Clinton Is Right For The Rich And Obama Is Right For Everyone Else

Clinton is the perfect candidate for the rich and Obama is the perfect candidate for the masses. That would be my conclusion if I were to audit their respective campaigns as if they were brands on a shelf. From their campaign strategies to their pitches, both candidates have carved out clear niches in the market.

Make no mistake, an election is no different from any other commercial transaction. The candidate is the product and their platform and ideas are their features and benefits. Like any well-marketed brand, candidates come equipped with collateral materials, advertising, tag lines, theme songs, celebrity endorsements, and all manners of customer research hoping to shed a little light on what sells. At the end of this campaign is a perfect exchange of consideration. In return for providing hope and confidence in the future, the consumer pays a donation or a vote.

Few voters evaluate all the nuances and details of each and every policy and plan. The candidate's brand image - their emotional appeal is vital. Gut feelings play as much of a role, if not more, as buying the latest cell phone or a new car. And like any big purchase, we drag out the decision because this is "an important purchase," something we're going to have to live with for a while. This is why campaigners talk about the need for "authenticity." A rousing speech or shedding a tear after a long day of stumping all help to appeal to a voter's gut.

Now that we're down to two leading candidates, Clinton's and Obama's respective brand positions are clear: Clinton is the luxury brand and Obama is has mass market appeal.

Clinton's campaign strategy appeals to the few who could afford, but Obama is priced to move. Nearly 50% of Clinton's campaign contributions at the end of 2007 came from a smaller group offering the maximum individual donation, $2,300. Where as Obama relied on more people giving less money - under $200 to be specific. And Obama's strategy is doing well, the more mass he goes, the more money he makes. What's the value of a mass market strategy you ask? Just as a fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi. At the peak of his career in the 1990s, his company made about $10 million per year selling $10,000 couture gowns. Then he made a deal with Target and made an estimated $1 billion over three years selling $89 dresses.

Like a venerable old brand, Clinton talks up experience and "how many years we've been in business." She represents a legacy. Something that has withstood the test of time. Like an old Mercedes, it has gone for 100,000 miles and will more than likely go for another 100,000. Quick to criticize the new and the unknown, her brand appeals more to those who desire stability and something more familiar.

Obama's brand is the antithesis. His message goes straight to the heart of the everyman. "Change you can believe in," "Yes you can," he speaks directly to the American dream we all "hope" to live, not have already lived. Obama's brand tells us that with him in office, you can one day make enough to afford the $2,300 version...if you want it.

Their respective brands also seem to impact their strategies. Clinton is relying on an inner circle of experience, like her husband, to support her (which is why Senator Kennedy's endorsement for Obama was such a serious blow). Obama attracts popular icons like Oprah Winfrey and speaks at stadiums. Like her fund raising, Clinton has done well winning fewer states with more votes. Obama is taking her one by winning a larger number of smaller states.

One brand is not better or worse. Both are strong and well defined. Both can stand for change, the question is does America want to drive into the future in the latest leather-upholstered Cadillac or newest Toyota hybrid?


For more from Simon Sinek, visit www.simonsinek.com

Follow Simon Sinek on Twitter: www.twitter.com/simonsinek

Comments

[DoninJoisey]

Polls I've seen show the more education, the more support for Obama.
I think the slogan should be "Act educated - vote Obama".

"35 years of experience" - at prevarication.

[StillAmused]

Interestin­g... yet, the polls I'm reading suggest Obama draws wealthier supporters with a higher level of education, while Clinton appeals (generally) to working class voters. How does that translate into "Clinton [being] the perfect candidate for the rich and Obama [being] the perfect candidate for the masses"?

Could it be you're projecting your preference, rather than commenting on whatever credible polling DOES exist?

[ricanth]

Yeah at the very least a very misleading article and maybe a few weeks too late. Is he aware of the 100,000 new donors and $10,000,000 she got last week? That's only $100/person on average. How many people does he think donate? 10,000,000? No, not even close. He mentions 50% of the end of year voters. Give me some numbers b/c even if you're talking about 40,000 donors of which 20,000 maxed out that's over $43,000,000! She raised $100,000,000 for the whole campaign. There's no way she got close to $50,000,000 at the end of the year. Assuming that could be the case and I'm off my rocker then one of two things makes this article significantly flawed:
1) He is talking about a small number of people to have donated $2,300. Maybe 5,000 or so. This discounts his numbers as he used a very small sample to prove his story.
2) He is talking about 20,000 people which demonstrates the 100,000 she recently added at an avg. of $100/person will significantly alter his numbers and change his entire conclusion.

Which is it?

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

Clinton's experienced is over-rated and she is not for the rich. How could she be? She is too busy being for herself. As for a Cadillac, Hillary wishes she were that classy. If I had to define her, then she would be an El Camino. I mean she can't make up her mind what she is.