Always-on Brands
You can't build a brand in 107 days. You shouldn't run a campaign once every 2 years. But also: you don't need to run weekly brand trackers.
This post is going to be long - and that’s because it’s a marketing lesson, but for the Democrats.
In the olden days, when people subscribed to a newspaper and had a favorite network out of three options and listened to the radio in their cars and otherwise lived lives largely unencumbered by content, brands ran seasonal campaigns.
You’d run a campaign touting an after Christmas sale, a President’s Day event, and a Fourth of July extravaganza, before Labor Day, and back-to-school, and then the festive period — Thanksgiving and Christmas, in which brands would adorn themselves with tinsel and family vignettes.
These flights of advertising were, for the most part, promotional, not brand building. They weren’t trying to convince you how cool or aspirational or desirable they were; they were saying you could get a king size mattress for 20% off.
To bring you into desire, aspiration, alignment, marketers ran brand campaigns. Some brands, like Nike in the 90s, ran ads on MTV 90 times in a one-month period. That might sound like a lot - but it was only 3 spots a day, and in those days, ads on MTV were pretty cheap.
But they didn’t just run TV ads. They’d place full page, full color ads in magazines their audiences read. They’d run radio ads during drive time. They’d take out billboards in high traffic areas in major cities. They’d sponsor local sports venues, and your favorite NASCAR driver. They’d paper over the cladding at work sites with posters, and put ads in the subways.
That’s because brands need to create what’s called mental availability. When you encounter a brand, you should recognize it immediately, know what it is, and have some kind of association with it. It’s a combination of familiarity and distinctiveness. When you walk down the canned food aisle, you instinctively, in your peripheral vision, reach for Campbell’s, because it stands out on the shelf, and you know it even if you don’t look directly at it.
When a brand wants to change it’s positioning in the market, or change what the brand means to people, if it’s already well-established, it can be like turning around a freighter in the middle of the Suez Canal, on purpose:
A popular case study in rebranding in the early 2010s was Burberry. The brand had become associated with knock-offs and chavs, until a new CEO focused on reclaiming luxury status, took back the reins on the licensing program, appointed a global design director, and stripped back the product line to orient around the iconic trench coat. They experimented with social media campaigns, super models, and celebrity spokespeople, and built a whole campaign around “The Art of the Trench”. At the core of the strategy were some very simple strategic pillars:
Get back in touch with the origins of the brand.
Speak with one voice.
Clearly identify the audience.
Call your shot, and then aim for it.
And it worked.
Here’s how I know the Democratic Party is not a brand, and does not think like one.
For all the talk of revitalizing the Democratic Party brand, and whether it should moderate or move to the left, run conservative candidates and throw trans people under the bus, or bet on democratic socialism, the Party, and its consultants and pundits, do not know what a brand is, or how a brand works.
Let’s start with some basics:
A brand is a story we all know.
That story is told over and over again.
Every time you encounter the brand, the story is reinforced.
That story has real roots - it’s authentic and believable.
And the story is simple enough to appeal to many different kinds of people.
Simple stories can be told about complicated products. Apple’s “Think Different” campaign appealed to people who were working creatives, and to people who just liked to think of themselves as creative. You could be a hardware fanatic who wanted to know all about the speed of the processor and the throughput of the bus; or you could just be someone who liked to edit photos of your kids. Some people were PowerBook people and some people were iMac people, but they were all Apple-minded.1
Apple celebrates what you want to do with their devices. A lot of people, even people in marketing who should know better, think most Apple ads are ‘brand’ ads. In fact, they’re product ads — they highlight the new capabilities of the product — or they are product-demonstration ads — they show you what you can do with the product. But they have a brand campaign effect — you imagine yourself doing what you want to do with this beautifully designed device. And that is what the brand stands for.
I still maintain that this is one of the greatest ads for the iPad that ever ran:
Why? Because I wanted to sit exactly like that, albeit on my comfy sofa, and read the paper on a device exactly like that. I had no idea that’s what I wanted until I saw it, and then I obsessed over it. It’s okay to judge me.
What does the ad say about the brand?
What does it say about you, the audience?
Where do those stories meet?
How do you make sure the audience experiences this story?
It’s about ubiquity. This ad — or one very similar to it — was on a billboard along the side of the BQE, in Dumbo, along a route I frequently took when taking a cab into Manhattan. I saw it all the time. And then there were the wild postings on the construction sites. Everyone I knew seemed to be talking about the iPad or getting one. They were front and center in the windows of every Apple Store. TV characters had them. The President was getting his daily briefing on one.
