The Office of The President Elect's Branding Machine

President elect Obama is still 8 days from taking office – but since the election, he’s faced all the branding challenges of a veteran – and he’s done it pretty well.

He steered relatively clear of the Blagojovich scandal in Illinois – avoiding comment and, thus far, implication.

One of my favorite branding moves was the December 15th memo that Obama released to the media. in which Obama clears himself and staff of any wrongdoing.

OJ Simpson is sitting in a jail cell somewhere thinking to himself, “dog-gone-it, why didn’t I try that?”

His second big branding challenge came with the daily advisories of who would be serving in his cabinet next. Have you looked at the list ?

It’s like a who’s who of Washington insiders. (Far more Washington insiders than Bill Clinton or either Bush’s). Here’s just a few of the choices:

State – Senator Hillary Clinton – my former employer needs no introduction

Defence – Current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates – ‘cause things are going so well thus far.

Health & Human Services – Sen Tom Daschle – 25 years in Washington - former Senate Majority Leader. Other than that, no real Washington ties.

Justice – Eric Holder – Janet Reno’s #2 person all through the Clinton years

Treasury – Timothy Geithner – another President Clinton guy who was nominated to this position out of his post as CEO of the New York (Clinton State) Federal Reserve. Also on his resume, Geithner helped engineer the sale of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. and was willing to consider a government rescue of Lehman Brothers

Commerce - Governor Bill Richardson - Oops

And my favorite -- CIA Director - Leon Panetta - Let's face it, as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, Mr Panetta is probably the best person on the planet at knowing how and where important information is hidden. He's got my seal of approval.

So how does a guy who ran a campaign based on changing Washington DC defend his decision to pack his cabinet with Washington insiders:

“What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking,” said President Elect Obama. He went on to explain that it would be foolish, at such a “critical time in our history”, to pick people who “had no experience in Washington whatsoever”.

He added: “What I don’t want to do is somehow suggest that because you somehow served in the last [Clinton] administration you are barred from serving again.


Again, this is exactly the response he should have made. From a branding perspective only, this statement succeeds on a lot of fronts:

1. It redefines what change is – it’s fresh thinking. And that doesn’t necessarily have to come in fresh packages.
2. It focuses people on the problems and concerns of right now, not on the fact that these people will still be in office even after the crisis is no longer so critical
3. It validates selecting a ton of people from Bill Clinton’s administration and opens the door for more (remember the 90’s – they were pretty good years).

Whew! Thank goodness.

You see, when President-Elect Obama gave his acceptance speech and said, “It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.”… well… I thought this whole “Change” thing was going to be difficult.

If I had known it was just a matter of putting the band back together for one more mission from God --- heck – I might have voted this year (I’m just kidding about that, I did vote... early AND often).

What I also really like about this line is the fact that I’ve already heard it repeated by everyday Joe’s who are still filled with BaraKool-Aid. That, my friends, is the hallmark of good messaging.

It doesn’t have to actually be a good argument; heck, it doesn’t have to actually make sense. It just has to be easy to remember and easy to repeat – “It’s waaaay better than fast food.” (Ok , bad example. Because everyone knows that slogan sucks – even Wendy. I should have used “Just Do It”, which is a great slogan but also means nothing.)

Then there’s the whole issue of the inauguration itself. The “Office of The President-Elect” (I love that term too) issued a statement saying that the total cost of the event is currently estimated at over $50,000,000. This is, without doubt, the most expensive inauguration in history. And I am all good with that. This is an truly historic occasion and it should be a big BIG deal.

The problem is that most of the money raised to pay for this thing has actually come through Wall Street bundlers. That’s right – the same folks who will be asking for bailout money are the ones supplying most of the dough for the big O’s party.

No worries. The OPEL (Office of the …. You get it.) has also dictated that no one person will be allowed to give more than $50,000 -- which is why billionaire and left wing sugar-daddy, George Soros has donated money in the names of members of his family, in this way giving $250,000.

