The Origin of Brands Blog

Sign Language

Understanding politics is as easy as reading signs. Forget the polls, forget the speeches, forget the pundits, just read the signs.

One look at the signs at a campaign rally says it all. Who will win. Who will lose.

When building a brand, words matter. And the words that matter most for a politician are the words on campaign posters and website home pages.

The candidate who has the best and most consistent words will build the strongest brand and most likely will win the election.

Politicians are certainly aware of the influence of rally signs, especially in steering media coverage when they are televised. When the President gives a speech, there will always be a sign on the podium or on the wall behind him with his key talking point. That way, even if reporters sleep through the speech or the public mutes the television, the message can be delivered.

Signs can even drown out the actual message. Sometimes with unintentional and disastrous consequences. Remember President George W. Bush’s famed 2003 end-of-combat speech delivered on an aircraft carrier? On May 1, 2003, Bush flew on a Navy jet to the carrier Lincoln, where he announced "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

In retrospect, the speech was misguided in previewing what was to come. But the speech alone would not been as nearly as damaging without the sign behind him. Hanging behind him was a sign that said: “Mission Accomplished.”

Actually, it was a salute to the crew on the ship and not planted by Bush and his team. But that doesn’t matter. A sign is a sign and when it is behind you, you own it.

McCain is the Republican Party’s chosen candidate. He won a relatively easy battle for the nomination, not because of the strength of his message but because of the weakness of the competition. Without strong foes, a brand with no message can succeed. Bud Light may be a watered-down line extension, but without strong competition, the brand is the leader. Not good branding, just weak competition.

So far, John McCain has survived without a message, but going into the general election he won’t go far without one. If he wants to avoid being labeled as “Bush Third Term,” he’s got to start printing some good signs right away. Not an easy task, but without the right sign language, he is doomed.

What would I do for John McCain? First of all, for a message to work it has to resonate and reflect what voters already believe about a candidate. Nobody thought Hillary Clinton was “experienced,” so when she used that idea as a slogan, it fell flat.

A candidate can’t just put a word on a poster and own them. Just like a brand can’t be built by making a self-serving claim in an advertisement.

Just saying you are “experienced” doesn’t allow you to own the word in the mind. Firs, you have to establish credibility and authenticity with the idea.

Being President requires an understanding of a broad range of issues.

Becoming President requires simplicity and focus. A singular idea and a consistent message.

That’s why Bush made a great campaigner and a lousy president.

If I were running McCain’s campaign, I would focus on the word “Maverick.” He is known as a straight talker and willing to work with the opposing party. This is his best attribute. What will hurt him the most is the lack of a consistent message. Changing signs frequently is a bad strategy.

The Obama campaign demonstrates the value of having the right sign language. Barack Obama faced an uphill battle in establishing his brand. First of all, his first and last name are strange. And even worse, Obama rhymes with Osama the country’s number 1 enemy. Add to that he is black, young and new to the national stage. The wacky Reverend Wright hasn’t help him either.

When you compare Obama to Clinton, on paper she is the clear winner. She is the wife of a former and very popular and charismatic President. She is relatively new to holding a political office herself. (Being an insider with an outsider’s edge is a good thing in a campaign.) Most importantly, the Clinton machine gave her a huge head start in raising money.

Sure, she has flaws, but compared to other candidates, she was thought to be unbeatable. Early speculation was that the Republican primary would be a bloodbath and the Democratic primary would be more a Clinton coronation than a contest. How wrong they were.

Where did Clinton go wrong? It all comes down to the signs. She never had consistent sign language. I have never seen so many different and ever changing campaign slogans in my life. I complain about Coca-Cola changing taglines every year, but Clinton seemed to change her signs every day. Except for keeping the printing industry happy, her signs did little to build her brand.

In fact, her constantly changing message reminded people of one of the Clinton brand’s greatest weaknesses. A common criticism of the Clinton presidency was its constant change of strategy with every shift of the wind based on poll tracking data.

All that said, the race has been a tight one. But one I believe was definitively ended on Tuesday night. Not because of the primary results which gave one win to Obama and one to Clinton. But because of the images of each candidate’s “victory” speech. The sign language spoke loud and clear that Obama will win the nomination and Clinton will lose it.

