Unbound Edition - Brand Obama: Unchanging Change?

We've avoided politics, largely, until now, when there is a question of brand to explore. Much has been said already about "Brand Obama" and "Brand Clinton," and which is more compelling or divisive to the Democratic party. That's not a question I'll approach to answer here, but I would like to ask which of the two is actually a brand at all.

From the glancing perspective, Obama seems the clear winner: consistent message of "change," compelling graphics of "capital-O openness" that infer a new sunrise for America, and, by most measures, a spokesman-candidate that is a rhetorician for the ages.

Hillary Clinton's campaign looks like, well, a political campaign. The packaging is anything but new, and the message has changed over time. Everything about her "maneuvers" and "positions" to be what she needs to be to win. This approach has its drawbacks and staunch critics.

But, as we have argued in the past, brands aren't about window-dressing; they are about operations. FedEx might brilliantly present "midnight blue to daylight orange" and the forward motion of a white arrow in their logo, but the real promise of worry-free overnight delivery comes down to things much less fancy. Logistics. Labor relations. Weather forecasting.

If Obama represents the sweeping idea of "change" and a "new day" -- and if Clinton is coming across as "politics as usual," as critics would have it -- then we must ask: why aren't the political operations of Obama's campaign keeping the promise of change? Why is he running as a Democrat? Why is he part of the broken two-party system?

Wouldn't brand Obama be stronger and more authentic if he were to activate change...and run as an Independent candidate, giving Hillary Clinton the platform of "usual" politics? Wouldn't Obama, in such a move, be showing change, not just speaking it? Wouldn't he, win or lose, create national change by legitimizing a third party? And, wouldn't he save the American people from the torturous process now underway? Isn't Hillary Clinton's brand of political wiggling better aligned with the operations of the Democratic Party?

If Obama is change - if he is a new day - why not operationalize this promise now, and prove just how strong Brand Obama is, independent of the structures he wants to do away with?

From this view, Clinton has the truer brand, one more aligned between what it presents and how it operates. Obama is window-dressing. Which will prove more convincing in the end will tell us much about how much the American people are willing to be "sold."

Not so sure...
written by E.R., March 25, 2008 07:28 PM

It's an interesting reading, but I'm not entirely sold. I think step one towards change is making sure you get into a position that will afford you the opportunity to work for change. Indy candidates lose., and why would anyone sensible about a revolution start with a classic American handicap?

It's not as if FedEx decided to overcome the obstacles of worldwide next day delivery by investing in R&D for teleportation devices... they worked within the pragmatic constraints of the system. Did they revolutionize private delivery? Some would say so. At worst, they shook up the industry a little and inspired healthy competition.

And I'd be satisfied with that outcome. He doesn't have to start a revolution.

E.

E.

Great question
written by Damp, March 25, 2008 07:39 PM

And one I've not heard posed, despited my following political coverage hourly. I agree Obama's change message would resonate even more strongly were he an independent candidate, and I agree such a move could legitimize third party candidacies (a necessary step, I believe, for real progress). I'm anxious to read the future comments. It's an interesting hypothetical, and I'm embarrassed to say I know nothing of the rules regarding third party candidacies. Excuse me while I go find my high school civics text...

put a poll in the field
written by Ross, March 25, 2008 08:44 PM

I’d love to see polling on whether current Obama supporters would be more or less likely to support him had he ran as an independent. I think we’d be surprised. Lieberman’s supporters, mostly registered democrats or centrist republicans, broke from their party in voting him in. And although hardly scientific, a sampling of my friends under 40 is overwhelmingly independent or libertarian. Imagine what someone with Obama’s charisma and vision could achieve by piecing together an a la carte platform from the best Democratic and Republican ideas. The two parties are colored by their most extreme policies, and to join one now means to reject the other in its entirety. That’s ridiculous. And as long as we associate third party candidates with the extremes of the spectrum rather than the political center, we’ll be stuck with the status quo.

...
written by bkostl, March 25, 2008 09:16 PM

In theory, this sounds great. But I'm not sure how much of a chance he'd have as an independent. Per ER's comment, I think he needs to gain power before he can operationalize a promise of change in any significant way. Sadly I don't think the bulk of American voters are ready to elect an independent just yet, no matter how charismatic or qualified he or she might be.

Love him or hate him, here is a very interesting perspective on Obama's brand:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/124/the-brand-called-obama.html

my point exactly
written by Patrick, March 25, 2008 09:40 PM

ER and BKO - so he has to change by *not* changing. I don't get it.
And FedEx did anything but work within the system. Delivery was not overnight or private -- it was several days, governmental, and land based. FedEx took to the skies.

I suspect Obama's charisma is big enough to pull the voters from the Party to establish something new -- that's his promise, anyway. If he is not strong enough to do that, how can he be strong enough to 'change' the political framework you suggest he should stay in?