Corporations are also banned from donating, although corporate CEOs are certainly not. Google and Microsoft big-wigs, for example, have combined to give more than $450,000 to the inauguration fund. (FYI - executives from each of the two corporations also donated the Obama election campaign more than $700,000).

But it’s OK – because commenting in the New York Times, Obama spokesperson, Linda Douglass silenced the critics when she said emphatically, "No one who has contributed to President-elect Obama has ever been led to believe that they're going to have any special influence with him. He is passionately committed to changing business as usual and breaking the grip of special interests on government."

Which is absolutely perfect branding once again. In fact, this single statement goes well beyond ordinary branding and into the heretofore uncharted waters of “Jedi Mind Trick.”

1. Yes, there is a ton of money coming to us from people who generally get their way by buying it – but don’t worry, they know better.
2. This is Obama. He’s the “Change” guy --- or as one of my buddies defended this statement – “Obama IS the change. It really doesn’t matter if everything else outside of that stays exactly the same – because HE’S the change.” -- It’s waaaay better than fast food.


But despite the veteran acumen with which the Obama camp has deflected such intense probing by our media and citizenry, there is one issue with the new administration with which I am deeply disturbed.

Being a small government kind of guy, I have never seen the creation of so many new departments and committees and plans in such a short time. But don’t get me wrong; it’s not the mushroom-like expansion of government that has me nervous. It’s the names.

Let’s be honest. Once government expands, it rarely contracts. That means that all of these new creations are going to be around for a long time, a lot longer than the people who actually created them. And that, in turn, means that we, the American people, are the ones who are going to have to live with a position in our government called “The Chief Performance Officer”.

It’s true.

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that said that Nancy Killefer has been named our Chief Performance Officer.

I, of course, jumped to the logical conclusion that she would be overseeing the regulation and distribution of ED drugs – but, alas, I was wrong.

Evidently, The Chief Performance Officer is the person we are relying on to “to scrub the federal budget and reform government”

WAIT!!! I thought that’s what we elected Obama to do – you mean he’s delegating that?

This will be much more palatable to the American people if we give this new position a title that is long enough to sound important but not blunt enough to sound like it’s something the president himself should be doing.

As a branding expert I’d like to suggest something a little more descriptive. Instead of Chief Performance Officer, how about we title her the director of Budget, Lending Interest & National Goals

Also known as BLING.

She can ride around in one of those black suburban’s – but with really great rims.

The Times had a great Article on another new project, the heinously named, American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.

Ick.

Recovery and Reinvestment is something you do with scrap metal. Those are not terms you want to apply to jobs and people and misplaced national pride.
This would be the perfect type of title we could just steal directly from Barack’s enormously successful election campaign.

Let’s see. There was HOPE. That gave everyone a great feeling about the future.
There was that the ever-present chant at all of the Obama rallies, “Yes We Can” – which just exudes optimism and confidence.
And now there ‘s the whole CHANGE thing that the OPEL has adopted (their website is actually www.change.gov).

In branding and advertising, we try almost never to come up with anything actually new. We just take what’s already been done successfully and reconstitute it to appear to be something totally different and fresh. So if I were to do that with Obama’s three big branding themes from the election, I think I have the perfect title for this plan --- HOPE WE CAN CHANGE.

But the worst offender, in my opinion, is the newly formed White House Office of Health Reform – For an acronym infested country, I’m not sure we really want an agency in the US government --- called WHOHR -- no matter how accurate it is as a description. (I did not make that up - I promise you.)

So what have we learned?

Well, we’ve learned that The President Elect is doing a yeoman’s job at protecting his brand while communicating around touchy subjects and potential scandals.

We’ve learned that he’s surrounding himself with all the experience necessary to allow him to be the change he’s been waiting for. In other words, he’s waaaay better than fast food.

And we’ve learned that as our government continues to expand – there will be more and more programs, committees, departments and initiatives, all of which will need pithy and memorable names. It seems to me that this, in and of itself, can help create an entirely new job sector tailor-made for.... well... tailor made for the kind of people I’ll be laying off after the promised Obama business taxes take effect. And that is exactly why I have included this web address on all of my employees pay stubs this month --- http://change.gov/page/s/application

Gasoline & Dry Tinder

There’s been a lot of talk about the big winners during this economic meltdown.

