Is Obama wrong?

OK, those of you who know me will wonder about that headline. I don't mean to say that Obama is wrong on the issues. I tend to agree with him on those, both cultural and policy, but for a great communicator he and his teams have made a strategic error in branding that has left him open to having his message co-opted by the Republicans.

The Obama campaign has been rightly lauded for its innovative use of social media. But to the point Jason Oke made a while back, today's media, social media, requires a different grammar. It also requires a slightly different way of thinking about how brands work and are built. And this is where I think Obama requires a course correction.

In other words, he needs to listen to his own message and CHANGE.

The Obama campaign offers an interesting case study in a theory that has been making the rounds in the last few years among account planners and others who think about these things. It's the question that John Grant raises in his Brand Innovation Manifesto. Should a brand (in this case Obama) be consistent or merely cohesive?

By focusing on 'Change We Can Believe In' Obama differentiated himself from Clinton and gave the Democratic Party a voice after 8 years of the Bush Administration, even if he ended it with a preposition. This single minded voice, in combination with Obama's nuanced and inspiring speeches, has given a consistent platform that makes it clear what Obama means. If Noah had a politicaltags.net, Obama=Change.

But. In today's environment, consistency will only get your foot in the door. Grant's thesis is that in order to maintain interest, brands need to behave more like people. Rather than be structured hierarchically, brands need to structure themselves like molecules. In the same way that multi-faceted people are more interesting than single minded people, and molecules are composed of different elements that come together to form a whole, brands need to bring together disparate elements that hang together well, without being repetitive.

By being overly consistent, Obama has made it easy for an admittedly unique set of Republican candidates to begin to co-opt his message of change and distract from core issues.

Obama has a fantastic opportunity in the next 2 months to begin to open up his message. In the same way he began to define 'Change' in his Denver speech, he now has the chance to add elements and facets to this message that add layers to his campaign using non-verbal, non-rhetorical devices.

This does NOT mean what it's meant in the past. I'm not suggesting he needs to policy wonk his way out of this a la Al Gore or start riding in a tank like Michael Dukakis. The best example of a brand with a complex and inspiring molecule-like structure remains Nike. At its core the brand is still about performance, but with every new communication, design or line of business, they redefine what that means and how they bring it to life.

Like 'performance', to stake your chances on change means that you must be willing to be hoisted by your own petard. To stake your chances on change means adapting quickly to win.

Part of this is in messaging, part is tactical. Where are the kiosks in malls with information, or t-shirts for sale? Where are the pop-up stores 4 Obama? Where are the flash mobs? What does round 2 of Shephard Fairey look like? The guerrilla documentaries with webisodes on the life and travails of an average American family after 8 years of Bushonomics? And on, and on.

Now is the time for change, or else everyone on both sides wouldn't be talking about it.

But to get that chance, there has to be a willingness to .... Change.

Comments

[El Gaffney]

well put, man. really enjoyed reading a fresh perspective on the campaign. i'd really like him to do something compelling and action-driven through txt vs. the info-driven stuff he's sending (even if it asks me to go to a website). Flash mob perhaps or something to demonstrate the power of community organizers!