Rumours are rife as to precisely when this year’s UK general election will be held.

Once announced, the political party brands will reveal the full splendour of their electoral marketing campaigns which, until now, are kept under wraps on Apple hard disks at various slick advertising agencies around town.

Many campaigns will doubtlessly feature pithy yet perceptive promises and slogans aimed to puncture the consciousness of the great British public.

Such tactics are increasingly important.  The Brits are traditionally either too apathetic to vote or too incensed to hold back from venting anger at every opportunity… at the pub… on TV chat-shows… on the bus…during radio phone-ins … and especially leaving curt comments on national blogging sites.

Whichever political brand eventually takes the vote, this year’s campaigning will, more than ever, be strongly influenced by sound bites aimed to create knee-jerk reactions – and every media-savvy MPs know it.

For example, despite a recent poll by of 2024 people by YouGov, published in Prospect magazine, which found that 39 per cent of respondents felt that Twitter was dumbing down the way we communicate, a reported 93 MPs from all political parties use the ‘blue-bird’ to turn long-winded manifestos into digestable 140 character tweets.

Augmenting the political line, TV debates will provide suitably friendly/concerned/amable faces to clarify party- HQ sanctioned tweets and blogs.

It will be the first time that the UK will follow America’s lead in holding such televised political branding beauty contests.

Whilst behind the scenes, various iPhone brandishing brand perception advisors will urge leadership contending clients to reassure voters that such debates concentrate exclusively on real issues rather than puff and image, almost certainly work will already be under way with various fitness trainers and nutritionists to slim back the odd extra inches off high profile waistlines.

Refreshing the brand perceptions politicians cannot reach

Trust my political brand – as sponsored by your favourite chocolate bar

Meanwhile over in America – the land that taught the advertising world how to sell political brands as pouring corn flakes – the Supreme Court has reportedly announced a major sea change in how political campaigns are financed. 

The floodgates have been opened for additional potential political advertising and marketing spending from corporations, unions and special interest groups.

Angered by the prospect, President Obama has said that he will try to get the Court to reconsider.

“With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” the President said.

“It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshall their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

“I am instructing my administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.”

The court’s majority overturned two important aspects of politcial campaigning finance law: the ban on corporations using their own money to engage in political activity, and the blackout period which prevents certain groups from advertising spending within 60 days of an election.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said:

“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.  This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

The ruling was strongly influenced by a case brought by Citizens United, a conservative Republican group.

During the 2008 election the group produced a documentary on Hillary Clinton called, “Hillary: The Movie”.

To fund distribution, the group sought advertising sponsorship.

Citizens United argued that whilst corporate interests supported the film,  advertising didn’t violate campaign finance rules.

President of Common Cause, Bob Edgar said:

“This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy.”

Echoing his concerns, Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer said:

“Today’s decision is the most radical and destructive campaign finance decision in Supreme Court history. The decision will unleash unprecedented amounts of corporate ‘influence-seeking’ money on our elections and create unprecedented opportunities for corporate ‘influence-buying’ corruption.”

The new Flake girl?

Over there – over here?

All this begs the – albeit slightly tongue in cheek – question:  If and when Kraft Foods finalise their deal for Cadbury, could in the far distant future,the UK  eventually look forward to the prospect of ladies like the Rt Hon Jacqui Smith becoming the new Flake girl?

We’ll just have to suck it and see.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: