How 3M’s Inge Thulin Fought The Charlottesville Crisis with Code

14 Sep

Charlottesville Blog.002

       3M’s CEO Inge Thulin recently found himself caught between a meme and a movement.  The violence in Charlottesville, Virginia during a neo-Nazi rally and President Trump’s half-hearted condemnation of white supremacists put Thulin and other business leaders in an uncomfortable spotlight with the president generating the wattage.   How to respond to an emerging public relations threat is not just a business decision, it’s also a strategic communication decision.

        Thulin along with 26 CEOs joined Trump’s Manufacturing Council at the beginning of his administration.  For these business leaders, joining the commission not only gave them an important seat at the table in forming government policy that could benefit their core businesses, but it also could provide valuable insights into economic trends and how to strategically position their companies.  There was little to lose.

       Then came Charlottesville.

       The images that spread at the speed of ones and zeros also captured a fractured nation at the speed of smartphones and social media.  President Trump’s ultimate failure to condemn the white supremacists simply fed the outrage.  The business leaders on the president’s manufacturing commission quickly found themselves caught in the contagion.    

Slide1

Figure 1

       Knowing how such a contagion starts and evolves is also helpful in navigating a response that protects and elevates a brand.   Social psychologist Jaap Van Ginneken holds that such a coalescence of public opinion forms when diffuse ideas congregate around an idea or strong replicator.  It’s a process he calls entrainment.  In Charlottesville, one of the replicators was the image and video of the car that killed a woman as it was driving through the crowd of those rallying against the white nationalists.   The image forces the viewer to associate the experience with their own closely held beliefs.  The stronger the beliefs, the more likely it will affect their attitude toward action to align themselves with those who share their beliefs, and just and important, align themselves against those who do not. (Figure 1).  It’s classic balance theory.   In this case of entrainment, the image turned viral, a contagion was born, and it coalesced around pop-up movements, vigils, and rallies across the country to denounce the violence in Charlottesville. 

Pattern Association Blog Graphic.001

Figure 2

       For the CEO’s on the president’s commission, the contagion prompted viral petitions for members of the Manufacturing Commission to stand up to President Trump and resign.   3M’s Inge Thulin was among those in the cross hairs.   For most multi-billion dollar corporations, responding to such a crisis typically involves a team of attorneys, advisors and corporate communicators who look at everything from the effect on stock price, supply chain, and potential investor lawsuits.  To complicate matters, Charlottesville happened as 3M shares were already falling on Wall Street.   One question 3M certainly asked itself was whether to associate the fortunes of the company to a president experiencing dismal approval ratings. (Figure 2) 

      It’s complicated.  Thulin made it simple.   He resigned from the commission and announced why on social media.

 

            In making its decision, Thulin and 3M looked no further than their own corporate soul–their code of conduct.  The 3M code spells out in detail the values and expectations of not only its business practices, but how employees are to treat each other.  Among its core principals: be good, be honest, be respectful.  

            Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky made a similar decision.  Gorsky too, leaned on his company’s own credo.  Over the years the J&J credo has famously guided the company in responding to the Tylenol tampering crisis in the 1980’s and other product recalls in 2009 and 20010.  To this day, the J&J credo is considered the gold standard of corporate ethics.  After Gorsky, Thulin and several other CEO’s decided to leave the president’s council, the remaining members dissolved it.

            During a time when a polarized public and consumer attitudes shift like the fog in a crooked canyon, brands and their communicators need a guiding light.  3M had one, and Charlottesville helped its CEO focus the beam.

                                    #               #               #

Advertisements

United Airlines & Sean Spicer — Two Case Studies in Crisis Communications

28 Apr

 Crisis Comm Title Grapihcs.002    United Airlines and the White House are among the world’s most powerful brands and both recently gave divergent examples in managing crisis communication.  Within a 24-hour span, one had to foam the runaway for a public relations crash landing, while the other managed to grab the stick in a mid-air tailspin and get back on course.  Together, both United Airlines and White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer offer unique case studies on how to manage and not manage a crisis.

