The final showdown

The general election debates have come to a climax.

Three weeks ago it looked like it would be a two-leader shoot out at the OK Coral.  Then, as with the best spaghetti westerns, out from nowhere rode a new kid into town. Everyone was for themselves.

The debates, the first of their kind in the UK, marked a milestone in British political history.  From the start, pundits and commentators, cast aspersions over the merits of each leader’s presentation style.

Before the first line was drawn in the first debate, the press eagerly scoured the annals of political debating history in search of classic political golden clanger or debating debacles from the past.

You Tube clips from the Nixon vs. Kennedy debate of 1960 received record numbers of hits.

The crucial question was, would this turn out to be more of a political beauty contest offering brand buff than a serious showdown delivering product substance?

In terms of brand delivery, the first debate, which attracted nine million viewers, felt ‘clunky’.  The austere poker-faced PM hedged his bets, repeatedly saying, “I agree with Nick”; leaving the TV audience with no real choice than to concur with Mr Brown’s sentiments.

The second debate attracted some four million viewers. In addition to witnessing a son et Lumiere branding spectacular on behalf of SKY TV, the audience was treated to the leaders gaining greater confidence in their saddles.  Undoubtedly advised by his brand image consultants, Mr Cameron fired off round after round of promises starting with the line: “If I was your Prime Minister…”

Even the media trained Mr Clegg, looked assertively down the barrel of the TV camera – in an attempt to connect directly with the viewing audience.

The third debate had to concentrate on the deal clinching key issues of recession, immigration, housing, the national debt and employment.  The ritzy brand pitches had set the agenda, now people needed to know, one way or the other, what was meant by policies such as, ‘The Big Society’, amnesties for illegal immigrants, jobs for the long term unemployed, or what the parties would do in the event of a predicted hung parliament or what a fair future for all actually meant?

From style or substance to recession or Rochdale

Throughout the three-week debating period, the media had clung on in desperate hope for that ‘golden clanger’ which would lay a media egg for them to hurl with a reassuringly gooey ‘splat’ in the politicians’ faces.

Their opportunity finally arrived within 24 hours of the final debate, in the shape of a 65 year old from Rochdale  – Mrs Gillian Duffy.

Gillian asked Mr Brown what would his party do about immigration?

Whilst initially the PM handled the question with professionalism, in private – but caught on a microphone, he called Gillian a ‘bigot’.

It was exactly what the media yearned for – mud – glorious mud – ready to enliven the debate the next day.

Working on the premise that when credibility is rock bottom the only way one can go is up, the PM opened his ‘pitch’ with the words: “There’s a lot to this job and as you saw last night – I don’t always get it right.”

Once in the swing, the leaders agreed that difficult decisions would need to be made in order to help the economy recover. Rather than accept responsibility for political mismanagement, bankers instead were universally made scapegoats.

In supporting his tax pledges and policies, rather than pointing to economists and think tanks, Cameron turned to high street brands as his greatest advocators (A sure sign of an era where high profile brands rather than anonymous ‘civil servants’ are used to carry weight for the public in national debates).  Even Clegg lamented over how workers at a great British brand, Cadbury’s, had been short-changed by government policy.

Within minutes of the debate an instant poll from YouGov revealed:

Leaving aside your own party preference, who do you think performed best in tonight’s debate?

• David Cameron: 41%
• Nick Clegg: 32%
• Gordon Brown: 25%
• Don’t know: 2%

YouGov questioned 1,151 viewers of the TV debate among the party leaders immediately after tonight’s debate. The data were weighted to the profile of all those ‘absolutely certain to watch’ the debate from a nationally-representative sample.

The real change in Britain

In hindsight, the debates turned out to be less of a media circus and more of a stage which helped opened up politics to a much greater conversation -including on the web – than may have remained under stimulated without the televised pitches.

For example in 2005, voter turnout only reached 61.28%  (although that was better than the 2001 election which only saw a 59.17% turnout out at the ballot boxes).

So now the studio lights have been switched off all that is left for the leaders is to make their way home in the Birmingham rain and wonder who this time next week will be looking forward to a ministerial saloon and who will have to ride off into the sunset.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

It’s a classic tale.

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.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the 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?)

Duffy: Why chase pavements when you could chase media deals?

