The Brand Called Obama®

Does the RNC directly pay for the bandwidth on this site, or is it funneled through one of their PACs?

HITLER, HITLER, HITLER!!!

There is a bigger lesson to be learned here for all current and future political candidates. Yes it matters what you stand for but it may matter more what team of marketing/communications and yes branding, with whom you surround yourself.

I want to also address the comments from others here. We should never dismiss what others achieve, and the way they achieve it, if it is either successful and/or brilliant. I am a firm supporter of Hillary and believe she should be the next president, but I also believe she lacks and lacked the right people around her to get her message out.

And the gender issue doesn’t help. In many ways it has been more cumbersome then any other issue, unfortunately.

Remember Obama and Edwards are both Axelrod products.

Brilliant piece…..thanks.

And don’t forget the Pepsi logo. Outside of the “W” on George, Obama’s “O” is the first true “logo” I’ve seen for a presidential candidate.

Seems innocuous enough, until you try and imagine since when do human beings need logos? Disembodied corporations need logos to give them a physical manifestation. Human beings have faces we recognize them by, while faceless corporations have logos for that purpose.

“O” and “W” both have logos so we can see something different, something bigger (”and something wicked this way comes”).

Excellent article. I’ve always thought that the political success of George W. Bush was a marketing and branding success.

At this point, Obama’s success is strikingly similar. The “brand of Bush” lost every debate with Gore. Same with Obama. The “brand of Bush” took very mushy stands of the issues and survived on slogans. Like Bush, the brand of Obama’s main message is a change from the Clinton era.

We can only hope that this “brand of Obama” does not turn out to be the lemon that the “brand of Bush” has been.

For someone who has spent most of his adult life in Illinois, he has an uncanny ear for accents in the South. Listening to him address an audience in the South versus a Northern group is like listening to two different men. The funny thing about that is that with so many people moving around, regionalism isn’t as prevelent as it once was. Does anyone other than me just cringe when he does this?

One thing all three markets appear to have in common – ignorance of history.

We’re nominating an MTV video for president. Yeah!

Hey beelzebug, do you suck your koolaide flavored comments directly from obamalamadingdongs shlong or do you haveta wait and get them e mailed to ya?

NewHampster, it’s unethical to target market the President in the way A. has. He used a “bubble sort” to push his ads…as well as deep subliminals. Look up Blue State digital.

What a cheap shot to trademark those words, no?

How original.

Yeah, funny thang bout dem accents ain’t it. Remember when Senator Clinton was eviserated for using a “BLACK” accent when telling a poem? Gee, terrible thing for a White WOMAN to do but OK for BLACK puddin, why’s dat mr. obamalamadingdong huh? Why is dat?

As a Marketing Director I agree. But it is more like the branding of Adolph Hitler. Think of it Hitler was a great speaker. They created the Nazi brand with great events at Nuemberg. We now have yes we can instead of Zieg Heil. And everyone who did they appeal to first the media and the kids. Gee what an analogy

new hampster -

this is a SUPERB analysis in an area i know nothing about but have felt was very important to understanding what is influencing our choice for president of the united states.

politics always involves some sort of manipulation of people’s emotions, but this seems particularly sophisticated manipulation.

thank you for sharing your knowledge; i feel much better informed.

i will add here, with some comments of mine, a somewhat related cite from an article in the latest atlantic magazine which describes the sophisticated money collecting machine that axelrod and obama have built.

all of this, marketing and raising “capital” (campaign funds) is very, very corporate.

i don’t know if that is good or bad at this point; it just is.

the speaker (roos) is a lawyer, the ceo of a leading law firm in the area, probably +- 45 years and the head of obama fund raising in the area

from “the atlantic”:

[Furthermore, in Silicon Valley’s unique reckoning, what everyone else considered to be Obama’s major shortcomings—his youth, his inexperience—here counted as prime assets.