    By its very definition, a crisis can happen at any moment.  And how organizations immediately respond and manage the messaging can make all the difference in either containing potential damage, or creating a contagion that spins out of control and causes severe damage to the brand and the business.  That’s exactly what happened on April 10th.

    When United flight attendants forcibly removed passenger Dr. David Dao from an overbooked flight 3411 in Chicago, it not only caused a scene, it caused severe social turbulence.  With the speed of a smartphone shutter button, the images and videos flew faster than non-stop flight on a clear day.

  As outrage virally spread on social media, United issued a tone deaf response apologizing only for having to “re-accomodate passengers.”  Spokesman Charlie Hobart told the New York Times, “We have a number of customers on board that aircraft, and they want to get to their destination on time and safely, and we want to work to get them there.”

    It took took two full days for United’s CEO Oscar Munoz to issue an outright apology and launch a communications strategy, but by then the damage was already spiraling out of control.  United’s stock price stalled like an airfoil.  Within five days United lost $1.15 billion in market capitalization. (Figure 1) That’s a steep price for forcibly removing passenger who refused to give up his seat for $1000 voucher.

UAL Stock Price.001

Figure 1

    Less than 24 hours after United’s crisis, White House spokesman Sean Spicer created his own self-inflicted PR wound.  In trying to frame the seriousness of Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people, he invoked Adolf Hitler.   At his daily press briefing on live television, Spicer said Hitler “didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.”  Never mind that Hitler’s SS used chemical gases to exterminate Jews in Germany’s concentration camps during WWII.  The reaction was swift, incredulous, and furious.  The difference in Spicer’s crisis is in how me managed it.  Within an hour he not only issued an apology, he was on the air live with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer retracting his remarks and admitting he made a tremendous error in judgement.

     By owning his mistake and taking immediate action to correct the record and apologize, Mr. Spicer managed to deftly keep the story out of the next day’s news cycle.   As I’ve written in this forum before, there are established best practices for crisis communication:

  1. Cease and desist—stop doing what you’re doing.
  2. Apologize to those you’ve wronged—and mean it.
  3. Change your tactics.
  4. Communicate the change to employees and customers.
  5. Establish performance measures for how the change is working.

     Mr. Spicer followed the most important of these mantras in a mater of hours.  United’s Oscar Munoz took a week and a half to form a cohesive and strategic response that was finally posted on Facebook and communicated to its employees and customers.  The response issued a strong apology and pledged to customers to no longer force anyone out of their seats, and to reduce the amount of overbooked flights.  United’s attorneys also settled with Dr. Dao.  But the changes come only after United had already caused significant damage to its brand.

 

     What’s especially troubling for United is this incident completely destroys a unique brand equity that it has spent decades earning with its customers.   For years before its merger with Continental Airlines, United implored air travelers to “fly the friendly skies.”    It wasn’t just a marketing slogan, it was a brand promise.   When passengers flew with United, they expected something special–it was part of United’s ethos.  Many successful brands such as Johnson & Johnson have famously made their own brand promises part of their corporate culture.   Johnson & Johnson has a credo that dictates its core values in guiding everything from product development to employee relations and customer service.   In responding to the passenger incident, United’s customer service and communications team lost site of its historic brand promise to use as a guidepost.

    United may now be in the process of charting a customer service flight plan, but it took a disastrous grounding to make it happen.

                              #     #     #

Lessons from the Kendall Jenner Pepsi Ad

20 Apr

     The fizz has gone flat on the latest Pepsi ad and it offers lessons for marketers and communication managers trying to reach their target audiences in a time of rapidly changing consumer attitudes.

    The ad featuring reality TV and social media star Kendall Jenner in many ways followed a tried and true Pepsi formula nearly as old as the soft drink itself.  Pepsi has always marketed itself as “The Voice of a New Generation.”  The slogan may have disappeared years ago, but Pepsi has never wavered from positioning itself as the celebratory fountain drink of youth.   Whether it was a young Michael Jackson moon walking across the stage with a can of Pepsi in the 80’s, or teens and twenty-somethings street dancing in Brazil during the 2016 Summer Olympics, Pepsi has consistently marketed youth, fun and independence.  

