The power of candidate branding
How Obama and McCain did it right, and why Clinton and Romney fumbled
![]() Charles Dharapak / AP Republican presidential hopeful John McCain campaigns at a rally at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., Monday, Jan. 7, 2008. |
|
NBC Video: Politics |
Is Pakistan a nuclear threat? Nov. 10: The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh discusses how much the United States officially knows about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. |
Slideshow |
more photos |
Barack Obama and John McCain have political brands that some would kill for right now. For Obama, the brand is a unifying change agent; For McCain, it's a straight shooting, gritty, experienced hand.
And their brands have only become stronger thanks to their respective opponents -- Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney -- who have attempted "new and improved" re-branding campaigns throughout the last six months to seemingly no avail.
Perhaps the best way to compare McCain and Obama vs. Romney and Clinton is to look at their announcement speeches and judge their relative campaign consistency.
Here's Romney in his announcement speech last February:
"Throughout my life, I have pursued innovation and transformation. It has taught me the vital lessons that come only from experience, from failures and successes, from the private, public and voluntary sectors, from small and large enterprise, from leading a state, from being in the arena, not just talking about it. Talk is easy, talk is cheap. It is doing that is hard. And it is only in doing that hope and dreams come to life."
If memory serves, the announcement was a semi-dud for Romney; the backdrop was horrible and the speech mundane. The excerpt above, when looking back at it after 11 months of campaigning, can be picked apart by even the least cynical observer. The word that sticks out to me is "transformation."
|
Now, he's trying to go back and prove that he's the closest thing to a change agent the GOP has right now. The sad thing for Romney is that, arguably, that was true 11 months ago. But now, after all the re-branding campaigns to prove that he was a conservative, a Reagan-Bush Republican, Romney's lost the credibility to argue that he can be a change agent.
He attempted to run two simultaneous bio campaigns, one on the Republican front and one on the personal front. Romney's opponents had a field day finding contradiction on the Republican front and it drowned out his attempts on the personal front.
And this explains why he's struggling in New Hampshire. These voters thought they knew Romney; he was a neighboring favorite son; a moderate, pro-business Republican. Many in New Hampshire probably don't know this new Romney, and since this new brand is different from the inital brand these voters were exposed to six years ago, they've simply raised an eyebrow to both pitches.
Now I was going to bookend this Romney-Clinton branding problem with a look at Clinton's announcement speech. And then it dawned on me, she never gave one. This is so symbolic. Think about it, she never gave a rationale for her candidacy -- other than she was "in it to win it," making losses more devastating since she didn't "win it."
Ok, that's harsh, she certainly had a rationale for her candidacy, but to not herald it in a traditional announcement speech really does lend to some head scratching.
Did they at least have an announcement speech laid out for themselves to follow as their rationale? Could that be the reason they seemed to change messages or mantras so much these past six months; because they never answered the initial "why am I running for president" question for voters or themselves?
Talk about the ultimate Roger Mudd moment (see Ted Kennedy, 1980) -- Clinton never told voters in that big setting -- the one roadblock of media coverage every candidate gets -- why she was running for POTUS and why she wanted to be POTUS.
The closest thing Clinton gave to an announcement speech was her exploratory YouTube announcement video.
In that video, here's the passage that seemed to outline what she planned to campaign on:
Some form of these issues have been a theme throughout her campaign, but a bigger rationale underscoring her brand never materialized. It appears Mark Penn believed the Clinton brand was about working hard to do the little things; something that most voters would believe of a Clinton. But this isn't a "little thing" election; it's a "big thing" election; The above rationale in the video announcement is something somebody runs on if running for a second or third term, not a first.
- Discuss Story On Newsvine
-
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh - Instant Message
MORE FROM POLITICS |
| Add Politics headlines to your news reader: |
Sponsored links
Resource guide






