A given brand promises to deliver exactly what consumers need. That brand appears to truly reflect those consumers’ passions. It demonstrates value, empathy and the chance for genuine choice, consistency or change.
The brand presents its cause through polished advertising, marketing and so on – all designed to show steadiness, lucidity and most importantly, understanding with its targeted group of consumers.
In other words, ‘Everything we do, we it for YOU.’
From the consumers’ point of view, the vital thing is that, given the presumption that the brand’s services or goods are of a high enough quality, the ‘YOU’ in the brand’s slogan, accurately reflects the ‘ME’ in the consumers’ mind.
Any seed of doubt through a lack of transparency, and so tangible value, leaves the all too often promiscuous consumer seeking an alternative brand offering a similar service or range of goods with greater depth, practical use and meaning.
From top to toe
All brand values must be sincere and embraced by everyone directly connected with the brand’s ethos. This is especially important for the brand’s figurehead.
In the UK Labour party’s case, that brand ethos is captured in the slogan:
‘A future fair for all.”
Throughout the political campaign leading to the May general election, as with all the party leaders, the Labour’s figurehead – Gordon Brown presented what his team planned as a carefully managed platform.
The campaign was designed to encourage the electorate – through a series of policies offering to improve the nation’s circumstances.
Debates offered the opportunity to slickly, and with humility, summarise such policies as well as enthuse the electorate through a leadership approach.
embedded by Embedded Video
The recent gaffe, in which the PM was caught privately calling Gillian Duffy, a 65 year old potential voter, a ‘bigot’ simply for asking what she thought was a reasonable question regarding immigration, shows a chink in the hitherto albeit shakey but reasonably consistent brand message.
With less than 200 hours left until the actual election, that PR blunder is potentially disastrous for the Labour brand.
Firstly, it throws out the eagerly anticipated political gaffe ‘bone’ that the press pack has been baying for during the last month.
Secondly it offers a huge electorate perception gap that opposing political brands such as the Conservatives, can quickly step in to fill for a voting public which, according to the polls, is so confused that currently it is more than happy for the political parties to hang themselves.
Thirdly it goes spectacularly against what every great brand must deliver: empathy with the ordinary working class (essential to Labour’s demographic) man or woman in the street.
For example, Mrs Dufy, said:
“He’s supposed to be leading the country and he’s calling an ordinary woman who’s come up and asked questions that most people would ask him… It’s going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this national debt, and he’s calling me a bigot.”
Once a brand’s kinship with its core market is lost , everything else suddenly becomes jeopardised.
Pictures of a bewildered elderly lady insulted by the Prime Minister become spread throughout the land quicker than you can say, “Twitter”.
MP3 recordings of the PM’s gaffe become top of the iPod pops…
All the Mr and Mrs, Jones and of course Duffys, start thinking ‘well, the brand says one thing but, based on the contrary evidence I think it actually believes something else’.
A vital final ‘last chance to pitch a brand promise’ debate becomes hijacked by a leader’s own perturb.
So what could/should Labour do?
Classically – apologise – which he has. But it must be a strong apology, delivered with modesty. Backed with simple clarification of what the true Labour brand message and values are.
Once a positive message is clarified and steps are publicly seen to rectify any misunderstandings and clarify true intents, the brand can begin to recover.
However, an apology alone – worst still one that sounds more of a desperate confession than a rational admission of human error- can actually weaken the brand.
In this case, Mr Brown said:
” I’m a penitent sinner”.
Not exactly the words of a positive leader one week away from renewing his morning milk delivery orders.
On the other hand, to the brand’s favour, within hours of Mr Duffy’s complaint, the press reported that she was being represented by by a public relations agent and would not be giving any further comment that evening on her dealings with the prime minister.
(Now who is manipulating who?)
What not to wear on your sleeves
What a brand must not do is attempt to spin itself out of situation – especially blaming others or worst still, name calling – as in the case of Mr Prescott’s response to ‘Duffygate’:
“Yet again, the dying Murdoch empire is doing all it can to influence a British election. First, Murdoch’s News of the World editor Andy Coulson joined Cameron – to use the same tricks for the Conservatives that his old newspaper employed.
“Then the Sun came out for the Tories during our conference. What an effect that had! The Tories have seen their poll rating go from 41% poll to 33%!
So then the News of the World backed the Tories. Effect? Nothing!Murdoch’s son James and News International head (and former Sun Editor) Rebekah Brooks then resorted to bullying the editor of the Independent (oh, the irony) in his own office to stop him criticising daddy!
But today, the Murdoch family reached a new low in their desperate attempt to turn the election for the Tories. News International’s Sky News broadcast a private conversation between Gordon and his staff.”
Such a move by Mr Prescott only serves to exacerbate a situation, creating even greater confusion in a voter’s (consumer’s) mind.
Labour’s brand slogan, ‘A future fair for all’ suggests that everyone has the right to ask the advocates of such a promise questions.
As with life, not all answers will be liked.
However, just as with all other brands, not all parties can please everyone – neither should they. (We live in a democracy offering choice to suit different tastes and needs).
As the closing days approach, it is more crucial than ever for any political party to deliver a clear and consistent message that is understood and practiced by everyone: from the very top to the humble helper who switches on and off public microphones.
- A fair and timelessly classical vote winner for any brand.
Jonathan Gabay
www.brandforensics.co.uk
Wednesday, April 28th, 2010 at 10:05 pmand is filed under 2010 election branding, 2010 election campaigning, Conservative party branding, david cameron brand, Gordon brown brand, political branding, Politics, politics on twitter. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.