This is not to be interpreted as a political diatribe, but the recent misspelling gaffe on Mitt Romney’s iPhone app has me slapping my head in disbelief.

If you had not heard, Romney’s team recently created an app with different campaign slogans delivered to conjure action and enthusiasm with Romney supporters. These slogans are well designed because they enable users to take a picture of themselves with their iPhone and place the slogan over their picture, making themselves a part of political advertising. It’s a good idea.

Some of these slogans include: “I stand with Mitt”, “Obama isn’t working” and “American Greatness.”

This is all fine and dandy and in good political fun, but what about the slogan, “A better Amercia”? Yep, that’s no mistake – Amercia. Even as I write this current blog on the iPad, the text is emboldened with red misspelling notifications. It’s America. Good grief!

How does a mistake like this even happen?

An error like this is painfully embarrassing, especially In a critical time of focus for each party and the dire need for each to solidify improvements with their weakened political brands.

The tweeting world is abuzz, a new Tumblr page is already alive and saluting Amercia. I imagine the SNL skits will be following soon.

It’s such a shame too. Mistakes do happen, but some are more visible than others – and can re-inforce negative associations with that brand. What our country needs now is vision, not spelling errors on the first-grade level.

This week saw a swift drop in the stock market as Standard & Poor’s threatened to cut the U.S. credit rating amid talks that the debt ceiling will not be increased possibly resulting in the U.S. defaulting on their loans.

It was the effect that this statement had on the stock market that hammered home the concept that when it comes too the permissions of a brand, the job of maintaining those permissions is much easier when a large amount of trust is unquestioningly granted by the customer.

With regards to Standard & Poor’s, it was not that long ago that they told investors that mortgage backed securities were an AAA investment.  This has since proved to be quite  the contrary.  At the end of the day, no one has a crystal ball and much like a weatherman who tells you it will be sunny and it rains or there will flurries and it blizzards, S&P’s rating system is only their opinion based on a variety of factors they have deemed to be important. And like with the weatherman, we continue to tune in, to listen and to dress accordingly.

In most instances once a brand wrongs its target audience, maintaining and recovering the permission that the brand once possessed becomes a difficult, sometimes impossible, task.

There is a team trust exercise in which a person falls back into the arms of their teammates. It is an exercise in which you only need to be dropped once to lose trust forever. In the case of Standard & Poor’s, their consumer’s have granted them what appears to be more permission leeway than is granted to the average brand.  They need to acknowledge this granted tolerance and remember that while they have permission now, the village eventually did let the wolf get the boy who repeatedly made a fool of them.

The ability to influence behavior is directly related to the degree in which belief systems are understood. The decisions that we make are a complex web of precepts, or internal belief systems, that we have about ourselves.  These precepts are generated emotionally and then reinforced by rational reasons we always seem to make work. If the objective is to affect change and generate a desired outcome, the outcome of that endeavor is one that will be directly dictated by the degree to which these emotional triggers are discovered.

Precepts are something that are often overlooked in messaging today and, in listening to the news this week, I was reminded of how this is exemplified in the ongoing turmoil in Libya and the desire for Muammar el-Qaddafi to secede power.

What sparked this connection was news that Qaddafi’s accounts were being frozen. I can understand the reasoning behind the overall idea (let’s not support Qaddafi), but it’s not in line with the precepts that someone like Qaddafi would identify with to promote such an outcome.

For Qaddafi, if the tangible security of money is non-existent, the only semblance of power that remains is to fight to the end. In many cases, the best result is simply the lesser of two evils and this instance is no exception.

Those with the power to influence the situation must ask themselves what the desired objective is. The concept of leaving Qaddafi powerless and penniless, which is what he would become, seems too drastic to promote action. He seeks power and money and, without power, all that’s left is money. A proposition that includes no room for the desired outcome to take place is a proposition that is a purely anecdotal existence. If Qaddafi does not perceive the terms of his departure as aligned with his belief system, then the process could become a very lengthy one.

And I’d rather see him outta there.

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.

Brands have the greatest impact when they touch an emotional nerve. When the brand message reverberates on that emotional nerve, three very interesting and important phenomena takes place.

