Addendum to Political Brands

Many corporations have sufferred mightily over the years because they failed to respond to a crisis quickly and decisively. Firestone a few years ago dismissed the relatively small percentage of accidents attributed to faulty tires and it nearly killed them (even a small perecntage can lead to deaths of real people).

Political candidates face similar crises -- and Barrack Obama is facing one now with the mainstream media showing inflammatory sermon clips of his pastor. While there are political arguments pro and con, I am interested in how the crisis is managed by the campaign. In this case, I would think Obama must confront the issue quickly and head-on for two reasons: 1) the image of the pastor compromises the brand image Obama has worked so hard to create and 2) left to fester this could mitigate his effort to become candidate with mass appeal (national candidates cannot be niche players that appeal to only one market or demographic).

Managing Campaigns

To come back to the application of management to politics . . . yesterday the New York Times ran a headline: Sniping by Aides Hurt Clinton’s Image as Manager. The article is interesting, but I think it overstates the management analogy; for example, at one point the authors say she has been a "detached manager" and that she is now trying to get more into the day-to-day. The article casts a negative light on Clinton's management skills and while I am not a Clinton fan myself I think this charge is a bit unfair because the problems she is dealing with are quite common for about any candidate running a large campaign.

Large campaigns are never managed by the candidate -- that is why they have campaign managers. I suspect Huckabee may have done more managing but that is because his campaign was much smaller. From the article, “She hasn’t managed anything as complex as this before; that’s the problem with senators,” said James A. Thurber, a professor of government at American University who is an expert on presidential management. “She wasn’t as decisive as she should have been." From here the authors describe her management style as "insular," meaning only a few people had access to her. Nevermind the chaos that might occur if she let lots of people have access to her or if she spent much time on the day-to-day campaign stuff.

Her problems in managing the campaign are actually quite common and predictable (McCain last summer had lots of problems, as well). First, management is not a natural skill. If so many have trouble doing it even with MBAs and experience in business where bottom line results bring reality real fast, why would politicians be any better at it? I doubt her problems were one of access but simply not having any reliable systems in place to know what was going on in terms of low morale and sniping in the lower staff (something, again, lots of business executives don't do well either). Further, candidates are different from CEOs in that the candidate is the product and thus must spend most of her time doing PR and boning up on issues -- leaving not much time for management.

Actually, the real problem with her "decisiveness" is the same one many politicans suffer from: inability to replace loyal aides. This is a problem George W. Bush has had as well -- valuing loyalty more than competence or results. How do you reassign or fire someone who has loyally stood by you and someone you trust is for you? Again, this happens in business as well -- loyalists who hang on even as they are unfit to carry on the tasks needed, but is especially evident in politics. In another context think of the Kansas City Royals -- a couple of years ago they the worst franchise in the league and many fans were blaming the owner. Yet, it is the job of the general manager to improve the team and he was failing miserably, unable to stick to a strategy and unable to manage the organization. The owner was at fault because he would not replace the general manager -- it was not about the owner's management style nor did he need to get into the day-to-day. Candidates often hire managers they trust based on loyalty, not based on getting results.

So, while I think such backroom news on camapaigns can sometimes illustrate the character of the candidate (e.g., John Kerry's behavior in 2004 did not always show him in a good light in terms of character), it is a stretch to translate campaign management to decision making in the Oval Office. Quite frankly, most candidates don't have a clue. And if that is the criteria, then we better start soliciting people like Andy Grove, James Kilts, Robert Rubin . . . or Mitt Romney.

Learning How to Manage

Have been underwater the last couple of weeks due to illness in our family . . . but all is well again.

One of the reasons people like me get into education is the high of seeing people learn. Often the aha occurs after the course. Yesterday I talked to a "former" student from an executive development course I helped facilitate in January. This person could hardly hide his excitement at the success he was having as a manager (more accurately the success his department was having). Put simply his department was now delivering more effectively as measured by customer surveys and new projects were being diverted to his department because of their success.

And how was he doing it? By him doing less. Now he was empowering his subordinates to do the work by giving them focus and direction. He was using the tools he learned in the January course. Importantly, he was now feeling like he was helping develop his people rather than fearing he might get them fired.

I find this type of aha -- learning to manage -- quite fascinating. That's why I work with people interested in the challenge of managing.

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.

