Palin & Coca Cola

I got into a conversation last night over a few martinis, that is relevant to this. The conversation led us into talking about brands versus ingredients, academic positioning verson real product benefits, and which was more important. So with the political pundits chattering away, and with us PR folk talking about brands, we compared Sarah Palin with another well known American brand - Coca Cola. Watch, they do have some similarities...

In one night, Sarah defined a strong position for herself when she took the podium at the DNC. She did a great job doing os, and a great many people jumped on board. Trusting her ingredients matched her brand. Now, while many may think Sarah Palin's record is a risk, we all know records can be tweaked, shifted, and distorted by the politicos and spin doctors. So while her resume includes a long list of questionable acts that include attempts at ousting an in-law from the police force, book banning, even using lobbyists for fundraising [Time Magazine 9/2/8], her position and brand is extremely strong.

Now, here's the leap that's far easier to make over martinis than on a blog, but resumes are a lot like ingredients. They are the real benefits a politician brings to the table. And like any product, the formula that has made up her past is only half the equation of what makes her a true presence in the market. The image of her being a pit bull berating her opponents carries just as strong a message as what she actually did, or did not do.

So, here is the question. In today's politics, which is more important - brand or ingredients? And before you answer, just remember what happened when Coca Cola introduced New Coke in the 80s. It thought the public's love for its brand was so strong, they could change a tried and true formula however they wished, and the public would still love it.

So, can America overlook the ingredients that make up Sarah Palin's resume in favor of her image? Is her brand and that of the GOP strong enough to overcome the product's formula?
- cannon-brandcommunication.blogspot.com -

Flip Flop - Meaningless Phrases & Meaningful Networks

“Flip Flop.”

It's a phrase that came into being in the 2008 elections to discredit John Kerry for changing his mind on issues. I have to admit to the people who created it – it was shear genius.

The fact that there is not a candidate alive – republican or democrat – who has not changed their position, or their mind, on an important subject at one point in their career, let alone their candidacy, is absurd. Yet, with the right network of media relationships, this term helped turn an election.

In the 2008 election, the term “flip flop” is still being bantered around from time to time. It seems like an effort to ill-brand a candidate, but it hasn’t stuck yet. Perhaps even the media has begun to realize it is a meaningless term - something that cannot be a defining label to any campaign because every candidate has “flip flopped” at one time or another. Or perhaps it’s because nobody has been able to energize a network like the inventors of “flip flop” were able to do in the 2004 elections.

And maybe that’s the key. Maybe what you say is not as important as how you say it or who it’s said to.

Think about that the next time you spend hours perfecting your message before you figure out how you're getting it out to the audience you want to reach...