Clinton stood in front of a crowd that held just a few signs. Many were barely readable. Many had various messages and inconsistent colors. In addition, Bill Clinton was brought out to stand stoically at Hillary’s side as if he knew it was over. One readable sign said: “Smart Choice.”

Another one of my favorite of her name slogans was "Let's make history." Now if Clinton were running against McCain that might make an ounce of sense. But against Obama, it is just a waste of paper. Obama winning would be much more likely to make history than Hillary winning. After all she is part of a political dynasty with a former President to back her up.

In North Carolina, Obama was brilliant. He stood tall in front of a sea of supporters all holding the same sign, with the same message, in the same colors. “CHANGE we can believe in.” Powerful stuff. Of course, his speech was incredible, but what clinched it was the sign.

The Oprah Factor

Are celebrity endorsements good or bad for candidates?

They are both.

Good because if everyone, including celebrities, is endorsing a candidate it enhances his or her appearance as the leader and a winner. And everybody loves to jump on the bandwagon of a winner. A winner is presumed to be on the side of truth, righteousness and justice.

Bad because too many times the celebrity overshadows the candidate. In order to win, the candidate needs to be the real celebrity. A candidate cannot win by association.

That's Hillary Clinton’s biggest problem. Bill Clinton is a major celebrity and is overshadowing her. And when Bill is around Hillary is put in the position of playing second fiddle. The more Bill campaigns for Hillary the worse things get for Hillary.

When George W. Bush ran for president, his dad, the former President, was nowhere to be seen. And that was a good thing. It allowed George W. to shine on his own without being overshadowed by his father. Believe me it sucks to be upstaged by your dad on stage.

The brilliance of Obama is not that he gets a lot celebrity endorsements. It is the opposite. Obama is the rock star, Obama is the celebrity. Obama doesn’t need celebrities to get people to come to his rallies. People are filling football stadiums just to see the guy.

Early on, Obama had to be careful not to take on too many endorsement. I think the Oprah endorsement came at the right time with just the right amount of attention. When Oprah endorsed Obama, hewas already a star in his own right. He had a message and momentum.

Of course, Oprah greatly helped him, but she didn’t make him and that is a key difference. Oprah also doesn’t hover over Obama all the time. If Oprah travelled around with Obama like Chuck Norris does with Huckabee, it would be equally as creepy.

Many celebrities bring more baggage than benefits. Many are usually quite polarizing or flaky. Being pretty and being in the movies aren’t exactly stellar credentials for giving opinions on national policy. If Sean Penn called to endorse my candidacy, I would hang up immediately.

Why do celebrities do endorsements? PR. Celebrities are in the business of selling themselves and what better way to get their names in the paper than to talk politics.

Endorsements don’t mean everything. Both Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 had most of the celebrity and media endorsements, but that didn’t help either win. Why? Because neither Gore nor Kerry was a celebrity themselves. In order to win the White House, the candidate has to be the biggest name on the stage, in the media, in the mind and on the ballot.

Here are my comments on some recent celebrity endorsements:

Oprah Winfrey for Obama. Obama rally at UCLA.
"So I say I am not a traitor (to my gender)! No, I'm not a traitor - I'm just following my own truth. And that truth has led me to Barack Obama!” [audience cheers]

Laura on Oprah: Oprah’s remarks are well-written and well-spoken. She touches base with the negative then moves to the positive. Oprah is a one of a kind. There is nobody else like her. She is loved, respected and trusted by millions. Oprah’s strength is that she is a straight-shooter. She is down-to-earth, non-partisan and represents everyday people.

Susan Sarandon for Obama. Tavis Smiley Show/PBS.
“ Well, I'm going to back Obama. But I hope - I think that he, as a symbol, has really excited people, and he's definitely confusing to everyone who really hates America for hating Muslims because a name like Obama and a Black man, they're probably going to go "Oh, wait a minute - what?" It's kind of like when you're out on the line for freedom to have an abortion and you're incredibly pregnant. They just can't quite figure it out.

