Back in January of 2008, I wrote an article about the political primaries viewed through the lens of brand theory. Here’s a summary:

As we approach the first debate after the New Hampshire primary, here are the current talking points-

• Barack Obama- “Change we can believe in.”
• Hilary Clinton- “Agent of change for 35 years” and “Ready to lead from day one.”
• Mitt Romney- “Change begins with us.”
• Rudy Giuliani- “Tested. Ready. Now.”

Forget about the politics for a moment. From a branding perspective, this is a nightmare. Obama, Clinton, and Romney, are basically pushing the same message. Actually, Hilary is pushing two messages, and the second is the same one that Giuliani is pushing.

Typically, whoever succeeds in owning a word first in the mind of the consumer wins. Everyone else has to pick another word. Now, my intent here is not to give my two cents on which candidate will actually wind up winning the battle for the word “change”. My intent is merely to call attention to the fight. We deal with business owners everyday who are fighting this same fight. They try to attack the competition by stealing his word and making it their own. A sure-fire way to waste money, and very, very rarely successful.

Generally speaking, it comes down to who owns the word first in the mind of the consumer. Marketing is a battle of perceptions, not products. If you are known for being an agent of change, this it often doesn’t matter if you actually change anything or not…it’s sometimes enough that people associate you with change. However, consumers aren’t stupid, and authenticity counts. If your brand doesn’t live up to its claims, eventually consumers will jump ship and go somewhere else. You’ll still be known as the agent of change…it’s just that no one will be buying from you.

Now, back to politics.

Clinton-the-male was elected in 1992 by owning the concept that “it’s time for a change.” In 2008, Clinton-the-female is riding his coat tails with a redux of that concept. It’s authentic in that people generally associate her with the slogan from the old days. Her problem is that the slogan was her husband’s, not hers…regardless of her claim to having owned it for 35 yeas. It also doesn’t help that her message changes. Ready to change? Or ready to lead? Remember, you can only own ONE word in the mind of the consumer. Try to stand for more than one, and you’ll wind up standing for nothing. The consumer ultimately decides the fate of any brand. It will be interesting to see which concept voters award to Hillary.

Obama is bold to take her head-on with her own concept. He added the twist of “believable change,” but it’s not enough of a distinction to warrant a completely new category. So, basically, he’s attempting a no-no by trying to steal her concept. His trump card is authenticity. We’ll see, he’s yet to be completely proven.

Romney has his own set of problems. How can he be known for change when that word is so dominated by the other candidates? Every penny he spends to promote that message inadvertently strengthens the message of his democratic rivals and does little to strengthen his own. He would be well advised to focus his efforts on a different concept.

Giuliani, of course, has yet to enter the fray. And he clearly has crafted his message down the middle of Obama and Clinton. “Ready” and “Now” takes aim at Clinton. “Tested” takes aim at both Clinton and Obama. I realize that three words sound better in a soundbyte, but if I were his campaign manager, I would’ve stuck with one word…”Tested.” Or, better yet…”Proven.” Time will tell if three’s company or a crowd when it comes to his slogan.

It’s interesting to note that the two candidates to select a unique concept on the republican side are the two candidates who are currently winning by large margins- Huckabee and McCain. And, on the democratic side, Obama was able to steal the concept of change in Iowa. But the Hillary tears gave her a bump in the area of authenticity and she bounced back in New Hampshire.

As you watch the political battle unfold, I encourage you to take note of how the battle for the mind plays out. And remember, the same battle plays out everyday in the minds of your consumers.

In retrospect, brand theory proved true. McCain and Huckabee were the last two republicans standing. In the end, they both latched on to the idea of change. McCain won because he’d been around longer and had a more authentic claim to the word. It was a bitter fight between Obama and Clinton. Both wanted to own the word change. Obama won, but probably only because Hillary changed her message. She abandoned “change” and tried to position herself as “ready to lead”. Too late, game over. Now it’s McCain versus Obama.

Today, Fox News posted this story, titled “McCain, Obama Battle for Mantle of Change”, concerning the start of the final leg of the 2008 political race.

