Many of my colleagues (Mitch Joel, Shel Holtz, Valeria Maltoni) and I frequently speak to members of PRSA, IABC, and advertising agencies explaining as best we can how consumers now own the brand. Good will increasingly cannot be bought and the political season is giving us striking examples of the mechanics of how “web 2.0” – “new media” – “social media” (choose your buzz) have changed the landscape of both business communication and brand marketing.
Frank Rich has this in today’s New York Times editorial page:
The Hallmark show, enacted on an anachronistic studio set that looked like a deliberate throwback to the good old days of 1992, was equally desperate. If the point was to generate donations or excitement, the effect was the reverse. A campaign operative, speaking on MSNBC, claimed that 250,000 viewers had seen an online incarnation of the event in addition to “who knows how many” Hallmark channel viewers. Who knows, indeed? What we do know is that by then the Yes We Can Obama video fronted by the hip-hop vocalist will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas had been averaging roughly a million YouTube views a day. (Cost to the Obama campaign: zero.)
Ed. Note: Video inserted at the end of this post to save you a click-thru.
I have two points to make. First is to note the extreme shift in balance of power as to who controls your brand. Hillary is trying, some would say desperately, to control her brand and essentially trick people into voting for her. She (along with Bill presumably) are convinced they are the best for the country. The country, increasingly, is demonstrative otherwise. She can spend money and stage “staged” events with planted questioners, but we have learned as consumers of media as well as of products, when someone is “faking it up.” (My favorite way to describe the traditional art of advertising’s dark side.)
Second, one of the best measurements of how well your brand is being received, is the way that people play with it. Are they promoting you or are they disparaging you? It is not that hard to tell these days.
The great opportunity for business is that we can learn from the political season. We can observe how losing control can be tragic, comedic, and/or a fast trip from relative obscurity to leader of the pack.
Footnote Observations
- It is still early on the date of publication of Frank Rich’s editorial (cited above) and there are over 500 comments already posted. People have opinions and they want to share them.
- My mom, a lifelong Republican, said she would consider voting for Obama before McCain because, “Obama has class.” In this age of communication transparency, things like class definitely can shine through all the traditional mud-slinging.
You can follow and connect with Roxanne on 
You can follow and connect with Shane on 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Very good examples Roxanne and lots of truth! Your second point about how people receive your brand is very insightful… Lots to think about…
Very good examples Roxanne and lots of truth! Your second point about how people receive your brand is very insightful… Lots to think about…
These days with free, point and click options it is going to continue to be even more impossible to “control” your brand. With new media: blogging, video blogging, live blogging, lifecasting, etc. We seen things instantly, and in a blink share our perspective with the world. The only thing you can control is your own sincerity because as you mentioned, “In this age of communication transparency, things like class definitely can shine through all the traditional mud-slinging.”
Always,
NEENZ
@Joe Philipson – read on down as I think @Neenz nailed it with her sincerity remark. And, it is a great way to realize there are things we do have control over when it comes to the brand.
@Amine – looks to be some sort of comment bot (amazing word for word plagiarism of Joe’s comment); leaving that one up for a while for tech investigation. (The site is in all arabic – any translators out there?)
According to Google Translator, Amine is linking to the Sahili forum where he/she is a member.
Regarding the post, it’s a good point. As this recent election is continuing to show, the balance of power has shifted more toward online media. One has complete control over their brand now, if they know how to wield it, and that is why integrity transparency, and authenticity are so important in New Media.
Last year, as soon as I realized one of the Democratic candidates had a Twitter account, I checked up on all of the candidates as listed on Wikipedia. Several had Twitter accounts with no updates, which seemed to be an early grab of the username “just in case.” But relatively on, Edwards and Obama began using and branding their Twitter accounts while Clinton’s sat like a wasteland.
When Clinton tweets finally began to appear, they reflected – and still reflect – a profound lack of understanding of the use of social media, particularly via comparison to Obama’s tweets. Whoever is tweeting for the candidates, whether a staffer or the candidates themselves, they are accurately reflecting the candidates’ self-portrayal / media narrative.
Obama’s tweets are varied, using doing, thinking and feeling words, particularly those that impart positive energy like “encouraging” and “excited.” They portray a thoughtful, hopeful, energetic and inquiring personality. And most importantly, they often encourage a response, giving at least the impression that Obama would like nothing better than to hear from you, personally.
In contrast, Clinton’s tweets are dry as dust. They read like a scheduling calendar, and rarely use thinking and feeling words. I have not read every single tweet, but I have not seen ONE that invited a response other than “go to hillaryclinton.com to get involved,” which is completely impersonal and implies “I don’t actually care if you get involved, I don’t really want to hear from you personally.”
Neenz did, indeed, nail it – it’s about sincerity. Even though this comment is just a comparison of Twitter accounts, I think the tweets echo the rest of these candidates’ branding, whether they control it or not – and one Twitter stream seems much more sincere than the other.
@Cheryl Colan – I hope you are cross posting your comment as a post on one of your sites! This is actually fabulous data to digest, and being an experienced “user” I know just what you mean. I am not sure though, and would love some newbies who read this blog to comment on, do these translate to you as well?
I think people – regardless of their tech-ability – are excellent at sensing the energy. And you have actually described how the energy plays out in actual phraseology and timing, etc.