1) The brand is remembered and noticed. When an emotion is struck, it is felt, by definition, and is virtually impossible to ignore

2) The brand is placed. By this I mean it is provided with an emotional context that allows us to understand where the brand belongs in the flood of ideas and messages that come our way every day. Being able to “place” a brand message is the first step in understanding the brand’s meaning. It is the route every brand must take if it is striving for acceptance and new customers.

3) The motivational ideas transform themselves into equity markers. This is an important transformation because equity markers are the “things” we witness (see, here, taste, and feel) that seem to belong to that brand. When we experience these markers, we are instantly reminded of that brand and because the brand has been placed, we are able to file all of this information and feeling into the cubby hole that our brains now reserve for that brand

If you think this is just the ramblings of a brand theorist, I want to share with you exactly what brought these ideas to mind this morning, and why it matters to all of us.

I was driving to the office this morning and I was listening to NPR’s Morning Edition. In the course of 10 minutes, I heard three equity markers mentioned and expounded on, and all three of them belong to the Republican Party. They spoke of Grizzly Moms, Obamacare, and the Tea Party.

This is not a dissertation on ideology. (You would be hard pressed to guess my political bent.) It is simply a brand guy seeing a political party that uses its brand capital well.

The Republicans have not only defined the political agenda in the US, they have defined the language in which the debate is framed. Brand genius? Might well be.

I have to think hard to find a political equity that the Democratic Party has defined and used. I’m not talking about slogans like “Yes We Can.” Slogans have short lifetimes and feel “authored.” Equity markers are carefully designed ideas that resonate and become part of the vernacular.

If brand is any indicator, the Democrats have a tough road ahead of then in November. That is, unless they can revive New Deal or Great Society.

Brand is actually the science of persuasion. When we brand a product or company, Stealing Share infuses the brand promise with the values that matter most to the target audience the brand wishes to influence.

We research the target audience to understand their aspirations and fears because we know that brands need to touch those it wishes to influence in a way that promises an aspiration of a shelter from a deep rooted fear. As it turns out, fear is usually the most powerful motivator of all.  A promise of a reward might get a few folks to fight the inertia of rest and move from one room to another, but the fear of fire will start a stampede in those same metaphorical rooms.

Today, the oil industry demonstrated their total understanding of this principal. It will go to court to fight the ban on deep water drilling. The promise is not more and cheaper oil for us. No. The promise is that if we don’t allow deep water drilling, the expertise will flee our shores, move to Brazil or Africa and “leave the US behind.”

Will it be effective?

Considering that a key precept in the US is the need to win, I would say the fear of losing might just be enough to get us to allow the ruination of our shores, waters and beaches. Maybe, however, the fear of permanent ecological damage will be greater. One thing is for sure. One fear or another will decide which idea wins out in the end.

I have written in the past, without political bias, that the Republicans have a better brand. This does not mean they are better ideologically or better suited to solve the problems in the US. It simply means that, as a brand strategist that looks for customer belief systems and clarity, the Republican Party does it better then the Democrats.

But there is a death spiral in that same brand. It comes because an ideology that is felt passionately by a minority in the party has hijacked the Republican brand.

I was just listening to a talking head broadcast on NPR and they were discussing the upcoming election and how the “base of the Republican party is angry at everything.”

Webster’s defines “base” as the fundamental part of something: groundwork, basis.

The reason that the Republican brand is in trouble is because they have confused an extreme element with a “base.” A base is something that you can rely on through thick or thin, not something you pander to so that they do not desert you.

Americans want better and less government. I get that. But less government might mean less religion in government, less social judgment in government and less disrespectful anger.

If I am right, this is a very bad thing for the Republican Party, which seems to be holding onto the strings of a tea bag. If I’m wrong, then the US brand is in trouble.

I was just thinking this morning that every CEO and marketing director I speak with insists that, more than anything else, they want to win and thrive. They want their business to steal market share from their competitors. I believe that they believe this.

The problem is most of these companies refuse to change anything. They see change as risk, not opportunity, and that thought is erroneous (I’m being kind).

Truth does not enter into most human behavior because we all see our own human behavior as subjective. Only from an outside perspective can truth be seen and understood objectively. Even then, our own truth remains mostly subjective and is therefore rarely changed or altered.