I asked Roos, the personification of a buttoned-down corporate attorney, if there had been concerns about Obama’s limited CV, and for a moment he looked as if he might burst out laughing. “No one in Silicon Valley sits here and thinks, ‘You need massive inside-the-Beltway experience,’” he explained, after a diplomatic pause. “Sergey and Larry were in their early 20s when they started Google. The YouTube guys were also in their 20s. So were the guys who started Facebook. And I’ll tell you, we recognize what great companies have been built on, and that’s ideas, talent, and inspirational leadership.” ]

you got that?

the presidency of the united states is equivalent to a start-up. a bright, energetic leader who talks a good line to venture capitalists and bingo

you’ve got yourself a presidential corporation going.

amazing.

and so simple.

could anyone be stupider than roos? yeah, probably.

and they are probably out sellin’ buy-ins for

The Obama Presidency, Inc.

no doubt an isp will be forthcoming in the next few months.

despite my sarcasm, it is the case that these guys may have the last laugh on the nation.

another thought

this is the kind of information which, presented correctly, would make a great anti-obama commercial or youtube video

Actually I think the marketing aspect of Obama’s success is really secondary to his success in the caucuses via the youth vote and the MoveOn.org vote and to his color loyal voting base. You don’t need too much sophisticated marketing to move these groups in the direction you want.

And we must not forget the role of the pundit press in this whole business. Is that marketing or brainwashing or just what would you call what they have been doing? And then there are the mysterious elitist forces directing his efforts at the pinnacle of the Democratic Party.

The comment above HITLER! HITLER! HITLER! may just nicely sum it all up.

I think the book “Obama. Post Modern Coup” by Webster Tarpley draws some interesting parallels of the Obama campaign’s tactics to tactics used by George Soros supported groups to upset the balance of power in former Soviet republics.

I just sort of skimmed the article, but did the marketing make any effort to reach women beyond college age, rural voters, Hispanics, etc? I guess they’ll have to work on that for the general election if they get that far. But, it seems obvious that they WILL need a way to erase the target groups’ recent memories of the last eight months or so.

Just as a side note for any Obama fans, Bill Richardson, as the privileged son of a New England banker and with his Anglo name and with his capetbagging New Mexico reputation has limited appeal to the Hispanic base. The Obamabots will have to come up with something else.

The canary in the coal mine is Obama’s weak showing in Massachusetts.

They bought one version of the Axelrod brand and they are obviously experiencing buyer’s remorse.

American Idol Presidency plain and simple. Why don’t they just text message their votes in? What a farce! These young people are going to get what they deserve. Unfortunately it is the rest of us who will have to suffer with them. Sickening.

In today’s world, Lincoln would never be marketable. Why? too ugly.

How much farther can we sink?

So how will Axlerod and company deal with the buyer’s remorse if Obama end’s up in the white House, or will that be some body else’s problem.

Whatever it was a few months ago, today the marketing of the Obama candidacy is now simply incredibly lame for anybody remotely capable of critical thought. It is a complete shambles that rests upon the mere testimonials of others who have drank the kool-aid.

It has all the crediblity of one of those late night “ExtenZe” infomercial. You may claim “ExtenZe” makes it bigger, your girlfriend and wife may go along in claiming it is bigger but that don’t make it so.

Screw the Facebook douchebags.

The same geniuses behind “ExtenZe” are working for Alexrod.

Americans are buying what Axelrod is selling. It’s like one of those inspirational Coca-Cola commercials, but for a politician. Can you all sing, in ‘harmony’ that ‘it’s the real thing’?

Americans get to feel good about Obama, and about the prospect of Hope and Change and Transcending Race.

Of course, once the hype dies down, they’ll find that Obama has no more substance than Coke has nutrition. Both are all fizz and sugar, and empty from the neck up.

Obama has never really done anything in office other than run for a higher office.

He got to be State Senator by eliminating his competition from the ballot. As State Senator, Obama turned his back on poor Blacks suffering in sub-standard Rezko owned buildings, and took money from Rezko and wrote glowing letters of recommendation for Rezko.

Emil Jones Jr. packaged up Obama for the Federal Congress by putting Obama’s name on every bill in sight, and Obama paid him back with tens of millions in earmarks.

At the federal level, Obama was too busy working on his presidential bid to bother with his responsibilities as Chair of the Senate Sub-Committee responsible for oversight of NATO and Afghanistan, and Obama’s recent remarks show that he knows neither the basic geography of Afghanistan nor even what languages are spokent there.

American needs someone to roll up their sleeves and work for change, but Obama has only ever worked for himself.