    The latest ad didn’t stray far from the recipe.  Pepsi found an archetypal pop culture star in Jenner and placed her in an ad that loosely celebrated the social consciousness of millennials.  Furthermore, it was launched as a digital-only campaign with the strategy of targeting social media savvy youth who would like and share the video generating buzz.  

    What could go wrong?

    Well, what did go wrong was brilliantly spoofed by Saturday Nigh Live.

   Pepsi wasn’t just trying to create buzz about its brand, it was also trying to stimulate a social discussion in a time of high emotional tensions on race and justice.   Those are admirable goals.  But the ad is guilty of creating an augmented reality that conflicted with the strong memes and images of the protests that occurred from Dallas, to St. Louis, to St. Paul and Minneapolis.  

Pepsi Patttern Assoc Graphic.001

Figure 1

    When Black Lives Matter activists last summer protested the police shooting of Philando Castile by shutting down the I-94 freeway in St. Paul, it looked nothing like the Pepsi ad.  Many Americans have their own observations and experiences with the tensions mediated through their smartphones or televisions—and the images don’t match.  It’s what psychologists call cognitive dissonance. [Figure 1]  Presidential advisor Kelly Anne Conway would call them alternative facts.  The memes which spread through social media and the news simply didn’t align with the Pepsi’s recreation of the memes in its ad.

    What the creators of the Pepsi ad missed is authenticity.  It’s also one of the chief insights of marketing to millennials.  They want real experiences and real messages, even when they’re trying to be sold a product.

    For a lesson in using authenticity to leverage social change, look no further than The Real Thing–Coca-Cola.  Coke used its extensive brand equity several years to make a statement about selflessness and sharing, two long-time values of the Coke brand.  And they did it with real clips from security cameras around the world.

     In another era during the tumultuous 70’s it was Coca-Cola that brought the world together by teaching it to sing.    Pepsi tried bringing it together by teaching it how to protest, or make fun of it. 

    Pepsi thought it had captured buzz in a bottle.  It was just the wrong kind of buzz… with no fizz.

                                        #      #      #

The Strategy Behind Budweiser’s Super Bowl Ad – Born The Hard Way

3 Feb

bud-2     During America’s most important game, Budweiser may have produced America’s most important and timely message—by accident.

     For the first time in memory, Budweiser’s Super Bowl ad keeps its Clydesdales in the stable and the puppies on a short leash.   This ad reminds viewers of the core values of Adolphus Busch, a German immigrant who risked all to travel an ocean and half the North American continent with nothing more than an idea in his head and drawings in his Journal.   The ad is not selling beer as much as it’s selling an idea.   That idea is that dreams are hard.   And when those dreams are fulfilled it can produce success.

     Called “Born the Hard Way” the ad comes at a timely crossroads when the national discussion about immigration and who has the right to become an American is debated from TV screens to coffee shops.   Not only is the theme familiar, so is the language.   As Adolphus Busch gets his papers stamped in New York you can hear the voices in the crowd shout, “Go back home.  You’re not wanted here.”

    Anheuser-Busch executives say the ad is meant to celebrate the American dream.  In its press release rolling out the ad, Mike Byrne, the chief creative officer of ad agency Anomaly Global said the inspiration came from Budweiser itself.  “When Budweiser told us they wanted to celebrate those who embody the American spirit, we realized the ultimate story lived within their own brand history,” said Byrne.  “Adolphus Busch is the hero of the Anheuser-Busch American dream story, which makes him the perfect protagonist.” attitude-toward-the-ad-001

     The ad’s story has little to do with selling beer and everything to do with building brand equity.  This is not a transactional advertisement trying to convince the viewer that Budweiser is a superior product that offers a unique selling proposition to solve a problem or improve one’s life.   The strategy is to build a positive emotional connection to the brand.   It’s what consumer psychologists and advertising scholar John Eighmey call “attitude toward the ad.”  If the viewer enjoys and likes the advertisement, it is likely to have a positive effect on his or her attitude about the beliefs and expectations of the brand or its product. (Figure 1)   In this case, if you like the ad, you’ll like Budweiser–and just maybe buy a six-pack the next time you’re at the store.  It’s virtually the same psychological formula used in every Super Bowl ad—a popularity contest.