Brands III

Candidates have brands, too. These brands can be doubled-edged swords. Hillary Clinton rode to her dominant position in the current presidential race on the strength of the “Clinton” brand. Her recent troubles, however, may also be attributed at least in part on the Clinton name. As with many products, candidates look for mass appeal, not just certain segments. A strong brand identity can trap a candidate or product into a niche. Toyota’s brand carries an image of great value at low cost, so when it wanted to compete in the market for luxury cars it didn’t use the Toyota brand, but created a new one, Lexus. Hillary Clinton has a harder time changing her brand (see her campaign materials such as the picture to the left and you will see the Clinton name absent). She is trying to create a more distinct “Hillary” brand.

John McCain will have same challenges. He has made his brand on being a Maverick and straight talker. This brand causes him problems with many of the people in his own party. In today’s New York Times, an article attacks McCain’s brand image by “reporting” on some potential relationships with lobbyists. McCain has come out strong to discredit these charges – even as he must work to expand the value proposition to a mass audience, he must also protect his brand.

Obama now seems to have an advantage in the branding race. Starting with the significant disadvantage of all new entrants—lack of name recognition, he has been able to leverage the one advantage the new entrant has: no already established brand expectations. He has been able to create his own brand identity from scratch and he smartly has done it by appealing to a broad consumer base. In politics there are many niche players; previously African American candidates tended to appeal to minority audiences. Obama has made a distinct effort to not do that. He has built a brand that speaks broadly and has mass appeal. It will be interesting to see if there is enough substance behind the image to hold through November.

In both business and politics a brand image is necessary but not sufficient. That is, people must know who you are and have expectations of what you will deliver (quality, price, luxury, etc.). But it has to be delivered as well, or the company, product, or candidate will be no more than a fad or flash in the pan.

Brands Continued

The republican brand from 1980 through 2006 was no doubt dominant. Bill Clinton, the only democratic president during this time won primarily by coopting some of the brand values of limited government. Clinton also benefited when George H.W. Bush defied his party’s brand identity by raising taxes, drawing the ire of his own consumers.

So what has happened to the republican brand since 1994? It has continually lost value to the point that the republicans lost their market share lead in the 2006 congressional elections. While taxes are still an issue in that people like to pay less, they are less of one as other issues like health care and the environment crowd them out (and some believe that we may have reached equilibrium on taxes).

Brands can get tired if the value proposition no longer holds or there is brand confusion. As much as the value proposition of cutting taxes got old and tired (see this recent article on taxes and the brand), the brand dilution was cemented by the product not living up to its acclaimed values. Many republican party consumers did not see the party living up to its value of limited government—in fact, the party is now viewed as being as eager to spend as its opponents. This recent article illustrates this. While reputation can carry a brand for some time, once the brand value is lost it is hard to get back. For example, some companies like Sprint have suffered recently from poor customer service—it will take great effort to turn this around.

Brands

It is a political year so a discussion of politics and business is appropriate. In the political discourse you will often hear business terms used. Among the most commonly used are brand and positioning. First, let’s explore the use of branding in politics.

Since our first president and political parties emerged, these parties have taken on brand identities. These identities are closely related to positioning—something I will discuss separately—but it is important to know that brands have value. Consider Apple, Corporation and the brand value it has built over the years. Because of its brand, people are willing to pay a premium for their MP3 players and other products. Companies make explicit efforts to build a brand that conveys perceived value to consumers. The band must be both known and be associated with something having value (i.e., cool, slick electronic devices).

In the case of the political parties they already have known brands (have name recognition). They must, however, work to develop perceived value or offer a value proposition that attracts a broad coalition of voters. The Republican Party over the last 50 years is a good example. In the early 1960s republicans were mostly indistinguishable to the Democratic Party. This is a bad place to be if you are clearly in a market share deficit as they were at that time (they were K-Mart to the Democrats Wal-Mart).

Today, many pundits refer to the Reagan revolution that was started by Goldwater in 1964 and continued in 1980 with Reagan’s election and then culminated in 1994 under Gingrich. Reagan helped create a new coalition of fiscal conservatives (sometimes called blue dog democrats), social conservatives, and libertarians and created a new brand that effectively differentiated the parties. The value proposition of the new Republican Party was limited government, strong defense to defeat communism, and tax cuts. This vaulted the part from a decidedly minority party to a majority party by 1994. Over this period republicans worked diligently to create a specific brand image. So what has happened since?