On one hand, McCain’s decision to pick Sarah Palin as his vice president candidate was a genius marketing move. The Obama camp was telling a story about political change, and how John McCain would bring more of the same tried politics. People – especially in the Obama camp – were expecting McCain to pick a Mitt Romney or a Mike Huckabee for VP, and that would have fit the story of “more of the same”.

But McCain took that punchline away with one swift stroke. He changed the story.

For the next few days, people will concentrate less on “more of the same” but more on “bold choice”. If the story you’re telling isn’t working, tell a new story. And this is what makes this choice of VP a great marketing move. Kinda like running a great AD that gets a lot of buzz.

But the question is, where does the story go from here? Meaning what happens when the ad has run its course and people get to actually see the product. This is where this story turns into a potential marketing disaster. As some pundits have already noted, she’s unknown, woefully unqualified and a total mismatch for liberal Hillary voters, the voters she was presumably going to fetch. She also puts a damper on any accusations about Obama’s inexperience, the “other” story the republicans had going.

She’s a bold and very risky choice, but then again, a safe choice would have been playing right to the hands of the Obama camp.

We’ll see how the story goes from here.

This is old, but it deserves to be watched and rewatched. Enjoy.

I recently bought Robert Reich’s book “Supercapitalism”, which has been getting a lot of media coverage lately. Reich is a former minister from Clinton’s cabinet with some pretty interesting things to say. I haven’t read the book yet (have to get the thesis out of the way first), but this review by Lawrence Lessig made my buy the book from Amazon. From Lessig’s review:

As I said there, we need to understand the nature of the corporation — to make money — and come to love it, and yet, to keep it in its proper place, just as you can love a tiger, but know that it’s not the sort of thing that should play with your kid. [...] Corporations are not more efficient governments. They are instead increasingly efficient money making machines. And while there’s nothing at all wrong with money making machines — indeed, wealth and growth depends upon them — there is something fundamentally wrong with trusting these machines to restrain the drive for profits in the name of doing the right thing. The cushion that enabled that in the past (relatively limited competition) is gone. The job of GM is even more now to make money for GM.

I’ve been thinking about this lately. It is indeed true that a corporation’s sole purpose is to generate maximum profit, but is this really in contradiction with doing “the right thing”? As Holt argues in “How Brands Become Icons” (and his academic articles), brands that manage to make themselves into being “more than about making money”, i.e. being about some higher cause or mission, are the ones that become iconic. In other words, the most successful brands (and most likely most profitable) are the ones who … don’t aim to maximize profits – at least in the short term. Google is a good example; they’ve done a good job of managing their “do no evil” image (although the murmurs are getting louder every day) by investing billions in environmental initiatives and by creating an organizational culture that fosters innovation and playfulness by allowing initiatives that on the surface seem crazy and downright wasteful (Google Copernicus, anyone?) Apple has resisted short term profiteering by keeping their product line relatively narrow and I think that as a company they really are about something else than maximizing profits, call it “Think Different” if you will. Both Google and Apple enjoy extremely high stock prices at least partially because of their way of doing things.

This makes for an interesting situation. I think Reich is absolutely right in saying that we shouldn’t expect for brands to do the right thing, but in my opinion brands do better when they actively resist maximizing profits – especially in the long term. Of course, this only applies to identity and consumer brands, I don’t see how ExxonMobile would do any better than their current obscene profit margins by doing the right thing.

I don’t think it’s that big of a secret anymore that presidential candidates in the United States (and over here in Europe, too) are managed almost as closely as some major corporate brands, probably even more so. All the top candidates have numerous aides and political strategists who constantly monitor voter reactions and manage their candidates accordingly. Sometimes it works (like with Bush in 2000 and 2004 and Clinton before him), sometimes it backfires (Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004), but it’s something that all serious candidates have to partake in.

