The Shortcomings of Political Branding

It's remarkable. I cannot tell you much about the personalities of either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama and I know even less about the differences in their positions on critical issues like the war in Iraq, health care, the credit crisis or foreign policy.

And its not as if I'm not paying attention. I'm no slouch when it comes to inhaling the news. So I blame the campaigns. If the first law of branding is to draw a sharp distinction between your product and others in its category and to inform or educate your most likely consumers about the benefits of your product to them then neither campaign has got to first base after almost two years of yammering.

And if I can't tell you, I'll bet few others can either.

It looks as if vapid slogans, set piece photo ops, plain vanilla stump speeches and the desperate hope to avoid media gaffes have taken priority over acquainting the audience with the candidates. Thoughtful voters or those concerned with issues seem to be left to either infer who the candidates are and what they stand for or pore over dense policy papers on the candidates web sites.

Once you get past the obvious and the differences in political biographies, I have no feel for how each might think, handle or organize things in a crisis or under day-to-day circumstances in Washington. How is it that these two people are both simultaneously so visible and so invisible? How come I know more about Aunt Jemima, Orville Reddenbacker and the Jolly Green Giant than I do about either Democratic candidate?

The campaigns need to go back to branding basics..

1. Draw Sharper Distinctions. He's a breathe of fresh air; an example of the new politics and she's the more experienced one; the White House insider. The former is based on appearances and rhetorical cadence. Why not make it clear on a policy level? If Hillary truly has the benefit of experience governing, let's hear what she knows and let's see what she learned along the way. Tell us straight out. Don't leave us to do the math ourselves.

2. Take a Tough Stand. Pick a lightening rod issue and get out on a limb. State a clearly different and even radical stance to make the differences in outlook, posture, and positioning clearer. If you read the candidates' positions they range from vague to mealy-mouthed because they are hedged and caveatted to offer maximum flexibility in fending off political attacks. No one can attack them as naive or hot-headed. Similarly no one can see them as bold leaders either.

3. Be More Specific. Take the positions on the key issues. Boil them down to simple phrases and pound away at them. Make us understand that Hillary Means Universal Health care or that Obama will be Out of Iraq fast. Give us something to brab onto and a reason to believe.