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

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

We are born to trust.

For example, to have faith that a mother will provide milk. It is after all, instinctive. However, as we we grow older that same parent will teach us to be wary of the world – not to trust everything or every person.
 Yet, when society trusts itself, wonderful things happen. Economies boom, infrastructures repair and unity strengthens.

It is a two-way street where the trustee and trusted depend on each other with mutual respect in favour of a greater good for all.

Ever get the feeling you're not trusted?

Smile you are on CCTV
Increasingly we live in a mistrusting society.  Once given bastions of truth such as politicians, police, clergy and big brands are now dispraisingly looked upon through cynical eyes.

Brands for example on one hand broadcast messages infused with sincerity and empathy and then on occasion are found to recall not just products, but their trust in consumers to accept mistakes, which if caught early enough, could have been rectified and forgiven.

Too often, social responsibility turns out to be little more than neatly painted whitewash to present a more acceptable face of what business is, after all, in business for – to make profits.

Politicians, especially during an election period, offer sound bites promising ‘big societies’, ‘a future fair for all’, ‘government we can trust’…

Like brands, parties deliver a stream of images and packaged promises designed to give a sense of what the party truly believes.

However such messages are in constant conflict with societal signifiers that may suggest an opposite underlying point to the sanitised or idealised political one.

Bursting scandals, revelations and commentaries train us to learn to expect spin to invariably follow pledges.

We develop a kind of in-built radar that recognises not the lies from the truth, but the truth from the lies.

In the past, politicians could easily manage perceptions through well-defined media channels.  Today thanks to the 24 hour news, web, blogs, Tweets and so on… politicians can’t hide from the stage that stretches across the wide web and reaches the inner psyche of a confused voter who is so bombarded with so many similar choices that he or she becomes not just bewildered but bitter.

Through instantly scrutinising every painfully extreme detail of a political message we get so close to nuances that we can no longer judge the bigger picture.

Truth lives only as long as a given moment or click.

Without a longer period to view in retrospective, we no longer judge the bigger picture.  We naturally conclude that every confusing fuzzy detail must simply be further proof that it is, in the end, all spin and no substance.

So what can politicians do to garner our trust?
Political brands must be consistent in what they preach. Not all policies will please all voters.  This is actually good- it creates integrity and clear water between one political brand and another.

Just as with brands, political values need to be understood and practiced not just be leaders but everyone allied with the party.  In so doing, manifestos become social causes.  (All sincere causes are greater than promises).

Just as with business leaders, political leaders need to be seen and appreciated through context and content as being responsible lions addressing confident communities rather than lapdog chameleons addressing transient drifters.

Such leaders need to be themselves, complete with humility, human faults and quirks – not just managed alter egos.  By being – not acting – genuine, leading not exclusively from the front or back – but centre of the pack, they can set examples accepting mistakes and giving credit where it is due.

In branding, consumers must be able to recognise themselves in a product and so feel aligned with a brand.  In political branding, parties need to reflect what a nation is and what every individual can become.

Jonathan Gabay
www.brandforensics.co.uk

With great thanks for support  in writing this article to Roger Steare- Europe’s premier corporate philosopher

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The direct mail piece went to named recipients at 250,000 households. Before long some of the indignant recipients were on the phone to the media complaining about the inappropriateness of the leaflets – given that they personally suffered from cancer.

In terms of campaigning, this seemed to be the lowest of the low strategies- using scare tactics on people who were suffering from what could be a fatal disease. (It felt like Labour was now down to desperate measures for desperate times).

Within moments the Conservatives and Liberals were pushing out press releases condemning the under-handed Labour ploy.

On its part, Labour categorically refuted that it had purposely targeted cancer patients.

On their parts, the Liberals and Conservatives were suddenly locked in a contest to be the first to throw stones at Labour.

The mailshot was indeed a complete debacle and totally ill conceived – but for other reasons than first assumed.

Out of context

Diane Dwelly, the 48 year-old lady whose picture was featured in the mailing said she had initially presumed her photograph was being taken to be used in a magazine for the National Health Service – rather than part of Labour’s election campaign.  This could potential pose serious issues with the UK advertising standards authority.

