Can you really spend over $140 million on the California Governor's race and lose?
It's a question that a lot of people are asking right now, and a subject that is sure to be required reading for political science majors over the next couple of decades. But it's really less a question of politics than branding -- one that should be studied in marketing 101 classes nationwide.
Most branding and advertising executives -- the real Don Drapers of the 21st Century -- would salivate over a $140 million budget. The truth is: you can build whatever person, brand, or image you want for less than half that amount -- in one market, across the country, or around the world.
Consider that 10 years ago Accenture launched a worldwide rebranding campaign in 48 countries. The price tag: $175 million. While originally mocked, the brand is now one of the most well known in the world valued at just under $7.5 billion (see Interbrand's 2010 Best Global Brands). Not a bad return.
Here's the thing: the idea of branding - whether a person or a company - isn't that tough to grasp. There are three general reactions people have to a brand: they love it, they hate it, or they're somewhere in the middle.
So, how do you get people to love a brand (or a politician)? You meet your audiences' rational needs and their emotional desires. That equilibrium makes them feel warm and fuzzy. Think Apple, Target, Zappos, or Obama - these are brands that have found the love because they've satisfied needs, but in a way that makes their audience feel fulfilled.
The San Francisco Giants found that equilibrium, too. They won the World Series (rational), but they did it with a class, determination, and spirit that everyone respects (emotional).
"I can't tell you how proud I am of this team...we don't have any superstars, we're just a bunch of guys who wanted to win."
That was SF Giants' Right Fielder Cody Ross speaking with KTVU Fox 2 Monday night just moments after the team won 3-1 over the Texas Rangers. Out of breath with exhilaration at having won the World Series, Ross touched on the essence of the Giant's winning strategy: collective will. It's an idea of common cause, one that leverages the abilities of the individuals to achieve the unimaginable for all.
It's also an idea that is starkly missing from Meg Whitman's campaign for Governor of California. In general, the Whitman campaign likes to dwell on ideas that include what she will do to "clean up the mess in Sacramento" and create "A New California." And as many have said, it's a concept pretty close to what Governor Schwarzenegger used on his way to Sacramento. Of course, we know how that turned out for him (approval rating is in the low-20s) and the state (budget crisis).
The reason that the Whitman Campaign will lose today is that her brand doesn't tap into the collective spirit of Californians. Voters are here because they love California -- its past and its future. They want to improve it, not reinvent it. And its legislative structure prevents a lone CEO from pretty much doing anything on her or his own.
By choosing this route, Whitman has missed tapping into the emotional desires of Californians or the rational needs of resolving problems in the state. Add billionaire status and a self-funded campaign to that, and people see her as "other" - not of, by, and for the people.
Net-net: Love the Beard, Fear the Meg.