The pharoah who got up everyone's nose

The king is dead. Long live the new pharaoh.  And as Vice-President Omar Suleiman said, “May God help everybody.”

Hosni Mubarak finally relinquished his throne as president of Egypt, handing over power to the military who now  will serve the interest of the new Egypt.

A local government official said Mubarak was in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, 250 miles from the capital Cairo.  By Saturday it was rumoured his was in the UAE.

In the lead up, the  recent events in Cairo and other cities kept the world spellbound to their TV and mobile screens.

Throughout the crisis, beleaguered President Hosni Mubarak, devoted practically all of his political airtime to classical propaganda.

And why not?  He had lorded over his people since 1981.

In an attempt to cling to power, the country hijacked international mobile phone networks, broadcasting communications described by the Egyptian government as ‘messaging concerning national security and general safety’.

For example, France Telecom, which runs mobile carrier Mobinil, involuntarily broadcasted text messages such as: “ Egyptian youth beware of rumours and listen to the voice of reason.  Egypt is above everyone – so protect it.”

(Quite a departure from the routine “get a 100 texts free” brand messaging that you would usually expect from a mobile phone company).

Yet are we being played a double-bluff by those who claim that this revolution was a new-social media one?  The US media claimed that USA companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google  helped free the Egyptian people.  However  taccording to the New York Times,  only .09% of Egyptians have Twitter accounts.  Moreover,  Twitter and Facebook had  been off for most of the recent events.

Meanwhile, Egypt’s own state run TV channel presented footage of charming views of a bridge spanning the Nile, alongside film of ‘evil protestors who were ‘traitors’ to the country – or maybe Israeli infiltrators?…  (Cue sinister music a ‘la ‘mode of ‘independent’ TV stations like PRESSTV). [NB – I was censored by PRESSTV  last month when I defended News Corp as a better alternative than state-controlled tv).

One senior reporter, Nile TV anchor-woman Shahira Amin quit her job with Egypt’s state-run Nile TV saying that she did not want to be part of their “propaganda machine.  I am on the side of the people”.
Amin told the world press: “We (Nile TV) were only allowed to report the pro-Mubarak rallies that were going on, as if nothing was happening in Tahrir Square…”

Here comes the new boss  – same as the old boss – We all get fooled again – and again…

Less than 12 hours afer the revoluiton, an official daily  Chinese newspaper  warned  that: “Social stability should be of overriding importance. Any political changes will be meaningless if the country falls prey to chaos in the end.”

Propaganda techniques  employed by the outgoing Egyptian government – as well as incoming opponents are discussed in my book, Soul Traders.

The worrying thing is that, come the next national revolution for change, (think any number of possibilities including Bahrain) political parties may once again return to techniques which are as old as PR Spin itself.

… And that dates back to days of sand dunes and stone pyramids built to honour men in glass houses and guarded by militia whose remit was to protect the new order for a promised better world to come.

JJ@gabaynet.com      Jonathan Gabay

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 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:

Can you do better at poster design?

In what is supposed to be viewed as the ultimate in politcial democracy, the UK Labour party has turned to its 2.0 social  community to design Labour’s next political poster

Campaign chiefs  booked digital poster boards in London and Manchester to carry the poster to be unveiled over Easter weekend. Labour believes it has learnt lessons from the online lampooning that greeted the Tories’ advertising efforts. However by openly inviting the public to design a poster, their plan could still backfire. Coincidently working closely with Saatchi & Saatchi (rather than Conservative party’s agency – M&C Saatchi) Labour’s ad agency, have issued Labour supporters two creative briefs:

• Labour’s pledge to protect frontline services and

• David Cameron’s lack of substance.

The winning poster

The Labour poster official brief in detail

1. Labour’s pledge to protect frontline investment in key services Objective Highlight Labour’s pledge to protect frontline investment in key services.

What single thought should people take away from your poster?

Labour will protect frontline investment in policing, schools, childcare and the NHS, with a new guarantee of cancer test results within a week.

Why should they believe us?

Labour has always valued the public services on which mainstream families rely. In 1997, when the British people entrusted us with the job of protecting our public services the task facing us was clear – to rebuild and restore them after decades of neglect. Standards have risen and now we need to give guarantees of high standards to everyone – not just the lucky few – at the same time as delivering value for taxpayers’ money and services which are tailored to everyone’s personal needs

. 2. Highlight David Cameron’s lack of substance

Objective:

Let people know about David Cameron’s lack of substance. He’s boasted about being a good salesman – he’s not the conviction politician we need for these tougher times.

What single thought should people take away from your poster?

Running the country is a serious matter and David Cameron doesn’t have the substance to take on that job.

Why should they believe us?

All David Cameron’s focus has been on changing image – airbrushing posters, sledding at the North poll or being photographed cycling. Because of this he seems to think that it’s easy to get away with the same old Tory policies – telling people he’s for fairness when promising a tax giveaway for the wealthiest and cutting Child Trust Funds and Child Tax Credits when families need them the most. Instead of taking on the old fashioned, hardline Tories in his Party, he has appeased them by giving in on the issues they are obsessed about like foxhunting, grammar schools and Europe.

Write and then get it right

Budding campaign copywriters were advised by Labour HQ to keep the campaign message simple; use strong images and to weave in humour wherever possible. Douglas Alexander MP, Labour’s General Election coordinator, launched the initiative saying

“In recent weeks progressives across the web have produced some striking political imagery on websites like mydavidcameron.com. We’ve stood back and admired this work. For those who want to extend their creative skills we are now offering them the chance to produce a poster which we will publish over the Easter weekend.”

The winning poster was written by Jacob Quagliozzi, 24, a Labour supporter from St Albans.