Putting the pieces together

Reportedly the list for the mailing was based on Mosaic data. Mosaic is one of the UK’s leading sources of direct marketing data. Using a combination 85 variables, such as census, housing, financial and electoral roll data, it classifies households into 12 lifestyle groups – broken into 52 sub-groups. This delivers demographic and psychographic profiles which as accurate as possible. (In direct marketing, the correct or incorrect spelling of a recipient’s name can make or break a campaign).

Mosaic data is commonly used by major parties.

More broadly, in terms of direct marketing, the other parties such as the Conservatives are certainly no strangers to highly targeted messages on, for example, the web.

Last year, the Conservatives specifically targeted people enjoying incomes up to the mid -£40k who were looking for dates on match.com. (Not the most romantic of suitors). It also targeted young adults via the music download site, Spotify.

So what went wrong with this specific targeted mailing? Simply put, the data -driven number crunching direct marketers behind the campaign were more concerned with the technical accuracy of names on the list than the campaign’s core creative message -certainly in terms of who would be reading it.

According to the charity, Cancer Research, about .05 per cent of the population is annually diagnosed with breast cancer. That’s around 45,500 people (2006) figures.

So if you wrote to 250,000 people, approximately 200 would have been diagnosed with cancer.

Write to a household and you can multiply that figure by around four. (Spouses, etc, who suffer from the disease). That also does not take into account people diagnosed in previous years to the last 12 months.

By naming a recipient rather than addressing the household as a whole, it can come across that a mailing is picking on them – so creating the much-publicised panic. (Incidentally one man who had treatment for a form of cancer recently told the BBC that he received another leaflet on policing – but – even despite the mailing being addressed personally to him – he didn’t feel that he was being personally picked upon).

So the lesson from all of this is firstly:

When campaigning – consider the message as well as the recipient of the message – will one compromise the other?

Secondly – when it comes to scares – know your facts before being goaded by the opposing teams.

Finally, when it comes to ‘big Cs’ stick to carefully considered campaigns.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The political brands get into second, third and in one case, even fourth gear with their marketing communications.

In second gear rolls in the Liberal Democrats

Within hours of the election being announced, the Yellow doves turned their website homepage into a clear series of manifesto promises. However, having ‘borrowed’ Labour’s slogan referring to fairness, their message could come across as confused – and to exacerbate matters further they mixed in the ‘change’ message from the Conservatives.

Checking the site at 17.10, the first article about their progress in the election was still discussing how their President, Ros Scott, was resting on Easter – (Not exactly an encouraging start for would-be voters checking to see how fast their team would be off the starters block).

Most worrying was how they marketed their leadership team: mainly through a collection of curriculum vitaes – as if they were candidates for a local management job.

When it doubt - plagiarise

In third gears revs up Labour

In addition to introducing a new icon of a rising sun to go with their ‘a future fair for all’ slogan, the party site features a picture of a rolling landscape and neatly designed words graphically set out to appear like an extract from a holy book quoting a spiritual leader:

From now until polling day I will travel

the length and breadth of Britain with one clear message:

Britain is now on the way to economic recovery.

And now is not the time to put it at risk. -

Gordon Brown

Once inside the site a clearly marked section called, ‘inside our campaign’, gives hot breaking, up to the minute – well at least, ‘hour’, views from Labour’s top leaders on how the campaign is progressing,

By 17.25 on the first day, the latest piece was three hours old from Douglas Alexander, along with piece from the PM (six hours old) and even one from Peter Mandelson (four days old). The usual social networking links to Twitter et al appear, along with a link to something called, ‘Labourmembersnet’, which apparently is still in BETA. (Hmm someone needs to tell their branding coordinator that the election is officially under way).

In fourth gear speeds along The Conservatives

Within24 hours of the election being called, the campaign team put up a YouTube movie of Mr Cameron’s wife Sam, pottering about the house helping her man ‘Dave’, prepare for various engagements.(Mumsnet ladies will admire it – but will the girls shopping at Primark?)

This was closely followed by an email from Conservative HQ pointing to yet another video – shot, edited and broadcast within hours – showing Mr Cameron rallying his team that very morning.

The official Conservative blog also features posts from Samantha Cameron along with the top brass at CHQ (no doubt a planned branding touch to show that this is a family as well as business affair).

So, the end of first day branding report reads:

Liberals – could do better, very neatly laid out CV but suspect copying from the other students.

