2016 Presidential Redux: May the best brand win

With the 2016 presidential race behind us and the peaceful transition of power having taken place, the vitriol of the election unfortunately remains unabated. There have been thousands of articles, hypothesis, and opinions as to how Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States. But have we truly learned anything? While the media held an often decontextualized and narrowly-focused debate, the facts show that Trump had much more in common with former President Barack Obama than did Hillary Clinton. That is, “Donald J. Trump” the brand.

In marketing, the power and equity of a brand means everything. With presidential races, it regularly comes down to who can build and establish the most dynamic persona. Thus, rather than touting the now debunked belief that money buys elections (just ask Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton how that worked out for them), political strategists should be focusing on the lessons learned from successful messaging and branding campaigns. People ultimately respond to a candidate the way they do a retail brand—if it does not represent their style and values, they do not buy.

Take Obama for instance. The formerly unknown senator from Illinois ran one of the most successful presidential campaigns in history by becoming “Barack Obama” the brand. Even as he left office, this brand still resonated. The former president’s personal approval ratings are much stronger than his policy numbers. Yet according to the Washington Post, 17 percent of individuals who approve of Obama also ended up voting for Trump. This seems to indicate that the more powerful a brand is, the less a need exists for individuals to believe in every aspect of that brand. If a person can strongly engage and connect with a single brand characteristic, it can be a winning formula against less defined competitors.

Effective presidential brands evolve naturally through the leadership and direction of the candidate, alongside his or her handlers and surrogates. Moving forward, winning brands will need to define and demonstrate at least eight key marketing qualities.

1. A unifying value proposition

A successful candidate must stand for something. This something should ideally be “for the people, of the people” as opposed to for the candidate. Obama promised “hope and change.” Trump is going to “make America great again.” What did Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney stand for? These three respectively were labeled by their competition as “crooked Hillary,” “low energy” and “out of touch—the 1 percent.” Ultimately, their true stances were not strong enough to overcome these attacks.

2. Authenticity

Great candidates must also always be themselves without forcing the issue. They never have to explain how they are authentic and never try to be all things to all people. Obama has an amazing natural presence when giving a speech, as he simply owns the room. Trump too, on the campaign trail, owned the room by just speaking his mind, even when he was often perceived to be shooting from the hip. The key here being, his supporters are clearly drawn to that characteristic, and Trump took early advantage of this fact.

3. Consistency

The most powerful brands are remarkably consistent—think McDonald’s, Walmart, Apple, and Disney. The public always knows what to expect when engaging with each. Trump was amazingly consistent even in the face of 360-degree criticism. This fact alone was probably most important in his win through the primary and general elections. The more the media attacked, the more he stood his ground. If Trump had changed his demeanor and style, he would have lost his authenticity to voters and become just another candidate. Obama also held this same level of brand consistency throughout both of his runs for office.

4. An intriguing personal story

Behind every successful brand is the backstory of how that brand came to be—“The Social Network” (Facebook), “The Founder” (McDonald’s) and many more examples showcase compelling origins. People first met Obama through his book “Dreams of My Father,” with his life serving to truly enhance and support the brand that he was developing. Trump has been a builder for more than 40 years, with his name on large-scale buildings and properties around the globe. Despite his wealth, he was able to connect with the average blue-collar worker, who wanted to be Trump rather than be envious of him. And contrary to Mitt Romney, Trump appeared to his base as someone who built structures of permanence, versus taking things (i.e., companies) apart.

5. Visibility

Once established, a brand can only grow and evolve through exposure to the appropriate brand ambassadors, loyalists, and converts. Exposure can be one-to-one through individuals and digital media, or through mass media. The right mix depends upon the brand’s point of development and can be paid or earned. In 2008 and before, Obama dominated earned media with mainly positive stories. He was eventually able to raise significant amounts of money for paid media due to the sheer strength of his brand. Trump’s strategy was to dominate earned media in an unprecedented manner, whether positive or negative. What initially appeared to be good luck eventually emerged as a strategic method for reinforcing key aspects of the Trump brand, which ultimately played a strong part in winning over his base.

6. Vision

Successful brands speak directly to the people and project a positive outcome of how the brand will evolve to build and expand support. Strong brands have a clear and inclusive vision that creates a network of surrogates to legitimize and spread the message to appropriate groups and constituencies. Both the Obama and Trump brands projected a compelling vision, albeit the antithesis of one another.  

7. Authority

Power brands have a commanding manner that influences others, drawing them to follow and take up the cause. Natural leaders convey the power and control associated with the authority to move people. Both the Obama and Trump brands demonstrated significant authority on the campaign trail. Although lacking hands-on experience, Obama was authoritative in his ability to influence others through words and presence. The Trump brand, while lacking a certain eloquence held by his predecessor, also had little hands-on political experience, but was still able to sway blue-collar and rural constituents with his words. His message was simple, yet powerful for groups that increasingly felt like they were being left behind and losing their ability to prosper in a changing America.

8. Agility

More than any other quality, what often kept Trump ahead in this social media era was the agility and speed with which he responded to, and created, news events. This agile strategy even went beyond the goal of owning earned media channels with his brand. According to members of Trump’s staff, he also made use of the power that loose organizational structures can afford when advising his marketing teams. Specifically, Trump let his ad director Gary Coby work responsively and “on-the-fly” with data, according to Coby’s comments at the recent MediaPost Marketing Politics conference. Clinton’s staff, on the other hand, admitted at the same event that their bureaucratic structure, while safe, stifled agility. This interesting transference of Trump’s brand qualities right down to his operations team should serve as an important roadmap for data-driven campaign teams who are willing to take risks in order to optimize online marketing efforts in a way that truly capitalizes on viral moments.

The lesson? Take a stance

The comparative Romney and Clinton brands were ineffective and demonstrated few, if any, of the qualities of a persuasive and resilient brand. Each underperformed against tracking polls. Moreover, each, lacking any clear direction, continued to reach out only to the already converted in order to convince themselves that they stood for something which was resonating with soft supporters and the undecided. The Romney campaign built turnout models based on an enthusiasm gap that was centered on individuals who would be turning out and voting for their candidate anyway. The Clinton campaign ignored the waves of Trump signs throughout rural Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa and told themselves that these people would stay home on Election Day.

Strong brands consistently project the confidence and inclusiveness to win. Although some strategists may say otherwise, these brands have clearly been victorious in the last three elections.