs8cx&t=7
7."McCain met Palin once before yesterday," MSNBC, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13661-4222456-GVqs8cx&t=8
Jay and Mark - You guys rock!
I love Jay's observation that "the selection of Palin might appear as a blatant attempt at image-mongering" -- Good catch. Your advice is: Let's pander but not show it!
And Mark: Your line is inspired: The choice of Biden is "like going to Trader Joe's for fresh, organic, natural food and finding a section of the store devoted to Spam and Velveeta."
Are you a reader of HL Mencken? He wrote that choosing Calvin Coolidge for Pres was like a man before a table set for a royal banquet who stays his appetite by catching and eating flies.
Well, guys, keep the cards and letters coming. (But Mark, pls, keep it to cards. Novel-writing is a different medium.)
brandsinger
Jerry - Thanks, bro! (But are you trying to jam my blog? Be succinct. Simple is smart! Send me your voluminous footnotes by wagon train!)
Hey, and by the way, supporting the fiery and brilliant Pat Buchanan isn't automatically a strike against. Supporting John Edwards, now that's something to soft-pedal. "Two America's -- one faithful to their wives, one not."
brandsinger... (shortened to initials "bs")
Sorry for the lengthy footnotes, I was trying to artificially lengthen your comment stream.
I also began to feel your blog was in danger of focusing too much on brand issues ;-)
I do agree with your message that the country is not in shambles but Obama's message that "we are better than this" also strikes a chord with me.
As brand consultants, we rarely find our clients are in shambles but we always recommend ways they can do better.
Ha! - tou-chay, mon ami.
But one reminder: This year hundreds of millions of dollars is being spent in marketing politicians... Their brand strategies and messages have undeniable relevance here... and irresistible appeal to me.
Brandsinger will try not to over-indulge in political debate. We will turn to box-top branding issues shortly.
Enjoy this beee-yoo-ti-ful day.
With each stone thrown at Gov. Palin, a thousand American women voters feel the sting. "Not experienced enough" (How many women have heard this when passed over for jobs?). "Only local political experience" (How many women get to be mayors, let along governors?). The point is that, for many women in America, Hillary never really reflected their lives. No PTA. No five kids. No sun-blistered, working-class husband. She was merely the only woman in the game. Now, with Palin, we have the genuine article and the game has changed...in the GOP's favor. Watch the poll numbers move...
Hey Anonymous - You are obviously a sophisticated, experienced political strategist.
As I pointed out in the original post, branding in politics (as in other competitive realms) is about clear, compelling differentiation. McCain has tried to clarify what he stands for -- fighter-pilot, anti-establishment maverick. Palin as running mate is intended to reinforce that brand image.
If the plan was to redefine the Republican brand with a smart, gusty, outdoorsy outsider from Alaska, there's been quite a bit of noise in the past couple days that threatens those attempts. A trooper scandal. Membership in the Alaskan Independence Party. Complaints about inexperience and unreadiness. A pregnant teenage daughter. If anything, the Republican "brand" is being redefined--much against the Republicans' will--as the party that doesn't prepare well and makes rash, uninformed decisions. Call me a partisan if you will, but the vice presidential nominee should not be generating the most headlines, especially if those headlines are negative.
Hi Adam - Thanks for the cogent comment. Yes, you are a partisan. (..."a pregnant teenage daughter"... please spare us...) Negative headlines are a product of headline writers, no?
But you raise the central issue of the Republican brand. It no longer stands for caution, stability, responsibility as in olden days. The brand is being redefined since Bush's election -- and not at all in a positive, appealing light. Brand value has declined, no doubt.
A partisan I certainly am--but I was raising those issues (some of which might matter, and at least one of which--the daughter--definitely does not) not as objections to Palin but as noise that has threatened the relaunch of the Republican brand. Love 'em or hate 'em, the Republican Party has been a master of messaging strategy since at least 1994, when the Contract for America relaunched them as the "reform" party and put them in power. The Bush team also proved to be amazingly capable and efficient at controlling the topics of discussion and exercising great discipline in releasing messages that paint the party in the most positive light. That's why I am perplexed how the introduction of Sarah Palin could run off the rails so quickly. It's obvious that she was supposed to be the fresh, maverick, independent reformer that would be the new face of the Republican Party. So how did the McCain campaign let the messaging get away from them so quickly?
Quick answer, Adam: The introduction of SP obviously didn't "run off the rails." A snobbish media establishment tried to run it off the rails. After last night's speech, you can see that her candidacy is vibrant and firmly on track.
This will continue to be an entertaining and instructive election -- a very dramatic competition between two clearly differentiated political brands. Brandsinger will follow along closely with you.
And now that the dust settled it would be fun to wax philosophic about this in retrospect.
As it played out, the McCain/Palin ticket fell short on holding up to the motto of this site; "To thine own self be true."
Seems like they both sold out to try to win, and the message came through muddled, and people stopped buying into their maverick/reformer claims.
Of course if we take a step back from the branding angle... Historically, when the economy is in the tank, the incumbent doesn't win.
Post a Comment