the rebranding of america
written by eric sutcliffe
throughout this presidential race and ultimate election, many people have discussed the idea of “the re-branding of america”. being that the watsons are a bit of an authority on the branding thing, i thought it was not only important, but indeed my duty to weigh in on the subject.
before we can talk about “re-branding”, it’s important for us to be in agreement on the definition of a brand. oxford american dictionary defines a brand as “a type of product manufactured by a particular company under a particular name.” (i can only assume the dictionary’s editors never bothered to pass this by their marketing team). i, on the other hand, have always defined a brand as, “a product, service, or company that elicits an emotional response from its audience.”
using this definition, it’s important to understand that a brand is built by more than just a pretty, new logo (although a pretty, new logo does indeed have the ability to elicit an emotional response and affect a brand). a brand is affected by the way a receptionist answers a phone or how easily a web site is navigated. it’s shaped by a product’s price. and a company’s relationship to its employees. if one is going to take on the task of re-branding, one better do their homework, because it can induce incredibly far-reaching reactions (i’m assuming i don’t have to talk about “new coke” here).
in a nutshell, a company should re-brand to stay, or become relevant to its audience. take tobacco, for instance. as people’s views on smoking changed, philip morris realized that maybe it wasn’t so great that their non-tobacco products were being associated with a cigarette company -- so they changed their parent company’s name to altria. yes, sometimes all it takes is a name change to alter people’s response. (did you know miller beer and marlboro cigarettes are owned by the same company? my aunt who lives in a trailer park in vegas is keeping the new altria afloat).
pepsi has recently gone through a major re-branding. they have a new logo (it’s supposed to represent a smile) and a newly-positioned communications strategy. their new tagline, refresh everything, speaks beautifully to their target audience, which i’ll define broadly as the youth of the world.
one of the target’s subsets, american youth, was more involved with the political process this year than we’ve seen in decades. this demographic showed a belief in community service and desire to affect change in the world. so it’s no coincidence that pepsi’s new web site is less about product than it is culture. the site balances “fun” interests like music and sports -- with ways one can give back, including links to several charitable organizations.
pepsi knew their audience’s belief system was shifting and they listened. they also know their product alone is not their brand.
you know, pepsi’s logo and site actually have a strong resemblance to the look and feel of a certain candidate’s site, and i can’t help but wonder if pepsi’s marketing team had been working day and night since november 4th, or they took a chance with the election results. either way, we all know timing is everything. so, let’s get back to the subject at hand. do we really need to re-brand america? let’s start with some data. rest assured, most of the findings are from research that’s statistically significant and essentially irrefutable.
it is based on my own experiences.
in february of 2003, i was in barcelona. it was during the build up to the iraq invasion and several protests were scheduled across europe. over a million people were expected to fill the square near where i was staying. the posters for the “manifesto” were adorned with bombs and skulls. black type with blood red highlights. around the city, people seemed genuinely angry. i asked my spanish friends if I would be ok. should i stay inside and continue to brush up on my spanish by watching more music videos? and if I did go out, should I say i’m canadian?
i was not surprised by the answer. i have been lucky enough to travel to many countries, and have discussed the differences between the united states and other cultures many times. even after we “elected” (well, some of us elected) president bush for a second time, people told me, with heart-felt conviction, “we don’t hate america. we like americans. we just don’t like your government right now.” my friends assured me, i’d be very safe.
sure, some nations still see us as nothing more than caricatures. unwieldy gigantic smiles adorned with white, blinding teeth. a comical, annoyingly-nasal accent that’s strangely reminiscent of my family’s back in wisconsin. we, of immense ignorance about other countries and cultures. but deep down – and with obvious exceptions -- other cultures do like us. they really like us.
given these preliminary studies, i concluded that our brand – america – wasn’t completely broken. most audiences didn’t define us by our government. yet, the perceptions did need to be addressed. in time, one bad brand perception becomes two. and so on, and so on and so on…
so, how does one go about changing attitudes about the government of a world power? well, here’s a glimpse into how it might happen.
as is protocol in any brand overhaul, more research should be conducted (and it should probably be a bit more robust than my anecdotal observations). obviously, the bush administration (our business problem) was eliciting an emotional response. distrust. disdain. disgust. personally, bush also made me bloated and irritable, and midol wasn’t gonna make it any better. in america, his approval rating was a shocking 29% (shocking because that’s still 80 million people who still thought he was doing a good job. wtf?). and as bush traveled across the globe, he was greeted with protests and riots. bush was the governmental equivalent of baby formula from china.
in domestic focus groups, also known as electoral primaries, reformulated products (candidates) were being introduced to the main target audience – the american voter. any brand attributes associated with the bush effect, like longtime senators, were losing their appeal. the former first lady, hillary clinton (who had gone through a re-branding herself 10 years prior ) was, fairly or unfairly, being tethered to the old brand’s tagline: status quo. no matter what, the research was conclusive – the product had to be made relevant to the changing consumer.
the two agencies handling the rfp only had about 10 weeks to synthesize all the data and come up with two options that effectively spoke to disparate audiences. like any good re-branding, the new product couldn’t completely alienate older, brand loyalists, but still had to speak to and celebrate the future audience. concepts were tested – word associations were developed, like “change”, “maverick”, “hope”… even “soccer mom” was considered at one point (this, no doubt, was blurted out during a sleep-deprived 4am brainstorm session).
on november 4th, after much work and with great trepidation, the two brand strategies were presented to the decision-makers. as is sometimes the case, both agencies offered up concepts based on the same positioning: change, but they did so in very different ways.
the producers of the safer concept, which they called “john mccain”, tried to convince their target audience that their product was nothing like bush. even though it had been on the shelves even longer, mccain, they said, was fresh and different – “now with more terrorist fighting power!” unfortunately, they made a classic marketing mistake – they misread the problem and thought it only took a new brand face to solve everything. even with newly-designed packaging, their product had the same smell, taste and mouth-feel (a culinary term) of the old bush brand. and, i think most were in agreement, the new packaging wasn’t all that new. It was old. really, really old.
the producers of the second concept took more of a risk – and a holistic approach to the branding task.
first, they completely updated the communication strategy, embracing “new media” with a beautifully designed and completely intuitive web site. they initiated a smart use of social networking – facebook, twitter, meet-up, etc. and sent a barrage of email blasts with customized calls-to-local-action. (ok – maybe a few too many email blasts). the team had a powerful understanding of not just how the audience used media, but how they lived with it. thus shifted the paradigm.
they gave it a name, “barack obama” that every convention and expert said would never fly. a lot of people couldn’t pronounce it. some couldn’t spell it. and a few even thought it sounded like a muslim name (and everyone knows muslim names don’t sell.) yet the name proved to have incredible recall value and in the end, reinforced the promise that this product was different. the team followed one tried and true marketing rule – differentiate or die!
the product was fresh. it was accessible. it was aspirational.
and on november 4th, when the winning agency was announced, there was a clear consensus. the winning concept went immediately into production.
on january 20, 2009, the new brand was launched. early results are promising -- beyond some people’s wildest dreams. millions came out for its unveiling - more than any before.
the newly-branded america didn’t just resonate with the primary audience; it spoke to people around the world. and its newly-positioned brand attribute: leadership, is being embraced by those who it was always assumed, would never, have even considered it before.
our brand’s new attribute is named president barack obama. and I need to stress that, right now, he seems to be getting a big thumbs-up. but like pepsi’s new brand, only time will tell if it will truly be a success.
i, for one, am praying it will be.