Bank of America.

General Motors (maybe).

NASCAR

Wooden Arrow Makers.

Even Barack Obama was supposedly helped by the meltdown as John McCain clarified to the nation’s voters why he’s never been invited to serve on the Finance Committee.

But, from a branding perspective, there is a big, BIG winner who we haven’t heard from in a while.

Remember when gas prices were hovering around four bucks a gallon?
Remember all of those TV commercials by oil companies that were playing?

For those who pay attention to this type of thing (both of us) here’s the score:

- BP had spots on the air entitled “Energy Security 1” and “Energy Diversity”

- Exxon had a whole series of commercials on how their new technology was helping them find new oil deposits, get to them with minimal damage to the environment and how their innovations were making batteries last longer.

- Even Citgo re-released it’s Hugo Chavez propaganda/lobbying campaign.

Why all these ads?

You might jump to the conclusion that big oil started to advertise when prices went up because people weren’t buying as much gas.

Before you go there, however, try these statistics on:

According to the Energy Information Administration, even when prices where at their highest (July), Americans still bought more than 55,000,000 gallons of gas EVERY DAY.

In fact, the big, 2,000,000 gallon a day dip in gas consumption didn’t actually take place till well into September – AFTER gas prices started coming back down to earth.

So if the ad spree wasn’t about boosting sales, what was it about?

That’s right. Branding.

In the midst of a heated election and to drown out the shrill cries of “Drill Baby Drill”, big oil, across the board, needed to find a way to lessen the impact of being painted as “THE BAD GUY.” Right down the line, each of them launched their own branding campaign in an attempt to show how they were in this thing with us. The goal, of course, was to keep the US government out of their knickers while also keeping the US citizenry from picking up pitchforks and torches in order to storm the big oil bastilles.

Did the marketing efforts work?

Well… not exactly. They didn’t have to.

The omnipresent marketing efforts of big oil companies were shouted out of necessity, not by the din of the right screaming for more drilling or the shrill of the left whining about exorbitant profits but, rather, by the deafening shatter that followed our economic meltdown. Four dollars a gallon still sucked – but not nearly as badly as the loss of savings, homes and jobs.
Today, gasoline consumption remains pretty much exactly where it was throughout the last couple years, right around 55 million gallons per day.

Prices have come down and that’s good. But that’s not why you don’t see big oil companies advertising in every break of your local news or national sporting event. It’s because they are no longer in the cross hairs of the public’s ire and concern or the government's new corporate acquisition program. Therefore, big oil no longer needs to prosecute what could have been one of the most costly and most protracted, industry-wide marketing campaign since big Tobacco tried to advertise themselves out of crisis not so long ago. And that means all of that money they would have spent on branding can go right back to the bottom line.

Just one more thing for which the oil industry has to thank Wall Street.

Gaming The News

The question of whether the political press is fair has been debated since the founding of the Republic. Never has a candidate admitted to having received favorable treatment and it is common for both candidates in the same campaign to squeal simultaneously about bias. Even Barack Obama, whose lopsided advantage with the news media this year was actually quantified by researchers, frequently cried foul. That he was not vaporized for doing so casts doubt upon the existence of God.

Nevertheless, it proves that the relationship between politicians and the press remains properly and fundamentally antagonistic. But is it really?

Remember all of those campaign ads that you saw during the presidential race. It seemed as if the campaigns were releasing a new ad every single day.

But it may (or may not) surprise you to learn that many of those ads never actually aired anywhere -- except, of course, as content in your evening newscast.

That’s right.

There was never actually money spent to air a surprisingly large number of the presidential campaign ads.

And this only makes sense. Why would the campaigns spend actual money on ad time when they don’t have to?

In other words: Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Just think about the hours upon hours the punditry spent “analyzing” the advertisements.

Remember that controversial Barack Obama ad that said John McCain couldn’t use a computer? Well… according to research from TNS media, it never actually aired as a TV commercial – only as fodder for the punditry. The same can be said for countless John McCain spots including the now infamous “Celebrity” ads.