Laura on Susan Sarandon: Huh? Exactly the wrong way to endorse somebody. With weird remarks like these, she is certainly not helping Obama or herself. Her statements are way off message. Bringing up Muslims and abortion and people hating the U.S. is not wise.

Ted Danson for Hillary. National Press Club
"I take my hat off to Senator Clinton, to being the first woman in this situation, because there's a double standard. I throw my shoe at the TV a lot... out of frustration you know. Two guys go at it and they're good ol' boys you know, giving each other a good licking, and she says something mean, man, 'Dear God, what a terrible person she is... It's a very strange position to be in. Luckily it doesn't seem to phase her that much."

Laura on Ted Danson: Does anyone care what Ted Danson has to say? I don’t think so.

Robert DeNiro for Obama. Rally at the Meadowlands.
“Barack Obama does not have the experience to be president of the United States. [audience boos] And I can prove that. Remember, he wasn't experienced enough to vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. … You know, that's the kind of inexperience I could get used to.”

Laura on Robert DeNiro: He is just repeating the campaign talking points. While the points are fantastic, they didn’t need DeNiro to deliver the lines. That is the lesson of Obama. He doesn’t need celebrities because he is one, but having them in the back of his bus cheering him on is icing on the cake.

Magic Johnson for Hillary. CNN
“Well, I still go back to the experience and the expertise, and also her foreign relationships, things that she's been doing for a long, long time, battling the health-care issue. Everybody wants health care for everybody, but you have been in that fight to understand what has been the pitfalls, why everybody doesn't have health care. So it's those type of things that I still think she still has the edge on Obama.”

Laura on Magic Johnson: I’m not sure people care who Magic likes to win the next NBA championship, let alone the presidency.

50 Cent for Hillary.
Reporter: Why Hillary?
50 Cent: I think she could do good job.
Reporter: Really?
50 Cent: Yeah, I mean Obama, ain't nothing bad about Obama in my eyes either. But, I just think Hillary that would be my choice.

Laura on 50 Cents: A nothing endorsement. Not even worth 25 cents.

Whoopi Goldberg for Hillary. On The View
"So, when I went in... I had to change what I was going to do. So, I put it towards Hillary. (She changed her vote from Obama because Hillary was the first to address the issue of American jobs going overseas)

Laura on Whoopi: What does she know about jobs going overseas? Who does she think she is, Lou Dobbs? These comments are way out of her field of expertise.

What about McCain? How should McCain rebut all those democratic celebrity endorsements?

He shouldn't. McCain should ignore them and establish his own brand and celebrity. McCain’s biggest problem is that he is well-known but doesn’t stand for any single attribute in the mind. He is a war hero and a Senate veteran. But elections are about the future not the past. Just ask Giuliani. And in this election being a Washington insider isn’t a good thing.

American politics and American Idol have a lot in common. The biggest celebrity wins. Let's just be thankful we don't have to hear McCain, Obama and Hillary sing.

Change is the word

Like the Olympics, every four years we are treated to a sport known as the U.S. Presidential election. With the politicians, as with the Olympians: “You don’t win Silver; you lose Gold,” as the famous Nike ads said.

In politics, second place is no place. In business, it’s different, so while Pepsi might have a nice business in second place, John Kerry’s second place finish sent him home with his tail between his legs.

Like athletes, politicians spend years preparing for the big day. They spend every dollar they can find, and work every hour they can stay awake, towards achieving their goal. Both live in fear that a tenth-of-a-second slip-up, a gaffe in a debate or a photo of Donna Rice on your lap can instantly erase a lifetime of work.

So what is up with the 2008 Presidential race?

This year we have a wide-open race on both sides of the aisle. It has been years since an incumbent President or former Vice-President has not been in the race. Therefore we have lots of candidates jumping into the ring from both the Republican and Democratic parties. The wide open field has made for a brutal primary season with candidates on both sides getting hammered by their own people. So much so that Democratic candidate Bill Richardson joked during Saturday's debate that he's "been in hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this."