Hillary Clinton is probably the most “managed” candidate of the presidential hopefuls still in the running. She has had a mountain to climb in selling herself as a serious candidate with an agenda, and not just being “Bill’s wife”, and she has done so quite successfully. But the thing is, I think her brand management may be going a bit too far, in that it’s starting to put voters off because she is so obviously playing to the crowd. For instance, take this video from the Daily Show:

Douglas Holt has an absolutely brilliant article called “Why do brands cause trouble?”, which sheds some light on the current anti-brand movement (such as Adbusters and why Naomi Klein’s “No Logo” was such a huge hit). Holt argues that brands and marketers in general are in a sort of arms race with consumers. As time passes, consumers become more media-savvy when it comes to marketers’ marketing efforts. The natural consequence is of course that once people realize HOW the marketers are trying to convince them of their products’ superiority, they become more immune to the tactics and eventually start to resent these marketing tactics and companies that engage in them. Or put it this way: once one politician goes for the baby-kissing gag, it will lose its effect each time it’s done over and eventually be resented as an obvious ploy for votes. For example, saturation of old marketing tactics, such as TV and magazine advertising, has lead to the rise of guerrilla marketing and other unconventional media. These media face, of course, a similar fate as TV and magazines as they become more saturated with competition and people become more conscious and simply bored of these tactics. One of the key findings of Holt is that consumers have become very anti-corporate as a result, which I will come back to later.

I think a similar phenomenon is happening in presidential branding. As the Daily Show clip illustrates, people and members of the media are very much aware that Hillary was essentially told by her strategists that she needs to laugh more because she’s considered too serious. Hillary’s not the only one, of course, (I saw a similar clip of Rudy Guliani) but as she was the Democrat front runner up until last week she probably held under closer scrutiny. It goes without saying that all these exposés on presidential candidates’ branding tactics reflect negatively on the candidates, because it makes them seem calculative, inauthentic and power-hungry. Which brings me to my point as to why I think Barack Obama has played his cards right up to now and why his surge in the polls could be due to his campaigning that reads like a good example of Cultural Branding.

As points out in his Cultural Branding theory, iconic brands originate from “populist worlds”, worlds removed from the cultural, political and commercial elite, which gives them considerable credibility and authenticity. If people on the “outskirts of society” accept a brand as a part of their ethos, the brand will seem authentic for the normal consumer as well (think Hell’s Angels and their relationship with Harley Davidson or punk rockers and Converse shoes in the late 70s’). I think Barack Obama qualifies here. His rise to political superstardom started from his great speech in 2004 after John Kerry’s loss, he was sort of “swooped up” into the presidential race, sort of like how a brand can be “discovered” and championed by influential users. He’s also relatively unknown as a freshman politician, where as Hillary is a Capitol Hill fixture and in many ways synonymous with politics. Obama may not be ideal in his populist world credibility, but he’s certainly better than anybody out there thanks to his “untaintedness”.

Another key aspect of Cultural Branding is that a brand needs to convey a sense of “purpose” other than the obvious of making money to retain their iconic status. This relates heavily to the anti-corporate attitude I mentioned earlier. People love to attack big brands (sometimes unfairly) when they engage in activity that they deem not supporting the brand’s “ideal” or even profiteering. Similarly, I think that a presidential candidate needs to show that he/she is in the presidential race not only because of some selfish, power-hungry motif. Vanity Fair had a great piece on the media’s perception on Al Gore in the 2000 election, in which the writer, Evgenia Peretz, argues that Gore lost in part because he looked like…

“[a] wonk so desperate to become president he’ll do or say anything, even make stuff up. It complemented perfectly the other son of a politician [Bush] running for president: irresistible frat boy who, when it came to the presidency, could take it or leave it.”

Similar rethoric can be found in this election, regarding Hillary Clinton, from Obama himself:

Sensing what he calls the “fierce urgency of now” – a line borrowed from Martin Luther King Jr – Mr Obama contrasts his motivation to be president with that of his nameless rival. “I am not running for president because I believe it is somehow owed to me or because I think it’s my turn,” Mr Obama says. “[I am running because] I believe we are on the cusp of building a new majority in America.” The applause spills over into whoops of enthusiasm.

I think that most political strategists have failed to see that because of their overtly image-obsessive tactics have been exposed, much like advertising tactics of old, people are more likely to ignore them and react negatively to them. It’s a time for authenticity and “underdogs” who speak in a rebel’s voice, as Holt puts it. Barack Obama has managed to avoid the lens of pundits like Jon Stewart for now, but as he’s become the clear front runner, he’s bound to be scrutinized more and he’s also bound to lose some of his challenger appeal. But to me it feel that Obama’s team has been micromanaging him less, unlike Hillary’s team, which makes him more authentic, and as it seems, more iconic.