Positioning

A postscript to my last entry on brands: The New York Times article on John McCain drew a strong rebuke from the candidate because the article attacked his brand identity. Specifically, McCain has crafted a perception of being a straight-talker and anti-special interests. The charges in the Times article intimated he was compromised on some issues involving lobbyists. Unfotunately for McCain the charges were based on gossip mostly. Still, he had to respond so that the news would not diminish his brand.

Now another business application in the political discourse and practice is positioning. Candidates like products do not exist in a vacuum and thus do not have absolute characteristics. Instead they are judged against other products. Candidates try to gain and hold a position in the minds of voters that will be winning. In the Republican race we saw a lot of positioning.

First, Mitt Romney spent millions to position himself as a traditional, Reagan Republican. This was a bit of challenge given that Romney record as governor of Massachussets was not purely conservative. Still, he chose this strategy wisely given that his strongest competitors in early 2007 were Rudy Guliani and John McCain--both not easily associated with conservative. Romney wanted to be a first mover into a position that was not only apprently vacant but often a winning one for republican voters. (Fred Thompson came in late to the race in part because he felt that a true conservative was missing in the race.)

On the Democratic side, Barrack Obama has been pretty successful in postioning himself as a candidate of change. This has been a consistent message to the point that he owns this position in the minds of voters (not just Democrats). Hillary Clinton has been less (but somewhat) successful in establishing the "experience" position. To the degree that she has been successful with this position it appears to be less appealing to the change message. Plus, she has tended to push this position less as consistent strategy than as reactive tactical plays to Obama.

Of course, positions are often only as good as the candidates (just the same as a product). Obama could be expert at establishing his postion but I doubt he could overcome as well a branded and financed candidate as Clinton unless he was also a very good candidate. I suspect that had Romney been as good (captivating a speaker) he could have won the Republican side (or to say another way--if he had been really Reaganesque he could have prevailed over McCain). But it still is important to be well postioned. Mike Huckabee is a great candidate like Obama, but he is not nearly as well positioned, as Huckabee is branded in a relatively small niche of evangelical voters.