I think Hillary & Co. know this and feel that the longer she goes on the more voters will come to realize that they were sold shoddy merchandise.
Funny thing is Obama will keep his supporters because of brand loyalty. You’ve all know a person who owns a car that is constantly in the shop, costing him an arm and a leg. Yet that person will never buy another make.

Barack Obama, the Sybil President?

You get Three for One.

What about Michelle? There are are least two of her.

Her normal charming self. And her uncomfortable around white people except when she needs them for a photo op self.

fosbach, generally that is true, because usually, even the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican. And I would have agreed with you if this were Gore-Bush, Kerry-Bush, or if there were any other candidate (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich) running. Any of us would gladly have supported any other Dem candidate if Hillary had legitimately lost the nomination.

In fact, I would have agreed to vote for Sen. Obama IF Sen. Obama had not decided to “win” by rigging the election and attempting to disenfrachise voters. That is more than a mere policy difference. It is not a “tantrum,” and to call it that indicates that you care more about one candidate than you do about democratic (or Democratic) principles. I cannot countenance a nomination won on the back of disenfranchised voters — and aside from the moral repugnancy of Obama choosing to do so (with the collusion of the DNC), even if the moral ramifications don’t disturb you (they obviously don’t bother any Obama followers), consider the fact that this is electoral-college suicide.

Michigan and Florida are two large swing states that we desperately need to win, but in order to thumb the scale for your candidate, we take away their votes. LUDICROUS. But even if we could win with them — and even if they are beaten and harassed into voting for Obama — the moral ugliness does not go away. Election fraud, vote suppression, and disenfranchisement: These are unAmerican and undemocratic, and I will not be party to any group that condones them, nor will I reward them by giving them my vote. Never.

The Obama team did a great job branding, but you also have to factor in that the media has been in the tank for him since the beginning.

ldw -

nice commnet.

i really love this analogy:

Of course, once the hype dies down, they’ll find that Obama has no more substance than Coke has nutrition. Both are all fizz and sugar, and empty from the neck up.

The Obama supporters posting here (and everywhere) who think Bush’s remarks or a McCain campaign version of them won’t harm Obama could be sadly mistaken.

Bush’s appeal was as a one of the guys. McCain is marketing himself as ‘authentic’. The Republicans will brand Obama as being out of touch, distainful of ordinary Americans, and dangerously naive on foreign policy, and they have a lot of video clips available to back up these claims.

Obama has a heavyweight team, but he is only a welterweight fighter. He really, really should have spent the rest of this Senate term, and added another with actual accomplishment, before making his bid.

Obama, really, really should have learned something about world affairs, economic affairs and domestic affairs. Every time he opens his unscripted mouth, he is an embarrassment.

And, if they let Michelle loose at a microphone without instructions to stick absolutely to the Axelrod approved script, she’ll be no help to Obama either.

My marketer’s cap must be tipped to David Axelrod. What a job he has done. We sometimes grumble about the millions people like Joe Trippi get for helping Howard Dean and John Edwards lose but Axelrod has earned every penny.

It has nothing to do with the brilliance of their marketing campaign. It has everything to do with the lowering of the standards of journalism in this country. We have journalists who act more as fans rather than objective purveyors of news. The willingness of the MSM to become the campaign managers for Obama is what did it for him.

What they used was race-baiting and misogyny to win this nomination. Accuse everyone who disagrees with you of racism and you have a recipe for success. Allow your surrogates to denigrate the other candidate by using misogynistic terms.

To Fosbach – Barack Obama may be beating Hillary Clinton, but he is not beating her fair and square.

His team is employing tactics worthy of Bush, Rove et al. Many Hillary Clinton supporters are very disappointed in the Democratic Party leadership, who seem to be ‘in the tank’ for Obama, and have not called him to account for his team’s race-baiting or his team’s sexist language.

The Democratic Party leadership announced an unprecedented punishment to FL & MI when their Republican administrations advanced the primary dates, and have done nothing to correct this undemocratic move. The Democratic Party leadership exerted no pressure at all on Obama to have re-votes, but seems to be trying to exert pressure on HRC to quit before even hearings on this issue can take place.

This Dem clusterfuck registers 6.5 magnitude on the Rumsfeld scale. [the Rumsfeld is log scale like the Richter]

Here are a series of articles about a young Obama fan that started an Obama myspace page early in the campaign… Gotta control the brand.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=159248288&blogID=353068555

The Obama brand violates two very important rules of marketing.