...
written by bkostl, March 25, 2008 11:12 PM

I agree Obama's message of "change" is little more than slick rhetoric at this point. But sometimes you have to work within the confines of an arguably flawed system to make change over the long haul.

I guess Obama running as an independent would be one surefire way to elect McCain, which depending on one's perspective might be a good thing. Looking at the numbers of both the delegates and popular vote, many pundits like David Brooks argue Hillary needs a small miracle to win the nomination anyway - even after she wins Pennsylvania, which is very likely. So I'm not sure how committing political suicide in the name of change and taking his Democratic opponent down with him would help Obama change anything, other than the Democrats' chances at winning the presidency.

To late now, but could have been something
written by Ross Perot, March 25, 2008 11:56 PM

It's a cool hypothetical. After some additional thought, I think an independant run (though now an impossibility) would have been a strategic masterpiece. To paraphrase Patrick, change never comes from within. How many of the 13-14 million Americans who recently voted for Obama did so primarily because he's a Democratic candidate? His current base doesn't entirely self-identify with democrats (they're libertarians), but currently has no other alternative to the republicans. College-educated, upper middle class whites and young professionals share some liberal ideas with Clinton's elderly and blue collar supporters, but they're more willing to follow a charismatic leader across party lines. Dissatisfaction with the Republican Administration and Democratic Congress are at record lows. Obama would have been able to more aggressively contrast his platform with both parties' candidates. He could have lumped both Hilary and McCain together by their war votes and old guard "experience", which he can't do as effectively as a fellow Dem. And shedding the Democratic label might have helped Obama gain the moderate Repubs who just can't convince themselves to vote for Clinton's party. If recent primaries are any indication, minorities would have responded to his candidacy.

My 60-year-old parents, who have voted Republican in every election for which they've been eligible, are passionate supporters of Obama. That's evidence enough of a paradigm shift. They see McCain as Republican lite, Hillary as a true Democrat, and Barack as the alternative. He could have given that alternative a new name. Third Party candidacies are losers until they aren't.

not politics
written by jim s., March 26, 2008 05:23 AM

the point, as i read it, isn't about any possible political reality but rather about the alignment of brand promise and brand operations. with that premise, the argument is completely sound. obama is packaged, but not a brand. hillary is a brand, though one we might not really want. at least in the latter case we would know that we are getting a weasel.

from what i can tell
written by lady humps, March 26, 2008 09:52 AM

is this the same post as Kevin's Maytag repair man "mein kampf"? seems that when spokespeople make promises and operations don't deliver, brand collapse under their own weight.

Obama = Maytag Repair Man, Reality Version

the lady shall hump neither of them.

"sometimes you have to work within the confines of an arguably flawed system to make change over the long haul."
written by bp, March 26, 2008 10:29 AM

Patrick, where have I heard that before? ;-)

Honestly, I really like this idea, and it would be a great thing for the country...but only if he could win. After watching my team lose in the NCAA, I'm over moral victories. At the end of the day, they are just losses and don't affect any real change. At most they are a baby step, and we are way beyond the need for a baby step right now.

Unfortunately, we have a rigged system, and we have to operate within this reality. Jackie Robinson could have tried to be the best player in an alternative league to MLB, but would that really have affected the change that needed to occur? Don't think so.

While it would be great to establish a true third party, it won't happen this time. At least not now. The change Obama can make is change for the Democratic party. Get it back to where it once was. Right now, we really have two sides of the same coin. There's little difference between the GOP and the DNC and the greatest fraud perpetrated on the populace is that we have a choice. They are the same. Obama can change that. He can give us a true alternative. Not taking money from lobbyist and hearing him speak up for the working class and point out that corporations are the ones actually "taking your job", not immigrants or people different than you (in this speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU, is a good start.

The change starts from within.

not my question
written by Patrick, March 26, 2008 11:38 AM

Politics aside: can Brand Obama be aligned with the Democratic Party? Are promise and operations even able to align here for success? I'm making, I hope, a brand point, not a political one.

I say no
written by Damp, March 26, 2008 12:21 PM

Politics aside, true brand and party alignment, as Hillary has, is impossible for Obama the Democrat. That's why Kerry, Kennedy & Dodd, whose brands are all perfectly aligned with the party, have done little to boost Obama's polling numbers with their endorsements. Their attempt to coopt the Obama Brand under the Democratic umbrella is the political equivalent of aging parents using teen slang. Like when the Republicans say theirs is a wide tent. Nonsense.