Labour – needs to concentrate on areas outside religious liturgy, and update their workbook.

Conservatives – excellent understanding of IT and Web 2.0 but do try to keep your mind on work and not home.

Jonathan Gabay www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Within hours of the design being revealed, The Conservative’s aimed to turn the Ashes-to-Ashes debacle into a blue-streaked phoenix flying the flag for Tory principles.

Spin 'n' spiv poster

The Labour poster was suggested by an ordinary party supporter, rather than ad men.  As such it was meant to herald the UK’s first truly democratic piece of political advertising.   The concept was to bring about anxiety throughout the electorate over the threat of a Conservative win; causing the country to regress to the old days of 1980s Tory spiv ‘n spin.

However lack of understanding of psychographics meant the creative execution failed to grasp that the central character upon which the poster was based, was actually considered as a modern day straight talking cult hero.

David Cameron was so pleased with the handiwork of his opposition’s campaign team that he even offered to chip in some money for the campaign.

His party was quick to draw PR capital from the blunder.  It produced its own version of the poster – which cleverly featured the line:

“Idea kindly donated by the Labour Party”.

Conservatives jab back at jibes

However by responding with even more images of the near-same thing.  In some ways both parties fell into an open branding trap.

Certainly in its initial stages, negative political campaigning receives media and voter attention.  However by constantly having one party use advertising to take a jibe at each other, the net effect can be the electorate feeling rather like children caught in the middle of a messy divorce and coming to the conclusion that there should be a plague on both houses (parties).

Message not meanderings

A strong political branding campaign requires a clear political message based not just on taunts but appreciable relevant tactics.

From Labour’s perspective, the new poster isn’t the first time the party miss-calculated public perceptions surrounding campaign headlines.

1979 Labour poster

In 1979 Labour produced a poster warning of “the last time the Tories said they had all the answers” (referring to the three-day working week of the 1970s).  However at the time of the poster’s publication, the country had just suffered from ‘The Winter of Discontent – accredited to Labour’s miss-management.

The ‘war’ battled throughout the winter of 1978–1979, during which time there were extensive strikes by local authority unions.

In the end, the 1979 election went to the Conservatives with the largest overall swing in the popular vote (5.2%) since 1945 and resulted in a working majority of 43 for Margaret Thatcher.

(Interestingly enough 1979 was also the first time in British politics that the Conservative Party employed the services of an advertising agency to manage its election campaign).

Classical political point scoring in general elections

Just as consumer brands use classic communication tactics to woo consumers and so defeat competition, so political brands have certain campaign approaches that, over the years have swayed the electorate.

These include:

Contradiction

This focuses on disagreement and division either between parties or within parties.  (For example Blair versus Brown).

Human Interest

When political brands manipulate political leaders to show the ‘human face’ of a party’s approach to key issues.

Consequences

When political campaigners warn the electorate of dire consequences – usually in taxation – that would occur if votes go to the opposition.

Morality

This is when political campaigns take the moral high ground by pointing to the ethical lows of the opposition.  For example, in the last election, the war in Iraq or currently Hamas in the Middle East  placing innocent children in the front line behind terrorists and then blaming a (from its point of view) defensive Israel  for resulting casualties.

Responsibility

This places responsibility for a cause in the hands of the people rather than government alone.  For example the Conservative party’s  ‘Big Society’ campaign that calls on ordinary people to stand up and be counted through volunteer work, rather than relying on local authorities alone.

Once the Easter break is over, the real crusades will begin.  Then the electorate will decided which party offers a life of real sustainable change and which a life that may as well be lived on mars.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Assertive leadership or bullying tactics?

Nobody approves of bullies – yet somehow we have long admired assertive and determined leaders: from Elizabeth I, to Alan Sugar and even Fabio Capello.

From a public brand image perspective, there is more than just a healthy argument that any man or woman ‘at the top’ needs to be a person not just of moral conviction but a genuine character who is not to be messed with.

Allegations of Gordon Brown’s short fuse may be just the touch-paper he needed to rebuild his otherwise former lack-lustre image of a leader in the shadows of man who famously was even prepared to go to war to fight for what, he at least, sincerely believed was a noble cause for the greater good.