     Many will argue that Anheuser-Busch is trying to make a political statement.  If it was, it’s perhaps by complete accident.  But it’s no accident that people viewing this ad through the lens of their own values and political beliefs have caused the viral explosion of more than 6 million YouTube views even before the big game’s kick off.  Consumer psychologist Richard Bagozzi has established that mood directly influences one’s cognitive processing and attitudes towards advertisements.  If one holds a negative mood toward immigration, they are more than likely to view Budweiser’s ad with a negative feeling.  

img_2567

Picture 1

     The time it takes to produce such an ad means that its director Chris Sargent had to start production months before President Trump’s executive orders to temporarily reset the nation’s immigration policies.  Even then, executives at Anheuser-Busch would be reluctant to risk a brand as big as Budweiser by taking a political stand in a highly polarized consumer marketplace.  It would also be naive to believe Budweiser didn’t think it would cause controversy.  This is where it takes a strong brand, and brave marketing executives willing to stimulate discussion.

     Indeed, in the hours leading up to the Super Bowl, Budweiser doubled down on its social media sites inviting followers to learn more about he heritage of the brand by viewing the advertisement.  (Picture 1)

    In some ways the new ad makes sense for Budweiser.  Having temporarily rebranded the beer as “America” last summer, the new ad attaches a powerful story to the name.  But without the horses and dogs Super Bowl viewers have come to expect, Budweiser might be advancing its new message the hard way. 

#    #     #

El Gordo Christmas Lottery Sells Sharing Over Winning in Latest Tear Jerker Ad

21 Nov

el-gordo-2016-5     The holiday season’s best ad so far is not for a retail store and it’s not even from the United States.  It’s for Spain’s famous Christmas lottery.   First organized in 1812, the Loteria de Navida is the second longest running national lottery in the world.  At more that 2B euros, it’s also the largest.  

     The chance of winning the giant prize, the El Gordo, is a prime motivator to buy tickets.  But in recent years, the lottery has pushed the selling of multiple tickets holding the same number so more people can share in the prize.  Sharing has become part of the culture.  Families, offices, even neighborhood bars now buy group tickets.

     This is where advertising firm Leo Burnett Madrid steps in.  For the past three years it has created the Christmas Lottery ad campaign based on the idea of sharing.  This year’s ad centers around a retired school teacher named Carmina who mistakenly watches a rerun of last year’s draw and thinks she’s won the prize.  Rather than disappoint her, Carmina’s family plays along and creates an elaborate charade.  In the end, they are the ones who are surprised. 

 

appraisal-theory-el-gordo-001

Figure 1

   The lesson of the ad is there’s no bigger prize than sharing.  It’s also a lesson in the powerful use of emotion.   The ad relies upon Appraisal Theory to leverage emotion to persuade the viewer to act. (Figure 1)  As the viewer watches the narrative unfold they are drawn into the story based upon their own experiences of hope and anticipation.  They watch as Carmina’s family cleverly perpetuates her beliefs of winning.  The emotional response to Carmina’s happiness and giving away the very source of the happiness leads the viewer on a powerful journey to consider sharing tickets with their own friends and family members.

 

     “Carmina” is just the latest Christmas Lottery creation of Leo Burnett Madrid.  Last year it gave us “Justino,” the lonely night watchman at a mannequin factory who mischievously brought happiness to the co-workers he never saw.  The ad won the Cannes Loins Cyber Grand Prix award.

