McCain v. Obama: Whose Brand Stretches Right? (And Get Ready for Inconsistencies from Both Candidates)

People throw around the word "brand" without having a precise understanding of its meaning, and maybe that's because every business book gives you a slightly different definition.

Here's one definition:
A brand is a symbolic embodiment of all the information connected to a company, organization, product or service.

Here's another:
A name, sign or symbol used to identify items or services of the seller(s) and to differentiate them from goods of competitors.

And another:
Simply put, a brand is a promise. By identifying and authenticating a product or service it delivers a pledge of satisfaction and quality.

Personally, I tend to like this one:
A brand is a collection of perceptions in the mind of the consumer.

With brand comes a slew of brand-related terms:
"brand management" - how a company manages its brand;
"brand equity" -the value of the brand;
"brand promise" - the promise that the brand makes to its customers; and
"brand elasticity" - how the brand stretches.

I think the 2008 presidential race comes down to brand elasticity.

Here are two quick examples of brand elasticity:
If I say Mercedes Benz, the company hopes you think of luxury cars. That's what their brand represents. But when Mercedes came out with the C-class series, they bet the farm that they could sell a Mercedes for under $30K and not lose their $80K customers. Lose your $80K customers and your brand is down the toilet, as those customers go elsewhere. But Mercedes was right because their brand was elastic enough to sell luxury at the $30K price point without cannibalizing their high-end market.

Compare that with Southwest Airlines, a company whose brand stands for "value," a fact they even tout in their advertising (e.g. "no frills"). If Southwest tried to sell you luxury, like offering a first class section or having certain first class flights, they would probably go broke. Their "value" brand wouldn't stretch enough to appeal to customers looking for a luxury experience.

Apply brand elasticity to the presidential race, and the question is... how far will each candidate's brand stretch to the Right without losing his existing voters?

McCain comes from the political middle, and his brand represents a relatively traditional, slightly right of center, conservative position -- strong on defense, fiscal responsibility, while de-emphasizing social issues. (I realize these are broad generalizations and that he may not practice what he preaches, but I still think that's what the McCain brand stands for). His challenge lies in maintaining the voting base of Independents and middle of the road Dems and Republicans, while appealing to social conservatives so he can attract that segment of the Bush vote. His dilemma becomes apparent when, for example, the California Supreme Court allows gay marriages to stand, a decision he can't criticize (for fear of losing the middle) but can't ignore (because he distances himself from the religious right). McCain's $1M question is whether he can stretch his brand enough to the right to embrace the socially conservative wing of his party.

Obama comes from the left, with endorsements from the most liberal elements of the Democratic party -- e.g. Ted Kennedy, MoveOn.org -- (again, a generalization, just my perspective on his brand). His challenge lies in moving to the middle without giving up his liberal base, so that he can attract Independents and middle of the roaders from both parties. His dilemma is illustrated with issues like the Telecom immunity vote where he doesn't want to support a deal (because his base thinks he's selling out), but he wants to be seen as sensitive to the needs of business (in order to broaden his appeal). Obama's $1M question is whether his brand can stretch right enough to embrace moderate liberals, traditional (fiscal) conservatives and Independents.

So, whose got the more elastic brand?

Comments

[Michale32086]

CONT

Simple... Obama says he supports the new FISA measures (HR6304). Immediately there are screams of "LIAR!!!" and "TRAITOR!!" etc etc ad nasuem. Was it a lie?? For it to be a lie, it would have to be proven that Obama had the intention of supporting the FISA measure all along. Given the man's obvious show of integrity over and over again, I have no doubt that Obama's change of position came from newly learned knowledge that, if he was the great leader I think he is, would REQUIRE a change of position..

I am sure, with McCain, there are similar circumstances that would support his change of positions. Honestly, I don't follow McCain's campaign too much, as I am an Obama supporter to date..

My whole point is that the electorate is mainly to blame for the "inconsistencies". And I include the media in the whole "electorate" category.. If people would look at the situations calmly and rationally I am sure they would discover that many inconsistencies are simply a rational and logical result of an ever fluid situation.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

The problem with inconsistencies is about 80% electorate and 20% candidates..

The candidates are part of the problem because they fail to inform the electorate that changing circumstances COULD result in changing positions. I am sure the candidates "assume" that the electorate is smart enough to accept that as a given. But, you know what happens when you make an assumption. You make an ass out of you and umption... By and large the electorate IS smart enough to know that this is a given..

Which brings me to the 80% of the problem being the electorate. They should realize that a changing of circumstances usually results in a changing of positions. Personally, I don't WANT a candidate who "stays the course" in face of overwhelming evidence that it's not working... When was the last time THAT happened?? If you said Bush, you would be wrong. It would be with Hillary Clinton..

Now, how does this play out in reality?

CONT