After an edifying discussion of branding in Rippe's diary, I thought I'd put in my $.02. I initially wanted to do it within that thread but then realized that is will be long enough for a diary, so here goes.
I think the term BRAND is even simpler than it was described by Rippe. In my estimation, a BRAND is the total of what "people" think of when they hear the name of a product or a service, or a party or a candidate. That's pretty much it. It can be a very powerful tool because if you can get your candidate associated with an immediate positive set of attributes by a large number of people simply by mentioning his or her name, half the battle is won.
When a party or candidate is strongly branded, it means that the target audience by and large holds the SAME view of that party or candidate, and that that perception is difficult to change. The Republican Party started to become a strong brand starting in the 1960s, and except for the post-Nixon hiccup, slowly and steadily grew into becoming the stronger of the two parties by 1992. The brand? Quite simply: lower taxes, strong defense, and friendly to business. Their target audience, Republicans and Independents, were trained to think of these things when they heard "GOP." They loudly proclaimed for years that they were going to lower taxes, etc, pursued legislation that supported this desired brand, and blamed Democrats for interference when they either didn't achieve the goal or didn't want to. The GOP also endeavored to brand the Democratic Party as exactly the opposite: higher taxes, weak defense, bad for the economy. They were very successful. So successful, in fact, that the Republican base today still believes that these are the important issues of the day, and that the GOP is RIGHT on them, and that the Democratic Party is WRONG on them. About three quarters of them still believe that these are still absolutely the goals of the GOP. Independents have hopped back up on the fence, not trusting the GOP brand but still believing the Democratic Brand (as branded by the GOP).
What the Democratic Party did between 1960 and 1992 was, basically, nothing. Franklin Roosevelt had forged a coalition of workers, Catholics, Jews, students, public employees, intellectuals and minorities, and over the years subsequent Democrats hoped that the Republicans would be offensive enough to these coalition members to drive them to the aid of the party. Often enough the Republican Party did not disappoint them, but had augmented their brand to include "high morals" by 1992, and branded the Democratic Party as just the opposite, which had the effect of weakening the "Catholic" portion of the Democratic coalition.
Between 1988 and 1992, things began to go a bit off track for the Republicans. King George I betrayed the party brand by promising no new taxes and then delivering them. The economy went downhill badly (just in time for my graduation from business school!!), and Clinton began to brand himself as GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY. With Perot in the race throwing dirt on the Republicans for being BAD FOR THE ECONOMY, the party brands, established solely by the GOP, were upset. While the Republican PARTY was still able to maintain its brand, the Republican CANDIDATE had failed to do so, and thus Clinton was elected with pretty short coattails. I view the entire Clinton Presidency as a battle over branding. Clinton pounded away on economic themes, very successfully, since the economy was going well, while the Republicans desperately tried to brand him as....as a Democrat (and the brand that went therewith). They couldn't get him on the economy, but they successfully painted him as weak on national defense (Oh, the lies they told to get this one over, aided by Mogadishu and Hussein kicking the inspectors out of Iraq), and we all know about the "loose morals" part. During this time, the Democrats still weren't doing all that much really with respect to branding. They allowed the Republicans to define them as taxers and spenders, even if Clinton the candidate was able to push his responsible budgeting themes. The Republicans were able to do this because there was a perception that Clinton succeeded in this area BECAUSE of the Republican Congress, and despite Democrats....the perception that Clinton was working with Newt to create a good economy and a responsible budget trumped the fact that the Republicans often opposed Clinton's budget and unanimously opposed one of them. And once again, we all know about the goddamned morals.
I guess I'm being a tad too harsh on the Democrats. They made some gains branding the Republican Party as intolerant and anti-environmentalist, but against the bread and butter issues of the GOP, these themes did not gain very much traction other than among those affected by GOP intolerance, who were a minority and either Democratic or alternative life forms anyway.
