When it comes right down to it, the recent mid-term election was decided because of brand meaning. Sure, there was an anti-incumbent tidal wave. But the Democrats were the ones running for cover from the onslaught of the wave of discontent.
When we work on a brand to steal market share, we look for focus, intensity and meaning. The Republican Party gets this. I am not making judgments on ideology or correctness here, just brand equity.
In considering brand meaning and its ability to persuade, it is plainly evident the Democratic Party lacks meaning, aside from the power of personality (like Obama and the 2008 Presidential election). It is a splintered conglomerate of disparate ideas and agendas. As such, charismatic candidates – and not ideology – decide its fortunes. As long as the Democrats allow the Republicans to define them, Democrats will be underrepresented despite an advantage in registered voters.
When it comes to branding it is all about focus and a party that celebrates diversity has a difficult road ahead of it when it tries to mobilize an electorate or influence Independent voters.
Want proof? Single-issue blocks like the Tea Party, despite their marginalized position for the vast majority of voters, defeated the Dems and almost beat a powerful and established Senator in Nevada — Harry Reid. That is the power of a singular idea. We caution our clients that a single average idea is better than a host of excellent ideas when it comes to brand meaning.
Will anyone from either party contact us and ask for help in persuasive meaning? I doubt it. Political correctness trumps reality every time in politics and I can’t imagine any political leader to have the brass necessary to hire a company called Stealing Share. After all, we only represent they claim to covet.