Ok, well… THE Celebrity ad aired. But only after it aired on the 24/7 news machines first. And as for the sequels? There were four. But only two of them actually saw any airtime at all.

Don’t think that this trend took hold only in the general election though. Hillary’s 3am aired fairly heavily. Barack Obama’s 3am ad (the response) was only released to pundits and news organizations yet received nearly as many GRP’s (Gross Ratings Points) in coverage as the paid schedule for Hillary Clinton.

Add to this John McCain’s 3am ad – the one that he released after Barack Obama announced his VP pick (not Hillary). It never had an ad buy behind it either, yet that ad ran ad nauseum until, later in the day, the McCain camp released the anti-Obama ad which used Joe Biden quotes throughout to help introduce America to Senator Obama’s new VP pick.

Let’s face it, earned media, or free media, is the real mothers milk of politics. Very few campaigns can raise enough money to make substantial television buys. That's especially true for local campaigns and its usually true for all but the biggest statewide or national campaigns.

Most often campaigns will manufacture a media event - a press conference, or a rally, or some other public activity designed to make news.

The presidential campaigns have taught us a slightly new trick though. Releasing new and controversial pseudo-spots has become a way to generate news without the hassle of having to make any. This is the new unmanned drone of political warfare.

What's more, many in the press may actually be in on the gag.

Larry Weitzner is the CEO of Jamestown Associates, a full-service political consulting firm headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey (with offices in Washington and elsewhere). He’s a top notch strategist with a reputation for winning the tough races.

According to Weitzner, reporters and editors know that most of the digital ads clogging up their in-boxes are intended more for buzz than broadcast.

"They'll usually ask whether we’re spending money on the spot or where we’re running it, but they know the deal,” says Weitzner. “They need the content, so it’s about feeding the beast.”

So how does it work?

1. Start with the understanding that all news outlets are overworked and starving for new content. The easier you can make it for them to cover a story the better. Providing the video and audio content (in the form of your “newly released ad”) is a no-brainer. Finding some pundit or pundits to gab about it on the set is an even bigger no-brainer.

2. Even if the pundit rips your spot, it really does not matter. Your spot aired for free and got two to three minutes of talk time in the content of a news show. That talk time is way more valuable than any of the actual commercial time you could buy in any newscast. Not only that, the audience is going to watch your spot and formulate their own opinions about it – irrespective of what the talking head says. From a purely branding perspective, the talking head is just filler; it’s something that takes up the time between commercials.

3. Realize that most media organizations have a solid brick wall (becoming thinner by the minute) between the News department and the Sales department. In practical terms, this means that most reporters don’t have any grasp at all on what exactly is the difference between a real TV commercial and what amounts to be a video news release masquerading as a TV commercial. Most reporters honestly do not know the questions to ask.

4. Newsrooms gravitate toward stories that are controversial or funny or both. This is why John McCain’s “Celebrity” ads got so much news time. Never mind the fact only something like two of the four or five that were released ever saw a media buy; all of them made news – ALL OF THEM.

5. The size of the campaign does not matter. It’s the “newsiness” of the spot. If you’ve got an attention getting spot that is well produced and will raise people’s eyebrows, send it to the news agencies with a release. If you don’t have the spot – call someone who can create one for you.

6. The last and perhaps most important part of deploying this tactic is for those of you who actually have a media buying budget. For you, releasing pseudo-spots to news organizations is a great way to test the waters before you actually place a buy. Let them air it for free first. Then, depending on the reaction to the spot, you can actually pay for the ad time.


Now, the magic question of all of this is whether or not this strategy has a shelf life. That all depends on the answers to two questions:

QUESTION 1: How soon will media outlets catch on?

ANSWER: My guess is that most local media outlets have no idea this has been going on (unless, of course, they are reading this issue of Politics Magazine). Not only that, unless this becomes big, public news, they won’t

QUESTION 2: Even if they do catch on, will they care?

ANSWER: Those that do know about it – well – they clearly don’t care.

Good luck.