In any election there are two battles that are fought. One internal party battle and one general election battle. If knowing the enemy and positioning yourself against the enemy is the key to success, than this system is counter-productive in building a strong brand. The best primary message is different and the opposite of the best general-election message because the enemy is so different.

What does it take to win in 2008?

In politics, owing the right word in the mind is the key to success. That’s right, politicians are brands just like soap and cars and should be treated that way. Sure, running a country is more complicated than washing your hands with a bar of soap and there are vast policy platforms and such, but the most successful politicians have succeeded because they own a word in the mind.

Ronalds Reagan: “Supply-side economics”
George Bush Sr.: “No new taxes.”
Bill Clinton: “The economy, stupid.”
George W. Bush: “Compassionate conservative.”

And some of the most unsuccessful politicians have been undermined by owning a word, too. Owning the wrong word is a killer.

Lyndon Johnson: “Tet offensive”
Barry Goldwater: “Extremist.”
Walter Mondale: “I’ll raise taxes.”
John Kerry: “Flip-flopper.”

What word does Hillary own?

Hillary owns Clinton in the mind. For better and for worse Bill & Hillary are locked together in the mind.

But it is Hillary Clinton that is running for office now and simply being married to Bill Clinton is not going to fill the ballot. To win she needs to stand on her own ideas while having Bill close by.

So for years campaign advisors have been crafting a message for Hillary. And the centerpiece of that strategy is the message of “experience.” Perhaps worried about Hillary’s brief resume in elected office, her advisors have heavily emphasized and inflated her years of experience. Of course, most of her experience comes from her time spent as First Lady in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Washington DC.

My husband is with Accenture and we have been married ten years, but I don’t think that they would make me a partner and give me his job. Attending dinners and hearing about his day only goes so far in bestowing experience.

With the Iraq War quagmire and 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush, the one thing most Americans are looking for today is change. So Hillary’s focus on “experience” is now coming back to bite her. She went after the wrong word in the mind. And now she is desperate to jump on the “change” bandwagon.

Can Hillary change to “change”?

Hillary might be able to tweak her word, but she definitely can’t change to a word that is already owned by the competition.

A brand that focuses on an idea and gets into the mind first will own that word no matter what the competition does. Volvo owns safety. Toyota, Ford and Honda spent millions advertising safety but it is all for naught, because Volvo owns “safety” and nobody can take it away from them.

Perhaps Hillary could have owned change. If she hadn’t spent months promoting “experience.” But today it is too late because Barack Obama has pre-empted the idea in the mind. When it comes to “change” Obama is the real-thing candidate.

Change, Obama and the bandwagon.

Fresh-faced Barack Obama has sailed into this Presidential race a total newcomer. An overnight sensation with rock-star charisma, Obama without a doubt represents change on many levels.

The key is jumping on the right trend first and sticking with it. Since campaigns are crafted months in advance, it is not always easy to predict what will work. Not to mention the candidate has to have the credibility, authenticity and track record supporting the idea to make it stick. Obama was the right guy at the right time and his brand is surging.

Since change has become the buzzword of the campaign, everybody is now jumping on it.

After the results came in from Iowa, change was the talk of the town. All the major candidates sprinkled the word heavily into their rhetoric during their post-caucus speeches. Clinton used change 4 times. Obama 6 times. Edwards 9 times. Huckabee 7 times. Romney 3 times.

And in this past Saturday's debates, change was clearly the word. Clinton used change 25 times. Edwards 14 times. Obama 14 times. Richardson 8 times. On the Republican side: Romney used change 10 times. Giuliani 9 times. Huckabee 5 times. McCain 3 times.

The other candidates can use the word change all they want. It doesn’t matter. When it comes to change Obama is the real-thing in the mind. It is like when Honda advertised safety, consumers thought. Yeah safety is important, we should go buy a Volvo.

Safety wasn’t always in fashion and might not be in fashion in the future. With change it is the same way. But today I think change will be the key to success because of the frustration with the current policies of George Bush.

So what Hillary and others at first assumed was Obama’s most distinct disadvantage has become his greatest asset. An inexperienced outsider seeking change may be just what Washington needs most to shake things up.

For more on politics and marketing, check out my latest Ries Report.