I know that some of you are old enough to remember the Coca Cola Crash. Coke, an internationally marketed product, widely loved, generates billions for its corporate share holders. Where ever in the world you may roam, you can buy a Coke.
Back in the 1980's the Coca Cola Company, entranced by the uptick in low sugar, and no sugar, products rolled out a new product, laced with artificial sweeteners, called New Coke.
The company was relying on the loyalty of consumers to the Coca Cola "Brand", to over look the fact that it tasted really awful.
They mounted a multi-million dollar ad campaign, re-tooled their bottling plants, invested beau coup bucks in a new label, and crashed the airwaves with overly enthusiastic people from all walks of life, to praise this "New Brand". It didn't work.
It mostly didn't work because the "New Brand" failed to meet every criteria of flavor upon which the Old Coke was based. It didn't work because they decided to reduce availability of Old Coke to promote the "New Brand" by making it the only choice. Soft drink consumers responded with an outcry, and a mass exodus to Pepsi-Cola.
Although it took about 18 months for the full extent of this disaster to emerge, eventually they threw in the towel, pulled, "New Coke" from the market, and retreated to their castles, having learned a valuable lesson. "Original Coke", the designation applied to the original product became just "Coke", and the world moved on.
Marketing is a tricky thing. You can develop a product and if it finds a base of support, you can sell that product to great profit. If you change the product, you must be prepared to lose market share, as faithful supporters look elsewhere for that quality that originally drew them to your niche.
In the world of politics, rolling out a new product, re-branding the old, and hoping that you can find a market for your nasty tasting invention is a common trick. The Republican Party began this re-branding with Richard Nixon and his Southern Strategy, pushed on through the Reagan years, and did not understand why folks fled to Clinton in 1992. In 2000, they decided to change the label and the formula, once again. They sold their product as "new and improved", an undeniable hook for modern Americans. Millions flocked to "try" this new version of Republicanism, giving us the unmitigated disaster of the George Bush Presidency.
There was a time when Republican, like Coke, was an honorable label. It was a label that promised a host of philosophical and policy positions that represented a coherent view of the world. If you voted for a Republican, or bought a Coke, you knew what you would get, and your vote, or purchase, could be based on your personal taste.
That all changed when the "New Republican Party" emerged. It maintained its most loyal fans who still bought the "Brand", but increasingly the nasty taste left in the mouth has driven people to Dr. Pepper, Pepsi Cola, and Lattes.
Now they are trying to do it again!
They seem to think if they just change the label, re-tool the marketing, and bring out a "New Republican Party", folks will again flock to the brand they used to trust.
It just won't work. Until the basic formula at the base of any new marketing ploy is changed, until they dump the "new and improved", until they realize that it's the taste of the product that is objectionable, they are doomed to spend millions of dollars and waste thousands of hours trying to sell a product that nobody wants.
It's not about the "Brand". It's not about the roll out. It's the "new and improved" formula that is at the root of the failure.
The Republican Party has come to represent the worst aspects of human nature; petty, vicious, incompetent. It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.