Back to the question at heart - which is I'm not sure what the problem is. The RNC decided early on that they would brand McCain as a "Maverick." They then decided to bring in Sarah Palin as "Another Maverick." It's not a bad brand to assign. In fact, it ranks rather well in people's minds. Ms. Palin augmented Mr. McCain's maverick brand and as polls showed, gave a real shot to the campaign. The problem wasn't in the concept of the maverick brand, it was in how to keep the brand alive, without it turning into a flat, two dimensional moniker?
As it turns out, it's not an easy tightrope to walk. Just look at a brand like Sketchers. It was a great, counter-culture brand when it first launched. It was a maverick brand. However, once it became popular, the brand realized it had to give up some of its counter culture status in order to make more money. After all, how counter-culture can you be when you're sold in Kmart?
So it made a decision - stay true to its brand, or take a brand shift and make more money. Some brands stay true to themselves and never grow [just walk into any skateboarding store]. Others manage to stay true to the brand and grow to a certain extent [Clif Bars has done an amazing job at keeping a maverick brand alive, while growing well]. Still others, try to keep walking that line, only to realize to late that their market likes the idea of a maverick, but has trouble when that maverick keeps acting, well, like a maverick.
Bottom line, the concept of being a maverick is great on paper. But how do you keep a maverick in line so that they give a consistent message day in and day out? Even more important - how do you keep a maverick on message?
Once you do, they're no longer a maverick.
Again, great on paper - impossible to maintain over the long term...
No comments:
Post a Comment