Everywhere you went, it was clear: whatever you wanted to do, you could do it with an iPad (more or less).2
But there was still something effortlessly Apple about it, no less than the iPhone, the iPod, the MacBook, or the Mac. It suggested a love of design, a creative streak, modernity, mobility and flexibility. Pick your favorite attribute, and it was for you.
The Democrat’s brand is not like this. But it could be.
How do they get there from here?
The question for the Democrats is not, “what is your laundry list of policies”? The question for the Democrats is, “what is your story”?
The story can be very simple. The brand story of Burberry is modern-classic British Luxury. The brand story of JPMorgan is legacy and trust. The brand story of IKEA is accessible design.
Where does the story come from?
It comes from the history of the brand — its founder and founding mission, the role it plays in both its market sector and in the culture.
It comes from its product offerings — what it makes and sells, and who those products are for (aka, who the brand serves).
It comes from the ways it is distinct from its competitors — the difference that makes a difference.
It comes from the ways people talk about it out in the broader culture, their formative memories of it, and who they think it’s for.
It comes from imagery — literal and metaphorical — associated with the brand.
When the brand is damaged, neglected, or just in need of an update, one thing I often do with brand managers is to ask them a few foundational questions:
Where have you been?
Where are you now?
Where are you going?
What would you have to keep doing to get where you want to go?
What would you have to do a lot more of?
What would you have to stop doing?
What are the rules you think you have to abide by while you try to get there?
Which rules are holding you back from getting there?
Can we break any of those rules?
What would happen if we broke all the rules?
Who do we have to ask permission from to break the rules?
What would convince them?
This helps us crystallize the story, the obstacles to telling the story (both real and imagined), name the habits that are keeping the brand stuck where it is, and challenge the brand managers to push out of a comfort zone, but do so with buy-in from leaders who will protect the effort.
But the story the brand wants to tell has to connect with people. It has to meet them where they are, and it needs to stand out when it does so.
It can do that by showing up in a way people don’t necessarily expect, that isn’t just background noise. An ad that worked like that on me was this one — it literally stopped me in my tracks as I walked from one room to another.
A video game ad that doesn’t behave like a video game ad. It’s not a cutscene from the game, it’s 3D models in a diorama; it’s not the sound of explosions and laser guns or soldiers and orcs screaming, it’s Chopin.
Or it can show up someplace you wouldn’t expect it. Frida, a baby and postpartum products brand, placed out of home ads revealing what most brands and healthcare providers and society in general conceals about the postpartum experience. They put out in the open something they wanted put out in the open. You might expect to see those ads in women’s magazines, on women’s social media accounts, or someplace like Babycenter or Mumsnet. But they put it on the streets.
And of course it should show up exactly where you would expect it. It should be in the places where people who share the brand’s values and mindset and priorities are. If you’re Columbia Sportswear running their latest campaign, you should be showing up in the feeds of people who like to camp, trail run, ski, hike, rock climb, etc.
This campaign, by the way, does something else that people appreciate: it tells the truth about what it’s like to be in the great outdoors.
And then it delivers on its product promise.
Democrats need to establish their brand and not be shy.
Okay this is coming up against the email length limit. What’s the upshot?
The Democrats need a brand story - that story needs to have a simple hook that people can sum up in a few words. People should use very similar words, but they don’t need to be identical. The story is not a slogan, it’s the takeaway. They need to create an impression about what they believe, who they align themselves with, and what they do. That impression has to be flexible, adaptable … and sturdy.
The Democrats need to conduct an always-on campaign. In 2016, when I canvassed in Pennsylvania, a woman in Coatesville said something to the effect of, “You guys show up every 4 years and then we never see you again.” The Democrats need to be seen all the time. Don’t blow a billion dollars in 100 days. Spend it all year long. Make the brand relatable, desirable, aspirational. Tell the story you want to tell in order to drown out the story your opponents want to tell about you.
The Democrats need to seem to be everywhere. They don’t have to actually be everywhere. A strange glitch in the matrix happened to Kamala Harris — she put up quite similar numbers for campaign events, rallies, media appearances, and fundraisers as Trump. She did loads of local interviews. But the impression is that he was everywhere and she was nowhere.
Source: NYTimes Democrats need to pursue a media strategy where any appearance gets pick-up. You want your appearance on one show to be covered by the other shows, your content remixed by other creators, YouTubers and Twitch Streamers who do reaction videos to react to you. You want to make surprise appearances on top rated shows — whether on TV or TikTok. And you need to be everywhere, even in the places you think you’re safe. Brands that take their customers for granted get forgotten.