 

means-end-model-001

Figure 2

     The genius of both “Justino” and “Carmina” is the ads also use Means-End Model to lead the viewers on a journey of discovering higher level values. (Figure 2)  In the case of Justino, those values were about the joys of giving thanks.  With Carmina, it’s about the fulfillment and love that comes from making someone happy.

 

      Sharing has become a key component of the Christmas Lottery.  As a business model, the more tickets people buy to share, the bigger the prizes become.  Using the power of emotion to creatively leverage the act of sharing becomes a higher-level motivator than the simple act of winning.  It’s a concept the agency unveiled with its 2014 ad about “Manuel” who didn’t buy a ticket for himself.

     During a holiday season that revolves around giving and sharing, the Christmas Lottery campaign has found a strategic sweet spot in the hearts of viewers.   In a world-wide climate of 30 second TV spots and 10 second digital ads, Leo Burnett Madrid has bravely raised the bar with long-format creative messaging.   Bring on Christmas 2017.

                                   #     #     #

How Strategic Communication Positioning Won for Donald Trump

13 Nov

trump-positioned-to-win-002     Donald Trump didn’t just win the war for the Electoral College, he won the messaging war for an important segment of disaffected Americans.  He did it by strategically positioning his brand, his message, and perhaps by complete accident, his marketing drivers.

     Trump paid attention to the one data set we now know mattered most—dissatisfaction with the direction of the country.  The Humphrey School of Public Affairs’ Dr. Larry Jacobs told a group of journalists and producers during the political conventions (myself included) that this was a political insight that couldn’t be ignored.  Jacobs warned that it would be extremely difficult for an incumbent or someone closely tied to an incumbent or the perceived establishment to win. 

wrong-track-001

Figure 1

      In this respect, the polling was convincing.  In the aggregate tracking compiled by Real Clear Politics, the margins couldn’t be more stark. (Figure 1)  For nearly all of 2016 Americans believed with a nearly two to one margin that the country was heading in the wrong direction.  Donald Trump focused like a laser beam on that insight and the people behind it. 

trump-perceptual-map-001

Figure 2

     In speaking to those voters, he positioned himself in their minds as the candidate who represented change.  Quite frankly, he stole a page from the strategic marketing playbooks of major brands and products in carving out a point of differentiation.   Consumers tend to build perceptual maps in their minds about how products compare to each other when they make a purchasing decision.  I would argue they make the same set of comparisons between political candidates.  In the case of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton the dominant perceptual map came down to a choice of who represented true change and who would be better for the economy. (Figure 2)  As a brand, you want to occupy the upper right region of the axis points on the perceptual map.  Trump didn’t just occupy this position, he owned it with the majority of voters in the critical swing states who tipped the Electoral College. 

rebel-ruler-001

Figure 3

     In many respects he did it through branding and messaging.  In a previous post, I established how Trump personified the Rebel archetype. (Figure 3) His break-all-the-rules brand spoke directly to disaffected voters who felt that the country wasn’t just heading in the wrong direction, but that no one was listening to them.  Clinton’s Ruler archetype was too closely aligned with the establishment that Trump’s voters felt alienated from.  To be sure, Trump also successfully deployed the fear factor.  By exploiting voter anxiety on crime, immigration, jobs, and health care insurance he banked on well-established economic theory that people are more motivated by loss than they are by gain.

     But Trump also helped his candidacy by how he marketed himself.  Former Campbell Mithun advertising agency CEO and University of Minnesota Strategic Communication Program Director Steve Wehrenberg argues that there are seven irrefutable marketing drivers.   Whether by pure luck or shrewd planning, Trump succeeded at nearly every one of these drivers.

Brand Awareness.   Real estate, hotels and casinos made Donald Trump a business brand and best selling author, but the NBC television show “The Apprentice” made him a star. By the time Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president in 2015, he was already a household name having built his brand as a savvy business expert and larger-that-life personality.  Trump was able to leverage his brand awareness to get free airplay on cable news channels and largely bypass expensive television advertising.