The truth about business, from an objective perspective, is that while it is claimed that businesses covet winning (which has “change” as a bitter requirement), many are in fact more comfortable with the status quo. Even if that choice means business stagnation or contraction.

Disagree with me? You want to win and are willing to fix what holds you back regardless of the risk of change? Call me. We have a lot to talk about.

Brand is a reflection of your customer’s aspirations and self-description. We judge a brand’s vitality by the level to which its customer’s covet the brand and feel incomplete without it. I am sick over healthcare reform. Not the reform itself. I am just tired of the posturing and fighting, and total lack of civility (root: civilized).

The political situation here in the US is an indication of two brands, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, losing any brand equity they hold. Don’t be surprised if, for the first time in US history since the Bull Moose Party of TR, a new movement pushes both of these dinosaurs aside.

Neither party represents anything other than the aspirations of extreme fringes. They have forgotten that we elect Representatives, Senators and Presidents to get things done, not make everything a quagmire.

No political party will ever hire us, Our name is unsavory: Stealing Share. Our name could be more poisonous. We could the Republican or the Democratic Branding Company.

As a brand strategist, I have worked for almost 30 years developing brand strategies and finding ways to provide ownership of transformative ideas that increase a brand’s ability to attract new customers and influence prospects.

This morning, I came into my office and listened to a voice mail from Jeremy Davis, who said he was calling me from Newt Gingrich’s offices. He said I had been selected by Newt to serve on an advisory panel concerning business. He said that they were preparing a press release and I should call him back ASAP to give them permission to publicize my name.

As a brand expert, taking any personal politics out of this, I asked myself, “What does the Newt Gingrich brand own?” By assessing brand ownership, a set of permissions arises. In other words, if the brand owns such and such, it has permission to say such and such and act in such and such a manner. Everything a brand says, does and supports must be reflective of those permissions and they need to be viewed as legitimate within those confines. Otherwise, a brand is just not believable.

When I think about the Newt Gingrich brand, I think the positives it owns are “no-nonsense, brashness, not politics as usual, integrity beyond what is expedient, and the telling of truth as the brand really believes it to be.” I think even the enemies of the Newt Gingrich brand would acknowledge those are the positives. (For sake of discussion, let’s leave out the negatives.)

So, with this background in mind, I called Jeremy Davis back. Of course, I did not get Jeremy on the phone. Instead, a pleasant young lady answered the phone, took my name and asked the name of my company. She told me that, while Jeremy was currently unavailable, she could help me.

She then said, “Oh, Stealing Share is headquartered in Greensboro NC, right?” I said we were indeed from North Carolina and she replied, “Newt has a message for you. Let me play it for you and then I will be back to answer any of your questions.”

With that, I was treated to a pre-recorded message from Newt who then informed me how fed up I was with the administration and how upset I was that the Obama administration did not care about business. He told me that he needed my help and ideas.

This is my recollection of the recording. But it was obvious to me at that point, listening a recording, this was not for ME, it was for ANYONE who would listen and send him money.

As a brand strategist, my brand curiosity kept me on the call. It was more powerful a draw than my desire to flee because I knew I was being duped. By the way, Newt then thanked me for taking the time to hear his important message because he “knew how busy I was.”

His pre-recorded message ended, but the woman who had originally answered my call into Jeremy was not on the line. Instead another gentleman picked up the call and said his job was to “fill me in on the details” and to answer my questions.

Each time I asked him a question, he recited a pre-written response, which ended with the question, “So can Newt count on your help?”

After three rounds of getting no real details, I decided to cut to the chase and ask, “Are there any fees involved?”

The Newt salesman answered, “Well, we are going to be asking for a donation so that your name will appear in the list of names in the full page Wall Street Journal ad we are taking out.” At which point I said that I had already made my political contributions for the year — and he hung up.

So let’s revisit the attributes of the “Newt Gingrich Brand” highlighted earlier. Are the attributes of “no-nonsense, brashness, not politics as usual, integrity beyond what is expedient, and the telling of truth “ still realized in my head? Well, “brashness” still applies. But ask me now what the Newt Gingrich brand owns and I will tell you “duplicity, slight of hand, a lack of regard for my time and intelligence, and politics as usual.”

Too bad. I thought the brand was better than the man.