By: Susan Payton

Susan Payton — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:38:31 +0000

Charityslave–
Thanks for the tremendous comment! I’m glad you “get it.”

By: charityslave

charityslave — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:36:16 +0000

I’m not in the advertising or marketing industry, but I do have a few thoughts on the Obama brand.
Obama’s message of “Change” is one of the most successful examples of branding in political history. It was made possible by the intersection of pent up demand in the marketplace and an effective supplier.
On the demand side we had a nation that has had 8 years of extremely poor leadership and has an obvious need for new direction. The desire for change is at historic highs, as evidenced by Bush’s lowest ever favorability rating.
On the supply side we have a man who difference is obvious. His political affiliation, intellectual approach, tone of campaign, class, name, and of course, color are diametric opposites to the previous leadership. He literally embodies change. The medium is indeed the message.
The success of this branding became more and more apparent when Obama’s two main rivals attempted to co-opt the “Change” message. Hillary Clinton used two slogans, “Change we Need” and “Working for Change”, to little avail. And of course McCain’s “Change We Can Believe In” was also rejected by the voters. But here is another reason why this brand was so effective. Because Obama had relatively little experience on the national stage his brand turned this weakness into a strength. Unlike Hillary and McCain, he had no record to run against. He was new, unscarred, somehow purer. People did not have much of an idea of how he would lead based on his past record. But because they’re desire for change outweighed their fear of failure, voters embraced his message.
The McCain team attempted to rebrand Obama shifting “Change” to “the Other” with their “Do we really know who Obama is” meme. This allowed interent rumors to flourish (Is he a US citizen? Secretly Islamic? Radical? Terrorist? Curiously, they skipped “Liberal?” and went right to “Socialist?”).
McCain, or to be more precise, McCain’s advisers, attempted one last play to co-opt the change brand with the selection of Sarah Palin. Here was a funhouse mirror reflection of Obama. She symbolized change in that she is a woman, but was an uber-conservative anti-intellectual who espoused views that no major party nominee for nationwide office has backed for thirty years. She was colloquial. Familiar and different at the same time. Only the Republican true believers bought into this brand.
So what is the future for the Obama change brand? Barak Obama has built up an enormous reservoir of political capital through his shrewd use of his brand. Because the economic crisis has blurred the tradition roles of Republicans and Democrats, the opposition is amorphous and undefined. If Obama can take the initiative and be seen as successful in the opening months of his presidency, his mandate for change will be almost unprecedented. He will truly have a chance to place his presidency beside that of Lincoln and FDR. Now that’s change I can believe in.

Comments on: The Branding of Obama

By: Susan Payton

By: charityslave