I noticed this theme beginning to emerge in Sarah Palin’s speech earlier in the week. So, McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are going to suit up and do battle for the word “change.”

It’s an interesting strategic choice for McCain. Not to mention bold. But, again, this post isn’t about politics…it’s about branding. So let’s look at this through that lens…

McCain/Palin. With regards to authenticity, these guys can actually make a pretty good case for “change.” McCain is known as a maverick. His own party was very hesitant about supporting him simply because he has been known to reach across the isle and work with leaders from all parties to accomplish reform legislation. McCain-Lieberman. McCain-Feingold. McCain-Kennedy. The list goes on. So, when McCain says he’s going to shake up Washington and bring real change, he’s actually got a good, historical argument.

McCain’s biggest problem is…and let’s be honest…he’s old. He has white hair. No offense to my older readers, but old age and white hair aren’t normally associated with change. In fact, those traits are normally associated with resistance to change. Further, McCain’s been in the Senate for 35 years. His presence in Washington is hardly a change, and it won’t be hard for Obama to turn the perception of experience into a perception of stagnation.

Enter Sarah Palin. She’s young, she’s vibrant, she’s conservative, she’s a woman, she’s a Washington outsider, and she’s also known as a maverick. Will her presence on the ticket offset McCain’s age and white hair? Time will tell, but McCain/Palin can make a good case for “change.” The only problem is that it’s a new argument. She’s got her work cut out for her, and it won’t be easy. If she can’t offset his negatives, he will lose in a landslide. Too early to tell how big of a problem that’s going to be.

Obama/Biden. Obama owns the word “change” right now. He owns it because he was the first to use it. That’s how it works in brand theory. Remember, marketing is a battle of perception, not product. It doesn’t matter what the truth is…it only matters what consumers believe. And, the brand that claims a word first, usually gets to own it.

Obama’s youth and inexperience actually work in his favor when it comes to the notion of change. He’s a fresh face, not mired in the political good-ole-boy network. He’s a Washington outsider, too, having only been in the Senate for a few years. But just as he can turn McCain’s experience against him, McCain can turn Obama’s inexperience back against Obama. So the issue of experience versus inexperience is a wash. If the candidates are smart, they won’t even bring it up. If they do, they will wind up bloodying each other and there will be no winner on this issue.

Obama’s issue is authenticity. Factually speaking, his domestic policies aren’t new. They’ve been around for decades. There’s no real change there. His foreign policy views, however, are new and are actually quite in line with policies of the founding fathers. The problem is that he’s done a terrible job of explaining them. If he doesn’t do a better job in the coming weeks, he’ll get hammered by McCain. And if the public catches on to the fact that his domestic policies are old hat, game over.

Obama’s other problem with authenticity is his VP pick. Even by Democratic standards, Joe Biden is a ho-hum pick. He doesn’t excite anyone- the proof of that is the lackluster bump Obama got after the convention. Biden simply doesn’t hurt, or so they say. BUT…will Biden’s age and long Washington career cancel out some of Obama’s youth and freshness? Time will tell how his presence on the ticket will impact the public’s perception of Obama.

Obama’s final problem with the notion of “change” is that he tends to be very nebulus. He talks about change, but doesn’t do a very good job of explaining how he’s going to bring it about. He gets too caught up in details. The aim of branding is to simplify. If Obama can’t simplify his views on change (both foreign and domestic), he’s going to lose.  In brand theory, it isn’t enough to make a broad promise.  You have to be specific, and you have to deliver.  Consumers won’t give you a second chance.

So, in the end, both candidates want to own the word “change.” Both can make a compelling argument. It’s going to come down to authenticity. Which candidate appears to be most authentic and which candidate does the best job of simplifying their views on change? Only a few weeks to go, and it will be an interesting match. Public perception is a funny thing, indeed. It forms quickly and rarely changes.

It’s fun to watch these issues of branding play out in politics. It would do us good to remember that the same issues play out every day in business. Small business, big business, independent consultants, doesn’t matter…we’re all subject to brand theory.

We’ll revisit this on November 5th.