The Democratic Party is only now doing what they should have done all along in lockstep with Clinton. They are branding themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, and branding the Republicans as irresponsible. But really, the party has only been able to do this now because of GWB. Prior to 2000, it was too easy for the Republicans to claim that lowering taxes was the responsible thing to do. Now it is a very difficult argument for them to make. What is the evidence that the Democrats are pursuing this brand with all the vigor that they should? First, there was the Pay-As-You-Go vote, which was unanimously supported by Democrats in Congress. Then, there was the Howard Dean/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid preview of the "New Democratic Party," and at the top of the list was fiscal responsibility. Third, it is difficult to find a Democratic speech these days that does not address the Democrats as responsible and the Republicans as borrow-and-spenders. This will only be amplified as we move forward, and woe to our party if we do not. Look what will happen to the party brands if we are successful just on this one meme. Now instead of the Republican Party brand as being lower taxes, strong national defense, friendly to business and high morals, the Republican Party brand will be irresponsible spending, but at least friendly to business and strong on national defense. The high morals are gone, due both to the "Culture of Corruption" as well as the perception that Republicans are just out to get into your personal life (see: Schiavo, Terri). The Democratic Party will appear as fiscally responsible, if still confused on national defense, and not particularly friendly to business. This is a much, much more difficult choice for independents to make than the old alternatives, no? I think we can achieve this goal by 2006 and POSSIBLY win.
So that's the background, if you are still with me, and I hope the opportunities are becoming ever more clear to you now.
The desired Democratic brand should be "Fiscally Responsible, Responsible on Foreign Policy, and creates opportunities through support of small business." They should brand the Republican Party as "Irresponsible on both the budget and foreign policy, and friendly only
to their big business clients [pimps]." By 2008, we would be behooved to have this brand in place. Here are some very sketchy ideas how:
Do you ever wonder why trying to make Republicans accountable for the war horrifies them? Do you ever wonder just why they quickly turn the topic of conversation to "what happened in the past is irrelevant, what are you going to do now?" It is because they are afraid of being perceived as irresponsible on foreign policy, a brand that they do not want to trump their incumbent brand of being strong on defense. The Democrats should do everything they can to try and get the troops out sooner rather than later, saying that this IS the plan, and the bad result that may or may not occur is (a) destined to happen anyway, and (b) THE RESULT OF IRRESPONSIBLE REPUBLICAN FOREIGN POLICY THAT WILL TAKE MANY YEARS TO RECOVER FROM. The Republicans played the following card in 2000, but now the Democrats have to: "LET THE ADULTS COME IN AND TAKE CARE OF FOREIGN POLICY AGAIN." I think the Party will conclude that getting out is the thing to do. I don't think the mute button has been pushed by Harry Reid because they don't know what to do
in Iraq as much as they need to figure out how to properly express it without Republicans putting words in our mouths. I think it should be something like the above.
The third thing the Democrats need to do is play up the fact that the Republicans being sodomized on a constant basis by big bidness. Big Business interests are NOT Small Business interests. Lowering taxes for big business is corporate welfare. Lowering taxes for small business is helping them survive. This is a no-brainer. There are so many more people employed by small businesses than by big businesses these days that the Democratic Party needs to seize this opportunity. There is no sign yet, unfortunately, that they intend to do so. But until they do, the Republicans will always be able to brand the
Democrats as anti-business. But by taking care of and prioritizing the needs of small businesses, the Democrats will take the biggest page out of the Republican business playbook.
I am not going to address the disadvantage the Democrats have in communicating these things to the public...that also needs to be tackled in order for the new brands to be established....but I will make the point that both parties have the opportunity to brand both themselves and their opponent, and the Democrats MUST DO BOTH! The reason you have to do both in this industry is that there are only two players. There are infinite brands of beer and cars and other consumer products, but there are only TWO parties. You can attempt to brand yourself, but it is a wonderful insurance policy to brand the other party also. While you are attempting to build your brand, the other side is going to great lengths to tear it down. If you can't establish your own brand, you have to make the other brand too expensive for the consumer. In a world of two brands, this only makes sense. Thus the Democrats must make Republicans defend their own brands at the same time. Capiche?
So that's it....RESPONSIBILITY AT HOME AND ABROAD, and the creation of OPPORTUNITY through the support of America's largest employer, small business.
Thank you and good night.