The traditional democratic constituency is middle or working class. Obama's (which he pulls from both moderate dems and republicans) are independant, highly educated, wealthy professionals or young idealists looking for a new kind of politician. They'll support the candidate's party, not the party's candidate. Brand Obama is positioned not around the issues that define the democrat or republican parties (abortion, healthcare), but around the methods of governance (transparency and bipartisanship). Thus, he should have launched a new party better aligned with his brand, and invited in like-minded politicians, regardless of the issues, from either party. Association with the Democratic party, and its existing subbrands, is causing confusion.

...
written by jadedindependent, March 26, 2008 01:35 PM

"Thus, he should have launched a new party better aligned with his brand, and invited in like-minded politicians, regardless of the issues, from either party."

But would the media have taken him seriously? They help perpetuate the two-party model, intentionally or not. And without an affiliation with the traditional power base of the Democratic party, would he have gotten this far, raised as much money, gotten as much air time, or even the support of the chesty Obama Girl? Would blowhard pundits have even bothered debating his level of blackness?

I would like to think so (except for that last part), but I'm still skeptical. I agree that Obama would be better aligned philosophically and operationally with the Independent party. I'm just not sure enough people are willing to vote for an independent candidate because they see it as a wasted vote.

I voted Perot and Nader in past elections. (I think either one would have been disastrous in hindsight). And I still think the two-party system is horribly flawed. But if a candidate with Independent-like philosophies can win under the banner of the Dems (or Republicans, even), I’m all for it.

“I'm making, I hope, a brand point, not a political one.”

“why not operationalize this promise now, and prove just how strong Brand Obama is, independent of the structures he wants to do away with?”

When this is the question, how can we separate the two? It’s a solid, fascinating academic argument to explore, but when aligning promise and operations to the degree that it is likely sabotage you’re chances of actually winning, and thereby your ability to implement real change, what’s the point? Especially when you’re in the lead over your party opponent!

What about Brand Democrat?
written by South of Reno, March 26, 2008 02:33 PM

Aren't the primaries also about renegotiating, redefining and repositioning the brands of each of the parties? Presumably, the Obama campaign finds value in Brand Democrat, and must have a strategy for revitalizing that brand; indeed, Brand Obama is already inextricably bound to the Democratic party.

What I know about operations comes from watching the fundraising email campaigns: Obama's invitations to join over a million contributors vs. the Clintons' (Hillary's, Bill's, Chelsea's) pleas to help out Hillary against Obama's massive spending advantage; Obama's offer of a chance to dine with him in a small setting vs. the Clintons' (just Hillary and Chelsea, so far) offer of a chance to meet Hillary at an Elton John concert (and you'll get to meet Sir Elton John, too!).

Which is the right question: "What can Brand Democrat do for Brand [Obama/Clinton]?" or "What can Brand [Obama/Clinton] do for Brand Democrat?"

Are the parties strong brands?
written by Mitch, March 26, 2008 03:06 PM

I disagree, South. The parties, like strong corporate brands, should emphasize consistency and STOP redefining and watering their brands down every election year. Dems and Repubs are trying to make their tents big enough for more and more people, and in the process, they've lost brand meaning. Do wealthy fiscal conservatives and poor social conservatives really have any policy needs in common? Why do they both vote Republican? There was talk about a Republican split after Bush did little for the social conservatives, despite his promises. I'm all for it. Make political brands smaller and more meaningful again, and you'll see less voter apathy. And national candidates will truly need to negotiate and bring people together.

mitch!
written by lady humps, March 26, 2008 05:34 PM

the lady will now hump mitch. smart is zexy.

...
written by ts, March 26, 2008 08:50 PM

I don't know. The parties are a convention of the DNC and the RNC - the operatives who want to be in power without risking anything to have power.

I see the parties as simple corridors to the offices that can affect change. You could choose the Independent corridor or the Democratic corrider or the Republican corridor - in business terms that's like deciding to approach an Angel investor, VC's or fund your company yourself. (and, to be clear - the number of swing voters would indicate that loyalty to the corridors is largely an illusion except on the fringes). Bottom line: you've got to get yourself in business.

Ultimately an election is not about party dominance or changing the electoral process but about leadership of a nation. I would argue that Obama's Change mantra is less about his "brand" and more about a rallying cry.

One would hope that his persona, his range and the extent of his leadership abilities are far more complex than a simple brand promise - in today's world, that's the price of entry for a global leader.

interesting
written by Patrick, March 26, 2008 11:34 PM

intriguing to think Obama is bigger than a brand, ts. we certainly wouldn't talk about lincoln or kennedy as brands, they are something writ much larger on our consciousness. that clinton seems more readily a brand may reveal a lot.

Right on, ts.
written by MMP, March 27, 2008 10:53 AM

The day that both parties' campaign consultants/handlers can stop thinking about marketing their candidates and start thinking about ways for candidates to assert their leadership and prove to voters their ability to address the extremely serious issues the U.S. and the world are facing--that will be a very good day. ~ mmp