|
America has a troubling brand portfolio quandary. Internationally, it seems America is a branded house, with the parent brand operating from the position “military strength.” Domestically, America strikes me as a house of brands, in which each sub-brand (i.e. state) is not necessarily chained to the militaristic meaning of the American parent brand.
Within the U.S., it is not uncommon for people to associate themselves more strongly with a particular state brand rather than a national identity. People often relocate because they identify with states with favorable brand positions, relative to their identity and aspirations. This is not merely a divide between conservative politics and liberal politics. California is a perfect example in which both conservatives and liberals are willing to admit that California is, in many ways, a country of its own. It is common to see houses which fly the state flag rather than the U.S. flag.
Surely most people have a preference for state pride in the context of national identity, but how far away are we, as U.S. citizens, from placing our preference for state brands above the American brand? Will the messaging and iconography of America’s “war on terror” brand become so dominant that we will begin to see America solely as a necessary, but odious military contractor?
Much has been made of the upcoming presidential election as the potential re-launch of “brand America.” If presidential approval ratings are indicators of public opinion about America’s brand manager, we’re clearly ready for a new one.
Is it possible that the only way to fix “brand America” is to reconcile the split brand strategy we seem to have between our international and domestic positions? What ought to come first is a reformation of a national identity which we then feel confident in offering to the world.
**to read more articles by Eric Raymond, click on his name under the headline**
 |
