Companies, organizations and even individuals spend years of toil and treasure to create a brand that sets them apart from their competition. The investment in terms of time, money and creativity can be massive. The impact a well developed brand can have can’t be overestimated.
Some brands are so recognizable that people think they know and understand the company or organization when simply hearing the name or seeing the logo. Organizations that have developed these iconic brands take great care to protect and expand the brand, trying to make sure their every move reinforces the brand’s message.
Our two major political parties have spent decades and vast sums of money building their brands. Both parties have invested both their short-term and long-term success in their brands. And although the brands are associated with particular individuals and events, each is most closely tried to and defined by a perceived political ideology.
Hear the word Republican or just see the elephant and most people have certain images and beliefs that come to mind:
• Conservative
• Budget conscious
• Strong on national defense
• Strong on law and order
• Against big government
• Favors tax cut
• Supports business
• Supports free trade
• “Middle America”
Likewise, hear the word Democrat or see the donkey and most people have another set of images and beliefs that come to mind:
• Liberal
• Supports social change
• Tax and Spend
• Weak on Defense
• Protectionist
• Supported by labor unions
• Supports the weak and poor
• East and West coast “elites”
Most of the images and beliefs we have about these parties have been carefully crafted by the parties themselves, a few others have been foisted on one party by the other in order to sully the brand. Nevertheless, for most of us, when we think Republican or Democrat we tend to think of some or all of the above images.
Because of the strength of the images and beliefs associated with each brand, we believe we know something about a politician when they say they are a Democrat or a Republican. We expect a Democrat politician’s political philosophy and votes to be closely aligned with our concept of what a Democrat is. Likewise, we expect a Republican politician’s ideology and votes to reflect what we believe a Republican is.
When a politician of either party doesn’t act according to their brand, we question whether or not they are really what they say they are. They are viewed as mavericks or independent thinkers. We don’t question whether the organization has lost its way; we simply question whether the individual in question really fits within the organization.
But what happens when a majority of the organization’s members act counter to the brand? We no longer question whether the members are mavericks or independent thinkers; we question whether the brand itself has any meaning, any substance. The dichotomy between the message and the actions creates confusion in the marketplace and if that confusion lasts long enough, the brand loses all meaning.
We are currently observing a brand implosion.
For decades the Republican party railed against the Democrats on taxes, spending, the economy, judges, and a number of social issues, preaching the tenets of conservatism, trying to brand the Democrats as big spending, big taxing liberals as they pointed out the worst offenders, slowly chipping away at the lock the Democrats seemed to have on congress, yet never gaining the upper hand legislatively with both houses under their control.
Then in 1994 they developed the Contract with America, a vision of conservatism that matched much of the brand image that had been created for their party—and they took legislative control of both houses for the first time in 40 years. For a time, their legislation seemed in alignment with their brand. Certainly, they had their share of opposition, but people believed they understood what ‘Republican’ meant–both in terms of the brand and in terms of the actions. One reinforced the other.
Over the past years, many of the party’s actions have gone counter to their brand’s image, at least in the view of a great many Americans. The brand has become confused—what does ‘Republican’ really mean? It doesn’t seem to mean fiscally conservative. It doesn’t seem to mean socially conservative. It doesn’t seem to mean strong on security. It doesn’t seem to be anything other than what appears to be politically expedient at the moment.
Today, we have a Republican party with no meaningful identity, no real brand because of a great chasm between its message and its actions. It preaches fiscal conservatism and spends like a drunken sailor. It preaches homeland security and ignores the borders. It preaches ethics and moral responsibility and has a consistent line of its elected officials resigning in disgrace with many going to prison. It preaches energy independence and refuses to address energy in a meaningful way.
The brand has become meaningless. A decade of confusion between what the brand proclaims and the actions of the party has brought the party to a crisis point. On the one hand, party leaders try to shoehorn candidates into a brand that doesn’t fit, and on other hand, it still proclaims the images and beliefs it worked decades to instill in its rank and file—and wonders why it can’t generate enthusiasm, unity and trust within the marketplace.
The lesson for us is straightforward—once your brand is imbedded in the marketplace, any serious dichotomy between the company’s actions and the brand’s image creates confusion, and ultimately, distrust in the marketplace–and it doesn’t take long to destroy even a hundred and fifty year old brand.
After writing this on Saturday, I noticed a report in Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle that Arnold is advocating rebranding the Republican Party, generating a debate within the party as to whether or not to rebrand. I think they misunderstand the issue–the problem with the Republican brand is it seems the party thinks it’s simply a brand issue, not an action issue. They lost their brand because their actions didn’t match the brand, not because the brand didn’t work. Arnold is correct in the sense that the brand doesn’t work, but it doesn’t work because it no longer exists, not because it has been rejected by voters.