Emotional Bond.  Trump’s brash personality and shoot-from-the-hip style caused people to love him or hate him.  But those who loved Donald Trump, really loved him. Trump famously said during the campaign “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”  Even when the video emerged of Trump making lewd remarks about women on the “Access Hollywood” bus, it only had a temporary effect on his polling numbers.  We now know that the emotional bond to Trump’s economic message simply swamped whatever misgivings his voters had about the messenger.

Product News.   Trump’s pension for outrageousness and unpredictability made both his supporters and enemies follow his every move and statement during the campaign.  Quite simply, he was a Los Angeles car chase no one could stop watching.  His use of Twitter as a means to directly communicate with his followers kept them constantly informed of his every thought and move.

Activation.  In the marketing and advertising world, activation is getting the customer to make the immediate decision to buy your product through a sale, coupon, or incentive.  In politics, activation is about getting people to vote for you on Election Day. For all of her superior organization, fund raising, and GOTV, Hillary Clinton lost the activation battle in several critical battleground states.  Trump won it in part by his message and his personal social media appeals on November 8th.

Loyalty.   This is all about providing exclusive offerings to loyal followers.  The Best Buy’s and Amazon’s of the world build loyalty by offering discounts and free shipping if you join their rewards program.  Similarly, politicians reward loyalty by providing exclusive access and one-on-one pictures for followers at donor events.  Donald Trump attempted to build loyalty in reverse by making disaffected workers believe that he was the only candidate who believed in them. 

img_1362

Picture 1 – Donald Trump at Minneapolis-St. Pau Intl. Airport on November 6, 2016

Product Experience.  Here too, Trump created the illusion that getting the chance to see him and hear him at a rally was a not-to-miss experience.  To be sure, every candidate does this.  But Trump’s rallies became a calling.  At the Minnesota rally hastily arranged within 24 hours at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, the Republican Party of Minnesota reported 17,000 people RSVP’d online.   Trump’s followers illegally parked on Hwy 77 and scaled chain link fences to race to the hangar to get inside for the rally.  Even then, more of his followers were left stranded outside of the hangar than the thousands who got inside to hear him speak. (Picture 1)

Buzz.   For better or worse, Trump dominated Internet search and chatter.  The final Google Trends metrics show how Trump (seen in red) commanded a large share of search queries all throughout the campaign. (Figure 4) 

google-trends-potus-search

Figure 4

    Political scientists, strategists, and journalists alike will analyze the Trump electoral phenomena for months to come.  Many will focus on the flaws of Clinton herself, her State Department emails, and her abrasive personality.  Others will focus on her campaign’s failure to activate Obama Democrats.  The Washington Post has already examined misplaced ad buys in the final weekend that could have contributed to Clinton’s final downfall at the polls.  But perhaps none of that could overcome the headwinds of an electorate who believed in their core the country was heading in the wrong direction. Trump positioned himself to be the messenger change.  They may not have liked the messenger himself, but enough of them perceived his message was the only one they could identify with.

#     #     #

The Archetype Branding of Trump and Clinton—The Rebel vs. The Ruler

5 Nov

rebel-ruler-2-002     Since the rise of modern consumerism, political campaigns have tried to market their candidates like soap.  The positioning and branding of a candidate, especially a presidential candidate, in many cases is now performed with the discipline of commercial product launch.  They are the ultimate consumer packaged goods.

     Joel McGinniss in his ground breaking book “The Selling of the President 1968” exposed the marketing strategy of Richard Nixon and how this advisors strategically used advertising and staged television town halls to craft an image of Nixon as a knowledgeable and caring candidate.  Even Nixon lamented, “It’s a shame a man has to use such gimmicks as this to get elected.”

     In 2016, the presidential campaigns have become increasing more strategic in how they market themselves.  Among the most effective of the strategies is the grounding of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in brand archetypes.   Trump is the Outlaw or Rebel, Clinton is the Ruler. 

