On Brand Recognition

Your CaliBlogger has been in sales and marketing for far longer than he'd care to admit. But one thing I've (sorry about the third person intro, I must've been channeling the Bull Moose there for a sec') learned is the importance of branding.

Brand recognition can be a critical asset in making a sale if the organization's reputation is a good one, and a deal breaker if it's bad.

What brought this to mind was a headline from Raw Story: We have to destroy their brand which quote is from their interview with House minority leader Nancy Pelosi.

The full quote:

“So we’re going after them, we have to destroy their brand,” she added. “And I think when it comes to Social Security, their brand is tainted. And now we can move in with a positive way with our brand.”

Ms. Pelosi's comment is interesting in that it points out a major problem Democrats face when challenging Republicans: While the Republican message can be expressed in three short phrases: cutting taxes, free markets, pro-military, Democrats have no analagous rallying points. When Democrats discuss what they believe in, what develops is a litany (a word Ms. Pelosi herself uses) of issues covering the economy, education, healthcare, environment, civil liberties, immigration, abortion, unionization, war et cetera, et cetera.

This puts Democrats at a distinct disadvantage. Without any unifying principals Democrats are forced to rely on either pandering to each individual subgroup, or rely solely on the personal popularity of a candidate in order to win elections.

Without any unifying principals Democrats are condemned to seeming merely opportunisitic or demagogic in our stances on any given subject.

So, as far as branding goes, as Ms. Pelosi points out, Democrats face two challenges: "destroying" the Republican brand, and establishing a Democratic one.

Both are doable, though the second is easily the most important.

Destroying the Republican brand can be accomplished in two ways. First is by re-branding Republicans for what they truly are, a party slavishly dedicated to the interest of corporate business interests and all those whose money comes from investments rather than work. Secondly, and the current leadership seems intent on helping us with this, we must continue to point out the degree to which Republicans are catering to their most extreme elements, something they're forced to do to provide a smokescreen for their corporate pandering.

The scond task, establishing the Democratic brand, is simple to articulate, yet difficult to achieve. Given the Republicans' servitude to corporate power, the obvious Democratic stance should be to position ourselves as the representatives of those who actually work for a living.

The elements and inferences of this stance are already part and parcel of most Democratic positions, or else they should and can be. Some are obvious: support for unionization and worker rights, stewardship of the environment which we all must share, protection of the rights of individuals in their homes, their businesses, their bodies, their beliefs. Some are less so: support and respect for the men and women who make up our military (like, for instance, not sending them off to die in unneccesary wars), support for the small and medium sized business owners who are the backbone of our communities, and daily face the perils of corporate competition.

The problem with making such a stance more than a platitude is of course (drumroll please)

money.

So long as Democrats are forced to suckle at the corporate tit in order to raise the campaign contributions vital to getting elected, Democrats, and especially those running for state-wide or national office, will continue to be beholden to corporate interests. And to be clear, I'm not talking about the quid pro quo, pay to play sort of corruption (though I suspect that to be a greater problem than we allow ourselves to admit), I'm talking about the simple fact that, if the Democratic party allows corporate contributions, then that money will go to those registered Democrats who harbor pro-corporate tendencies.

True campaign reform is, then, a key.

On the positive side are moves, like that seen in Arizona, for public financing of elections. Another plus is the continuing development of net-roots/grass-roots organizations, which had such an enormous, if not completely successful, impact on the last election cycle.

But campaign reform is not enough. So long as politicians can except ANY form of corporate inducement, corporations will seek to provide the same.

Politicians must be prohibited from accepting anything provided of financed by corporate interests, including "fact-finding" tours to golf destinations.

Most critically, and most controversially I suspect, politicians must be prohibited from accepting any remuneration, gifts, or EMPLOYMENT, from any corporate interest AFTER they've left office.

Now I realize that some fairly tricky personal freedom issues arise from this last proposal especially, but remember this, running for office is a choice. And every choice neccessitates the rejection of some alternatives. If someone wishes for a spot on the corporate ladder, then by all means go apply at GE. But if someone wishes to serve the public in a leadership position, then that position must be as unsullied as possible by the taint of non-public interests.

And, if Democrats are going to successfully brand themselves as the party of/for those who work, this must be especially true.

[x-posted at Daily Kos]