Regardless of the specific audience, or the specific topic, the story needs to stay focused & unified. Policies are the products, not the brand. Candidates need to be brand storytellers. When I work with brands on their marketing campaigns we talk about how the various creative assets they make don’t have to be “matching luggage”, but they should all ladder up to the same brand story (or essence, if you like). The story is the nexus of connection. It is what draws people to the brand, and includes them in the brand, and allows them to make the brand their own. This requires a strategy of solidarity — candidates and groups should both keep their eyes on their own paper and speak warmly about their colleagues, even if they disagree with them on particulars.
The Democrats need to break some rules. I’ve been thinking about that a lot this week. Remember in the movie Scream when they lay out the rules of the slasher genre? “Don't have sex, don’t drink or do drugs, and don’t say ‘I’ll be right back’”.
Someone shared with me this week an observation from the r/OutoftheLoop sub (OP now deleted by the moderator) that read, “What’s up with r/democrats not having (or allowing?) any posts about Mamdani’s win?” The answer? r/democrats have rules, as most reddit subs do. Rule 5 is “No posts about Democratic Socialists or Third Parties”.
I understand why, if I were a brand manager for the Democrats, this rule would seem to make sense. But it actually narrows the aperture of the brand in a counterproductive way. It means a popular Democrat (ran as a Democrat, won the Democratic primary, won the general as a Democrat3) gets no exposure to 331,000 sub-followers. It puts him and his politics outside the tent. And if you’re a Democrat who likes Mamdani, that makes you an outsider to the “official” Democrats. This is not a desirable brand story. A good brand story creates openings for all who wish to enter, and welcomes those who share the brand’s essential values.
It seems like Democrats are breaking a few norms, though, mostly by swearing and not wearing a tie. Pritzker told Trump to “fuck all the way off” the other day. But that’s not really breaking rules. To break the rules, you have to name them. The rules of Democratic storytelling - in my estimation — appear to be:Lay out plans, share data, be detailed.
Be cautious and inclusive. Hedge.
Acknowledge complexity and the systemic nature of our problems.
Be reasonable, collegial, empathetic.
Talk process.
Tailor your ideas to whoever you’re talking to based on their demographics.
I would strongly recommend breaking… basically all of these rules. I would recommend they focus on purpose, mission, values, vision; simplify and emote; show passion, humor, irreverence, deep feeling; acknowledge that process is tricky but stay focused on outcomes; stop assuming demographics drive policy preferences that drive candidate choice. People vote affectively, and then they explain it later with policy preferences and candidate characteristics, if you make them in a survey or focus group. If you don’t make them they’ll say things like, “I like her vibe.”The Democrats need to keep campaigning even after they win. Once you sell people on the vision, you need to keep them focused on goals, not procedures. People don’t want excuses about blue slips and filibusters and reconciliation and the state legislature. They want to know you’re fighting, and they want to feel they are shoulder-to-shoulder with you in that fight. They supported you to get you into office, and if you abandon them once you’re in, they’ll abandon you. Turn the volunteer and donor network into a community you can enlist to help you apply pressure to get your agenda done. Apple doesn’t just sell you an iPhone — they sell you an ecosystem, a social contract, a tribe you belong to. They keep their fans amped about new product releases, and they find new ways to sell more stuff to them. Democrats need to do that too.
By the way — the current state of political polling might not lead you to these conclusions. People will tell you they’re mad at the party, sick of its leadership, exhausted by constant solicitations for money from the campaigns and spamPACs, turned off by politics. That is all true — but you have to keep the lights on anyway, not through begging for dollars, but through constant communication of the story. Build that mental availability, that sense of distinctiveness, that desirability.
To borrow a phrase: Think Different.4
One last thing.
People are not experiencing all the same things in real time. Ideas spread both fast and slow. Incessant message testing and brand tracking is not useful when that’s true. Brand stories need time to percolate. If I were in charge, I’d say, do fewer surveys and groups, and when you do them, stay focused on how the brand is working, not on how individual messages are performing. That will help you make better strategic decisions.
Have a nice weekend.
Quick story. Sex and the City fans may remember that Carrie Bradshaw used a black “Wall Street” PowerBook to write her column. At some point, when she was dating Aidan, her PowerBook died. Aidan bought her a new iBook - the clamshell kind with the handle. Carrie absolutely hated it. Apple was very involved with that storyline — product placement was a big part of their ubiquity strategy.
There was a lot of fretting at the time about how the iPad was a consumption device, not a creative one.
Though, I heard today that when he voted for himself he did so on the Working Families Line. I am a registered Democrat who only votes for Democrats, but in general elections, I also vote on that line. Voting on that line allows that party to continue to exist as both a party and as a stakeholder in liberal New York politics.
Yes, I am super cheesy.