As political parties move further towards promoting themselves as brands they are making branding mistakes that the rest of us can learn from. The recent death of Michael Foot heralded the end of an era, when policy was based on deeply held political beliefs. It is now difficult to see any difference between the main parties and even more difficult to understand what they stand for.
Traditionally Labour was for the working (wo)man and those who wanting to support them through the distribution of wealth. Even New Labour had a smattering of “real” Labour policies, such as the minimum wage and banning fox hunting to show their clear difference from the Tories. Traditionally the Conservative party was for those who aspired to individual success and believed that their personal achievements would pull the rest of the country onwards and upwards. So a relatively simple choice between the two main parties based on policies created from deeply seated tribal behaviour. Now there appears to be little difference between the parties and there's an active policy of not actually having any, er, policies.
This reverse polarisation has come about as political parties rely on marketing techniques to appeal to voters. They have tried to become actively managed brands, with segmented audiences and announcements designed to appeal to everyone. The mistake they are making is allowing the process of brand management to stifle the creative potential of their personalities. Brands can and should learn from this.
Audiences can be segmented until the cows come home, their motivations can be researched and products designed around their perceived needs, but all this does is provide a snapshot of behaviour and attitudes that have already happened. Really great brands don’t define themselves by what has gone before or what the competition did yesterday. They define themselves by their vision and delivery of consistently strong and engaging personality and products. Politicians have made the mistake that many brands do, that is creating safe choices for voters/consumers when what we all really want is to be compelled and excited by the possibilities a brand offers. And if that means that the brand doesn’t appeal to everyone and that certain people may, god forbid, NOT LIKE YOU, then so be it.
Brands should behave like the political parties we deserve. They should have strong personalities and stand for their cause, they should want to crush the competition and win on their terms. They should stand apart from their competitors not try and emulate the parts that they don’t do very well. Brands should have the courage of their convictions and fly the flag for their way of doing things.
I would suggest that having a deeply polarised set of customers, where one half love you and one half hate you, is better than no-one really being bothered that you exist at all.
More from Front
‘Escapism Remains Primary Motivating Factor Behind Leisure Travel’ According to Annual Tourism Marketing Report from Front // New Fairtrade Campaign for 2010 // Front Grows Account Management Team with New Appointment // RHS Blooms as Attendances at Cardiff & Chelsea Flourish // Front Appointed to Get Families on Track to The National Railway Museum // Front to Reaffirm Capita Hartshead’s Position to the UK Pension Sector with New ABTL Campaign // Front Grows Creative & Management Team with Two New Appointments // Front has a blooming start to the summer after securing three year Royal Horticultural Society brief