The battle of the Photoshops

Virtually as soon as the winning poster was revealed, the conservative party rebutted. Mr Cameron said he was flattered by the comparison with Hunt, a hard-drinking warrior against political correctness who describes criminals as “scum” and is not afraid to bend the rules to secure an arrest. The Conservative leader said:

“I think there will be thousands of people, millions of people, in the country who wish it was the 1980s and that police were out there feeling collars and nicking people instead of filling in forms.”

He offered to “lend Labour the money” for more posters on the same theme.

Conservative party alternative poster

Tory supporters pointed out that the winning design featuring a ‘nod’ to the character Gene Hunt from the hit series Ashes to Ashes, was the experienced, fast talking and witty good guy in the show who may sometimes do the wrong thing but for all the right reasons.  They also pointed out that the car on poster – The Audi Quattro was an excellent example of British design, as the Quattro was styled by an Englishman.

Ian Dale, the renown Tory Blogger published an alternative poster showing an 80s PM and union leader Bob Crow

Dale's alternative Labour poster

Even Labour bloggers were dismayed about the poster.

For example, the left-wing blogger Alex Smith, of LabourList, said the poster made the Tory leader “look cool, young and fairly modern” rather than a dangerous 1980s throwback.

Jonathan Gabay www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

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:

Valentine’s Day 2010.

What sweeter way for lovers to pass the evening than cuddled  together on the sofa in front of the TV watching Prime Minister Gordon Brown revealing how he proposed to his lovely wife Sarah?

The idea may be to win over not just the minds, but hearts of the UK electorate who, in just a matter of months, will be invited to fasten the fate of the country’s government – not with a SWALK, but ‘X’ factor style cross on ballot papers.

Feeling those vibes

Reports of the interview  sent vibrations – not all good – around the world.

Of particular concern to voters was the prospect of seeing their leader hold back tears as he discussed the tragic loss of his daughter and illness of his son.

In addition to being a highly personal and sensitive issue, by mixing personalities with policies, the Prime Minister is contradicting his frequently repeated views on the subject.

For example in 2008 he said:

“Some people have been asking why I haven’t served my children up for spreads in the papers – and my answer is simple:  My children aren’t props, they’re people.”

Last year (30 September 2009) in an interview on Sky News:

Brown:                                  I suggest we should be talking about policy issues – not     personality issues.

Interviewer:                        But personality does matter.

Brown:  (Irritated)            It does obsess you.

Brown's Got Talent?

The Brown branding strategy

Considering all this from a purely branding perspective, in addition to using the TV interview to showcase his own brand, Piers Morgan (the journalist who has been groomed by celebrity brand – alchemist, Simon Cowell) may have convinced the Prime Minister’s branding team to welcome the interview for key strategic reasons.

Emotional branding wins votes?

Any brand needs depth.  Such an interview offers voters a different view of Mr Brown.  That can help when it comes to making a final decision on the man and his policies during vote time.

Secondly, consumer brand messages often feature something called, ‘ESP’ – Emotional Selling Propositions.

For example, bread brands often highlight commercials with demographically appropriate families seated around the traditional kitchen table, sharing ‘quality time’ over a meal topped-off with a nice slice of nostalgia – in the shape of the said branded loaf.

Thirdly, last year, at its peak, a reality talent show featuring Morgan – Britain’s Got Talent – attracted 12.7 million viewers.

Significantly, that show was broadcast around May 2009 (the same possible month of this year’s general election).

Cue Coldplay track

During the interview, Morgan’s studio crew used many methods perfected by Simon Cowell to elicit an emotional response from viewers.  These included lingering shots of the Prime Minister’s wife as he spoke of his family’s tragic experiences.

For many, such crass ‘packaging’ of a Prime Minister may come across as contrived.

(Although there is no suggestion that the Brown’s personal losses are anything but dreadfully sad).

In Canada, one newspaper spoke of the PM being formerly remote and out of touch – with the TV interview offering a chance to come across as genuine to most voters.

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

A brand leader needs a clear message

Any brand leader needs a clear and consistent message.  Not one, which is confused or diluted by anything weakening  its potency or is suspected to mimic for the sake of it, what a competitor, says or does.

Equally tragic, Brown’s main opponent, David Cameron, also suffered terrible loss in his family – and has spoken of it.

What would be galling for Brown, Cameron, as well as the electorate is, by also speaking of his loss, the PM comes across as playing some some vulgar tit for tat manoeuvre.

Brown’s problem is that as PM – the branded elected leader of the country – if he says nothing he is damned as aloof.

Revealing feelings he comes across as trying too hard to be empathetic and ‘one of the people’.

Quiet dignity

Breaking from tradition

Traditionally, politicians have kept their personal lives out of the media spotlight.

For example in 1963, Jackie Kennedy went into premature labour. She gave birth to a boy, via emergency Cesarean section.  The boy’s lungs were under-developed. He died.  Apart from a few official announcements, the tragedy was kept in the family.

However since the death of Princess Diana – who Tony Blair posthumously branded,  “The People’s Princess”, politicians have increasingly mixed personalities with politics.

In America it is a blood sport.

If Piers Morgan gets it right, the classic talent TV show format treatment of telling a ‘back-story’ full of pathos and lingering looks, will undoubtedly move some to vote for their guy at the Ballot Factor final.

On the other hand, for the deeply cynical, the release of the interview on the weekend that the UK took part in US-led Operation Moshtarak, meaning “together” in the Dari language – may be a brand ploy too far.  Especially as at least one UK fatality has already been announced.

Rather than sweet, the branding exercise may leave a very bitter and long lingering taste in hearts and minds.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

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: