Presidential Brands

A great deal of attention was given recently to the unveiling of Barack Obama's new presidential campaign logo. The simple O-shaped mark, while no graphic design award winner, is certainly a big improvement on political candidates' usual typographical treatment of their last names. That's a convention (if you'll pardon the pun) that politicians have used for decades, with the addition of some patriotic swooshes or stars for good measure. But Obama's logo is a real logo in the traditional sense of the word.

The notable exception to using last names as logos, of course, is Hillary Clinton. She's avoiding the word Clinton at all costs for obvious reasons. Instead, she has adopted the use of her first name, suggesting a friendly informality to balance her ambitious persona - a conscious effort at what marketers would call "re-branding." From a creativity standpoint, she's opted to use the conventional typographical treatment of her first name.

So, score one for Obama with his new logo.

This logo business is a harbinger of things to come. The 2008 campaign promises to be the most hyper-marketed, media-saturated, consciously branded, user-generated in history. The visibility and recognition that currently drive money to the various candidates will narrow the field for both political parties, months before the first primary. The attention leads to money, which leads to media attention, which leads to more money. It's a cycle that now controls the entire process.

It's important to note that brands - political or otherwise - are not merely logos or ads or clever slogans. Brands really exist in only one place: the minds of consumers. Brands are belief systems. And since candidates embody those belief systems, they become icons, almost logos in themselves for the hopes, aspirations and self-identification of their followers. And like any logo that goes through multiple rounds of revisions while being designed, the candidates also go through rounds of revisions, including plastic surgeries during congressional recesses, hairstyle updates and revised publicity photos.

But here's where the candidates fail in branding: trying to appeal to everyone.

By trying to attract a sufficiently large base of voters to get elected, the politicos end up standing for very little. They and their opponents all sound remarkably similar, like tired consumer brands with no real personality, offending no one but inspiring no one either. They could all take a cue from Simon Cowell of American Idol fame. The reason people find him intriguing and refreshing is that he actually says what he thinks. Sure, he hurts people's feelings, but his opinion matters because he's not trying to please everyone.

That's the secret to a great brand. Stand for something. Defend that turf at all costs. But leave the rest of the territory to someone else. The reason brands fail is that they, like presidential candidates, try to appeal to everyone. Successful brands - whether they appeal to the high end or the low end of the socioeconomic order; whether they appeal to large business or small business; whether they target young consumers or retirees - have a narrow focus and they stick with it, even if they have to begrudgingly yield market share to competitors going after other segments.

So why don't politicians do this? Sadly, they lack the moral clarity to risk losing the support of people who might disagree with them if they actually took a stand. Large corporate donors don't want to be viewed as extreme (either right or left), so they back the middle-of-the-roaders. It seems this is the only way to get elected these days, but it's a sad statement that also helps explain the narrow margins of the past two presidential elections that have left the country in a state of discord and disunity.

The blandness of the presidential candidates' brands should be a clear warning to them that they are doing something wrong. That's because great brands inspire passion. (Talk to anyone who owns an Apple computer, a Toyota Prius or a pair of Crocs.) The lifeless brands of today's presidential candidates have rendered political passion almost dead.

Public outrage - the kind that would have fostered a successful candidacy like Robert Kennedy's or Ronald Reagan's - has been lobotomized into passivity by Internet blogs and talk radio. That's where all the energy is going. There's no political action on the streets. The public debates once found in the town meeting, the college campus or the downtown soapbox have all but disappeared. What little energy remains is mostly negative, i.e., people that hate George Bush or can't stand Hillary Clinton.

And that's why I think Obama will be the next president. He's not hate-able. Plus he has a cool new logo.