Reportedly, when Winston Churchill stepped into Number 10 he did so with a boorish attitude towards Downing Street staff.

It is said that when stressed, he even turned to more than the odd tipple.

Boorish - but brave

He became renown as a leader, figurehead and defender of the common man .

Then there was the ‘Iron Lady’ who at first may have  come across as dainty rather than daunting to some campaign professionals at Tory HQ.

As with Blair, one of her defining moments as a leader with grit, came with the battle cry to avenge and protect British interests around the world.

How very apt that just as the 2010 election campaign steps up a notch, the people at the helm of Brand UK sanctioned drilling to start for oil near the famed Falkland Islands.

Some may point to the happy coincidence that all this has happened the very same fortnight that Gordon Brown was touted in the media firstly as a man of compassion- giggling on the Piers Morgan show – then a leader of fury – caring so passionately about issues affecting the common man and woman that, on occasion he was allegedly moved to hurl the odd piece of office supplies around the ground – and have little time for time wasters.

Pinning her colours to the mast

Some PR commentators could  suppose that much of the recent events were somehow cunningly leaked and managed by Conservative brand spinners.

If they are right, the ploy may have backfired for the opposition.

What has been created – for the Conservatives –  is  the worst of all opponent leadership attributes: the perception of a multi-faceted person who, on one hand is seen as caring, whilst on the other, prepared, determined and stirred enough to do whatever it takes to fight for the nation’s pride, honour and respect.

In other words, from a branding viewpoint – a rounded person.

For the Conservatives, that would be a very hard act to follow.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Reaching the floating voter

This week, hot on the heals of the Labour Party’s controversial ‘Camera -on/Cameron- off’ poster, comes the Tory’s latest slew of posters designed to win votes and rouse confidence in the electorate.

The latest poster campaign turns away from personalities (albeit finely airbrushed ones) to feature policies affecting individuals and families from working and middle class England.

The new campaign is squarely aimed at floating voters or would-be virgin Tories.

Highlighting the targeted electorate, at the launch of the campaign Cameron said:

“We are not the same old Conservative party. We are the party of the mainstream majority in our country.”

Poster headlines start with the words: “ I’ve never voted tory before but …”

Whilst the campaign is clearly intended to win over the undecided, what was probably unintended was how the posters’ designs made them easy-pickings for bloggers and Tweeters to add their spin to the messages.

Sites like, http://ivenevervotedtory.wordpress.com, Facebook pages like http://www.facebook.com/mydavidcameron?v=photos, and tweets like, http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23ivenevervotedtory, sprouted up faster than yet another award for Lady Ga-Ga.

From a branding perspective this tactic may work for, or against a political brand.

On the upside, awareness is spread far and wide in a matter of clicks.

Wit from Tweets

However, the adpated message is often a far cry from the intended original.

In fact it clearly lampoons it.

Yet, strangely enough, all may not be lost for the political brand.

At the heart of politics is a debate.

As any corporation that has scrupulously tried to avoid blogging will testify – you can’t stop people talking about a brand.

The more you try – the greater the chatter.

In the case of the latest poster campaign, as fast as one Twitterer whistled up a sarconic interpretation of the campaign – another put across a different view.

The Web became a dawn chorus of wit and tweets.

Setting the Presidential precedent

The recent US Presidential campaign was the first to heavily rely on Web 2.0 tactics to boost political funds and awareness within disperate American communities.

Just as Web 2.0 shifted tactics and strategies over there, so in the UK, an important shift is occuring in traditional political branding and marketing.

Poster of the century as voted by Campaign magazine

Classic political posters such as ‘Labour Isn’t Working’ summarised manefesto pledges in pithy headlines and incisive graphics, to be seen and debated by the ordinary man and woman waiting for a bus, train or in traffic.

Today it’s not just what’s written on the posters and adverts throughout the country that forms the hub of the wider conversation.  It’s how those messages are carried on iPhones laptops and Blackberries, and interpreted by the networked community that really matters.

Modern marketing directors will affirm that in the final analysis, real egalitarian power rests within the community deciding a brand’s fate rather than at such a community’s borders.

Irrespective of the number of marketing meetings and focus groups with floating or even sunk voters, taking the longer view, the real writing on the wall for a brand is something that no single poster campaign alone can cover.

And that is true democracy.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: