Renee A. Prejean-Motanky is a writer and strategic marketing and communications management professional and consultant. Contact her directly at RAPWrites@aol.com.

Advice and Perspective

(Published October, 2004)

Branding, Public Relations and Politics…
Reinvention, spin and straddling the line

By Renée A. Prejean-Motanky

After weeks of simmering as a "he said, she said" series of attacks and defenses, despicable political smear campaigns have been exposed for all to see; an ugly sight full of old grudges, changed stories, unfounded insinuations and outright falsehoods. The records plainly point to the conclusion: the accusations are dishonest, dishonorable – What can we learn, if anything, from all of this? Who do we blame?

The even bigger question becomes, how have individuals with philosophies so far removed from basic American consensus, ever gotten so far?

Welcome to the age-old practice of politics through branding!

Politicians have never been strangers to the latest trends in marketing and public relations. Historically, in fact, politicians have been good marketers. We’ve all come to expect that. Politicians have long shown awareness about branding. Abraham Lincoln shifted debate about the Civil War from one of constitutional interpretation into one about the meaning and purpose of the nation. Julius Caesar had one of the best tag lines ever; "I came. I saw. I conquered!" 

Branding is about perception and in any political campaign; perception is what really matters to get the votes flowing in. As to whether the politician is a good performer in reality, that's another branding challenge altogether.

One doesn't have to look very far to see that John Edwards's own life journey debunks his "Two Americas" stump speech, or that the Bush/Cheney "Yes, America Can" slogan is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

But none of this matters. The real issues arise from one simple question: Why do politicians and their backroom operators use branding? The simple answer is that it works, and it works best in the crowd all parties are most anxious to capture: young adults.

The sons and daughters of baby boomers have been pelted with branding and advertising from the moment they were old enough to want their first tricycle. Branding is how my children were introduced to most new things. Their generation responds to messaging. They like to be told what's cool.

They also tend to be liberal. You say Kerry represents a conglomerate of elitist privilege? That doesn't sound like their bag. "Or, Joe Musician wore a "Defeat Bush" button at the MTV Music Video Awards. And I like Joe Musician. I think he even played an NDP benefit concert. Or maybe that was the Barenaked Ladies…Who did Bush get to play for him? Nobody!"

Conclusion: Bush is not cool.

Notice the discussion never moved to: What are Bush's positions on health care, taxation, and national defense? For that matter, what are Kerry's positions on those issues? Or Moseley-Braun’s? Or Dean’s? The bottom line is that platforms aren't dazzling. They can't be distilled into a snappy slogan sexy enough to get an apathetic voter to the polls.

What politicians and youth fail to recognize is that this branded approach to politics re-enforces cynicism towards civic duty. The more politicians pander to us, the more we become jaded when they fail to live up to expectations. Just take a look at recent voter turnout numbers among the younger crowd as evidence of this.

The real damage of branding politicians emerges when we realize that the issues facing today's world cannot be distilled into handy all-encompassing slogans. Just endeavor to read about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, about Islam, and about U.S. foreign policy to learn how and why 9/11 happened. What you’ll find out is that the world is gray. It can’t be capsulated in black and white statements like "WMD’s are the problem"; or "the Arab world is the problem"; or "Evil doers are the problem"; or "globalization is the problem".

Though most folk could tell you who Paris Hilton is dating this week or what movie is number one at the box office, most could not summarize the last 70 years of Iraqi history — although that doesn't seem to stop them from espousing an opinion on the current war.

Propaganda and spin are less likely to work if you have a broad base of knowledge. Most of us aren't economics majors with a minor in international affairs. Most of us, in fact, don't even read the front section of the newspaper every day. Instead we form our opinions with the help of polemicists and media magicians like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh — people who are under no obligation to deliver an unbiased point of view.

Branding in politics is a total mess --- which should come as no surprise, since politics in general is a total mess. Neither Democrats nor Republicans --- the two entrenched and dominant political brands in America --- can agree on who they are, what they stand for, or why anyone should bother listening.

Branding and Public Relations play an important role in today’s political process, there is no doubt. Politicians recognize the need to use the communication tools that members of society understand, recognize and interact with. But as a result, politics has become center led and boring.

Successful brands allow three things to happen - consumer inspiration, involvement and reward - also attributes needed for democracy and, by default, politics to be more successful (measured by turnout at the polls).

Political parties need to bring together brand and identity with consistency and clarity. Good political brands stand for a clear ideology (even if you do not agree with the vision.) A successful political identity allows people to form a relationship with the party and to easily recognize it.

As the 2004 election season heats up in this country politicians are seeking and seizing new ways to tap into their most important audiences’ sense of urgency and brand loyalty.

According to Jack Trout, an advertising man and longtime dweller of Madison Avenue, hired to train new diplomats in the art of projecting a positive image of America overseas as part of the Brand America program launched by the government after 9/11, all the world has become a press conference. He says; "We’re in a battle for perception."

Interestingly, I know what I perceive to be important, but I am still not clear, from the messaging, on the reason that I should vote for either candidate! I must ask; where are those campaign messages lodged solidly upon position on the issues? And what are the issues? Where’s the PR?

[Return to top.]

(Index to articles about monthly luncheons)