1. No matter how good your marketing, if your product sucks it will fail eventually.

2. Never insult the customer.

I don’t think Obama’s ascendancy is an issue of good branding so much as a lot of angry, desperate white liberals (I’m a white liberal BTW) who wanted to believe that their savior had come. And sexism.

I’m in an area where a lot of leftists are pro-Obama without really knowing why, other than Obama voted against the war. I have a friend whose main reason for voting for Obama was that “he’s a uniter, not a divider.” And underneath that sentiment is, I believe, an unconscious sexism against Hillary, and a discomfort with powerful women.

If Obama’s opposition had been a male candidate, I don’t think he would have gotten this far by a longshot.

Whatever Obama says about what he was for or against prior to 06 is irrelevant. He wasn’t in Congress.

OT, but I wasn’t sure where to ask this, and given Obama is the new Bush, I was wondering what the republican attitude is now toward the Saudis?

It appears the Saudis DISS Mr Bush, and Mr Cheney, at times, no longer the fathers conducting business, but the sons.

And given there are new girls in town, or boys, as the case may be, has the US lost it’s appeal?

Have the Saudis gone Hollywood, like a newly minted star, like the Madonna of old, will they leave behind the old and frumpy, for the new and glamorous, in the oil and business world?

This is what Axelrod does best-look at his other company: ASK Public Strategies.

You know, I’ve read a lot about what Obama did in Illinois and when he was elected to the U.S. Senate to create/build his brand and I, too, have to give it to Axelrod et al. This “branding” has really been magnificent on many levels.

But – and here’s the key: branding is not authenticity: It builds around something in a product that can be “exaggerated” in a positive way (for lack of a better word) and builds onto it in branches.

This also tells me something about the generation that supports Obama and that is not positive. We have a generation that is ignorant of our political history, our parties, and our processes, and they are also creating and adding onto their own “narrative” (for lack of a better word) about what democracy is. And, because they control the medium (Internet, web, technology), for the most part, the “rules” are exclusively theirs. And there is little remorse or concern about what harm these rules may do to harm others (45+ people, women, seniors, lower income/education, non-urban). Further, when they are challenged, they control and manage the narrative so that it – not them – changes.

I certainly wish that Hillary had used technology better than she did in this campaign – because I think it would have fundamentally changed the dynamics for her – in addition to a whole ‘nother article I could write about the ways in which men and women differ in how they perceive and utilize technologies). HINT: Women tend to be far more cooperation-oriented and inclusive; men, in spite of the spin that Obama is such a “feminist”, are frequently likely to be exclusive and competitive for competition’s sake.

For now, I would rather support a candidate (Clinton) and a system (Democracy 1.0) – flawed as it is – that recognizes the fundamentals of democracy and participation, rather than on a “user-created” technology-driven democracy that can and does change both the rules and the outcomes on a whim, with little regard for the “minority” views and opinions.

Hampster, fine rendering of product above by your esteemed self.

And here is my view. Obama is mulifaceted. He spins and turns and shows his other faces as needed.

He is therefore a blank slate with no acual stance and upon which dreamers can write their “dear Santa” lists and expect fulfilment.

He is an empty suit, the man behind the curtain, humpty dumpty, the sham of the century snake oil salesman and egotist extrodinaire but the one thing he is NOT is this – ELECTABLE in November.

I won’t click on the article btw, I do not watch TV due to desire to remain an unbrainwashed member of the masses who are divided into too many classes.

We’re people, we are people. And we ain’t no brand.

The pollsters divide the masses into classes but what they fail to see is we have the ability to move around on them and defy our classification.

Hey, I’m branded democrat due to my whole life as such but just recently found out it isn’t a permanent affliction. Go figure, Independent suits me way more.

[...] all about it at No Quarter, in New Hampster’s [...]

~Yawn~

I can’t believe I spent 5 minutes reading this. So what? Ryan Seacrest of American Idol just copyrighted his name. It’s a legal thing mostly. It reduced boneheads from trying to impersonate you or make $ off your notoriety. Big deal. When are the Clintonites going to accept the fact that it’s Obama, or a war with Iran, paid for by your grandkids?