The Reality of Not Being Real

Well, she's at it again.  And it's still not good.  I will say, she is a shrewd marketer of her own brand.  But it still seems as if she doesn't think it all the way through.  I'm of course talking about Sarah Palin and her attempt to leverage the Rolling Thunder Memorial Day event in Washington D.C.


Great effort on her part to leverage a very meaningful and heartfelt event that enlisted people and veterans respect.  But to don dark glasses and a leather jacket while hitching on the back of a bike just undermines her entire effort to be "real."


Everything about it reeks of a staged opportunistic PR gaff.  The well primped look, the "heartland of America" theme, even the "One Nation" title for her bus tour.  What's missing was her ability to ride a motorcycle, her ability to respect what our service men and women do on a daily basis, and her ability to be real.  Or wait a minute, perhaps she is being true to herself.  In which case it's sad that she's learned so little about what real American's want from a brand - real, honest goodness.

The Politics of Hate

With the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, there has been a new call to end, or at least reduce the vitriol of Washington. Some people seem to think that lowering the anger-based rhetoric is an infringement on our basic freedom of speech. In some ways it is. But there is also a level of responsibility and maturity that goes along with the concept of free speech.

Sarah Palin recorded a statement in which she said, “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” Ms. Palin said in a video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

What she seems to forget is that when we raise the general level of discourse to include maps with gun sights targeting political leaders, we lower the level of discretion about what is right and what is wrong. I am not targeting Ms. Palin alone, as it comes in from both sides. But if we cannot see that there needs to be some level of acceptance and compassion in our public rhetoric, then we are truly doomed as a country and as a political system.

I agree with Ronald Reagan when he stated that society should not be blamed for the acts of an individual. However, I also agree with him that individuals should take responsibility for their actions. To date, I have yet to see any politicians do so.

If now is not the time? The when?

Branding 2010 - Make It Real

Well, Happy New Year everyone. For those of us who had our eyes even partially open, I think everyone can agree that in terms of branding, 2009 is a year best left alone. So much happened, and at the same time, so little.

It started off with one of the best brands of all coming alive - Barack Obama. Riding on a wave of much needed optimism, Barack led the county back into feeling good about the future. He was of course met with another brand. Perhaps not as strong, but definately one that has made itself just as memorable - Sarah Palin. Are we seeing the forces of good and evil play themselves out? Is this just some of the best staging anyone outside of Hollywood ever created? Whichever, way this goes, the Obama and Palin brands are sure to be in the forefront of our psyches for a long, long time.

After that, the brand of the United States of America was a strong contender for most notable. With it's financial markets crashing, it's real estate bottoming out, and it's moral fiber running thin, the US of A hit a low-point in terms of it's brand. Wait a minute - that might have happened in 2008. No, no, the first strike happened in 2008, but with the continued issues hitting like Katrina, Americans in all sectors realized that this was no '80s style recession, this was something far worse and far deeper. Everytime the world lost a brand like Pontiac, Kodachrome, Saturn, Max Factor, even Gourmet magazine - America took a hit. I wouln't even go into the Tiger Woods debaucle that ushered in the last month of the year, but it all showed the world just how vunerable a country and it's brand can be; if it's not protected and cared for. [Seriously, did your wife really chase you down the street swinging a gold club? Dude...]

On the bright side, 2009 brought us Twitter, a stronger Google, and a show that yes, even if our markets are bottoming out, we'll spend our children's legacy to bring them back. [really. Really? Yes, really] So I guess it does show us that if we're willing to spend enough, anything can happen. Are you listening Detroit? Oh, yes, you already did that....

So how about this? Let's just brand the old year as "2009 - Not what we anticipated..." As for the new year? As for 2010? How about this? Let's just try to protect the brands we love by making them real. If Ford wants to go green - great, we'll read it in your ads, but we'll wait for it to show up in your cars before the jump on the band wagon. If Burger King wants to go thin? Great - we'll believe you as soon as we see a burger with fewer than 1,000 calories. If Visa wants to be our partner, show us some interest rates that at least have a toe touching reality.

Let's brand 2010 with the tagline of "2010 - Make it real"

What Happens When Mavericks Act, Well, Like Mavericks

The news is filled with breaks between Sarah Palin and John McCain. McCain's camp is calling Palin a "Diva." Palin's camp is blaming McCain for botching her coming out party. Both are probably right - although it probably is sexist to call her a diva - even though there were "diva" wars several years ago between celebs wanting to be known as the "only true diva," - but that's another blog entry all together.

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...

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 -

Sarah Palin/Barack Obama - Brand USA

Okay, so after seeing the Democratic National Convention [DNC] and the Republican National Convention [RNC], I guess it has all come to this. No matter who runs, we inevitably fall into the same thing - a popularity contest where the presidential candidates try their best to stay above the fray, while hiring Vice President's who, as Sarah Palin hinted at, act more like pitbulls than humans.

So much for the issues of the Iraq war, so much for drilling and oil consumption, so much for wiretapping becoming legal, abortion, alternative fuels, global warming, half truths and mis-truths. So much for presenting a sound foriegn policy and having the chops to back it up. So much for running a campaign about what each candidate can do or can't do.


How quickly has it dropped to the same politics I saw in highschool when elected the King and Queen of the prom. Only now it's about Sarah Palin in a bikini [yes, it's a photoshop job]. But hey, that's about as real as it's going to get for us from here on out. Or so it seems from the fallout I've been reading online. While all this goes on, so much for brand USA. Instead of being a beacon for how a free election is handled, we end up being no better off than the elections we laugh at from third world nations. Chads, election fraud, uncounted primaries - what must our founding fathers think.

So let's just cut to the chase and take a look at what really matters for voters of both candidates. To heck with politics and issues, let's talk about brand USA. Better yet, let's do what everyone else is doing and forget about trying to answer a higher calling and find a way to leverage the whole mess to our own benefit.

As my brother once said about politics "Now Jeff, why would you want to go wrestle with the pig? You're not going to win. You're only going to get dirty. And frankly, I think the pig kind of likes it."


So to heck with trying to respect our candidates. Instead, I'll post it to google, and see what it does for my ranking.

After all, this blog is about branding and marketing.

The Importance Of Research

From a brand perspective, there is nothing, absolutely nothing more important than research. Research to understand your customer, research to understand your client, and research to understand the market you're going into, and of course research to truly understand the product itself as well as the experience it promises to provide. Most important though, is the need to jump in and try out the product with hands on research the way the legendary ad-men and women of the 60s and 70s did.

There are stories about how account teams would spend weeks in Betty Crocker's kitchens, baking cakes and pies and cookies to get a real understanding for what the customer's experience. From weeks to baking, they were able to understand the beauty and the foibles of a particular product. They learned the ins and outs that their customers would learn sooner or later. Because of this, not only could they get inside the customer's head and write the kind of copy that people responded to. They could speak to their clients knowledgeably about what was good and what was bad about a particular product. The result from that research? The ability to turn consumers into customers and customers into brand enthusiasts like never before. They were no longer ad-men and women, they were knowledgeable customers. That is something that goes beyond pocket books, but lies deeply in the hearts, minds and souls of any successful product or campaign.

Political parties not withstanding, for any brand, be it political, consumer, or B2B to think they can skip over the time it takes to undertake research in order to understand their own product I sheer folly. If anyone thinks about rushing their product to market without doing the proper research, well, let's just watch how the cards deal out from the news that hit on September 1st, when it should have really been about a convention...