Figure 1

Figure 1

 

     Archetypes are essentially powerful symbols of meaning that our minds easily recognize.  They originated with the Greeks and Romans who created their Gods based upon powerful myths.   Marketers today still attach many of these metaphorical myths and archetypes to a brand or a product in order to make a psychological connection with the consumer.  They act as heuristics, or shortcuts for the consumer to build an emotional attachment with the brand.  For example, Nike is the Hero archetype, Hallmark is the Lover.  Johnson & Johnson is the Caregiver.  Margaret Mark and Carol Pearson in their book “The Hero and the Outlaw” establish the case for twelve brand archetypes based upon a quadrant of opposing psychological needs.  (Figure 1)

     It’s hard to know if the Rebel archetype was made for Donald Trump, or if Trump was made for the Rebel.  Either way, it fits.  The “rules were meant to be broken” motto of the Rebel is exemplified by one of Trump’s recent Twitter posts.

     For most of Trump’s career he’s been the Magician.   He’s the man who somehow overcomes all odds to create great deals and build great real estate properties.  In the process he has built for himself power and wealth.  For a while Trump re-branded himself as the Sage.   As the star of the NBC television show “The Apprentice,” Trump dispensed his business knowledge to would-be students and potential employees.  But with his presidential campaign, he morphed again into the Rebel.   So far he’s effectively and brilliantly used his take-no-prisoners and break-all-the-rules branding strategy to overcome every opponent that’s crossed his path—including the Republican establishment.

Figure 2

Figure 2

 

     Trump’s entire career has shown how he has mastered the art of self-promotion.  And in this latest incarnation he’s created a powerful brand of an irreverent leader who will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. (Figure 2)   With his core value of putting America first, he’s crafted the brand promise of de-rigging this system—his way.  The Rebel or Outlaw archetype is a strong attractor for people who feel left out and left behind by society.   Following or identifying with the Rebel gives a feeling of liberation.   Our culture is filled with Rebel personalities such as Madonna, Niki Minaj, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly.  The archetype is also the core identity of many successful brands such as Harley Davidson, MTV, and Fox Television.

     In many respects Trump has become a California car chase—you know the outcome, but you can’t stop watching.  His unpredictability is a key part of his Rebel brand.  He doesn’t just attack and disrupt Hillary Clinton, but he shocks his audience and the media.  It’s a strategy he deployed in the third presidential debates when he promised to jail Clinton.

     For her part, Hillary Clinton with her experience as First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State brings to her brand expertise, power and control.  She is clearly the Ruler.

     Rulers are motivated by their desire to lead and consolidate power.  This is the archetype of CEO’s, kings, and yes, presidents.   Ronald Reagan, former New York Mayor Rudy Guilliani, and former Ford leader Alan Mulally  were all rulers.  Ruler brands include Goldman Sachs, Cadillac, IBM and The White House.

Figure 3

Figure 3

 

     Clinton’s Ruler archetype mediates directly into her brand promise of experience to lead. (Figure 3)  Her core value may be competence and moral authority, but make no mistake, she also needs control.   That control is also the Ruler’s chief weakness, especially their fear of chaos and preoccupation with their enemies.  In nearly every instance those traits of the Ruler have become Clinton’s chief liabilities in the 2016 presidential campaign.

     So far, her campaign has tried to use the archetype to their electoral advantage.  Even with appealing to voters to “Stand with Hilary” they are inviting them to be the rulers of their own destiny.  By pitting the Ruler against the Rebel, Clinton’s campaign is betting experience will trump recklessness and unpredictability.   The strategy is clearly evident in this recent campaign video.

     The use of branding archetypes is all about strategically positioning an easily identifiable image in the mind of the consumer–in this case the voter.   But with both Trump and Clinton the archetypes also magnify critical flaws with each candidate.   Trump’s unleashed and undisciplined style expose him as a bully and sexist.  Clinton’s Nixon-like desire for command and control, especially in how she’s handled her State Department emails and the Benghazi attacks aftermath have made her simply untrustworthy to a significant portion of the electorate.   Come Election Day we’ll find out whether the dominant brand of each candidate is able to overcome their equally exposed flaws.

                                                          #             #             #

%d bloggers like this: