That was the front page headline in Tuesday's USA Today (BTW, it was in the right hand column). :) The subhead read, "Disconnect widens on likability, policies." Folks still like Obama, but more and more seem to disapprove of his handling of the economy and the health care situation, as well as the expansion of government power.
So what's happening to brand Obama? Exactly what everyone should have expected.
Five months ago, I wrote a short article titled, "Understanding Brand Obama." My intention was to help people understand why a brand is NOT a promise, like "Hope" and "Change," and is instead a personal expectation, and ultimately, an experience measured against that expectation (using an imprecise, egocentric calculus). And right now, many people's expectations of President Obama are not being met, by evidence of his declining approval ratings.
"Disconnect widens on likability, policies."
Do you see? All things being equal, aesthetics and likability can give any brand an edge. But it is just that; an edge. It can not be a stand-in for our total expectation of value over time (unless, of course, aesthetics IS the overarching value component of the brand (e.g. fashion, bottled water, etc.).
Yes, we still like Starbucks, but we've grown weary of being rushed through a long line for an expensive cup of coffee. Of course the AFLAC duck continues to make us smile, but we still don't have any idea how it is relevant to our lives. Okay, we bought a pair of Crocs. But how many indestructible, ugly rubber shoes do we really need or want to own?
I shake my head daily at the scores of misinformed marketers who make the same mistakes over and over again. Their crazed obsession with awareness and likability, at the expense of adding real value to customers' lives, continues to erode their brands' value and gives everyone in the field of marketing a bad name. Please . . . knock it off.
---
Q. What do marketers who tell the truth and work hard to add value to people's lives and politicians who tell the truth and work hard to add value to people's lives have in common?
Highlight for the answer ---> A. They're both very difficult to find.
Note: This post is not a political commentary, so please don't comment as if it were. Thanks.
Posted July 23, 2009
Email this post
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef011572245003970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Economic jitters tug at Obama in poll":
The comments to this entry are closed.
(Rest assured, we will never provide your email address to anyone. Period.)
RSS feed
Tom on Twitter
@tomasacker
Tom is timely, thought provoking and all about the new brand vision packaged as a Seinfeld stand up. I went to school on his ideas.
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com and CEO, Eons.
When Tom Asacker writes, I read. Opportunity Screams is the right message for the right time.
Tom Peters
I think that both have good intetions, but the great difference is that the politicians need help of another people, so they can`t do everything that they promised.
Posted by: Roaldo | July 23, 2009 at 09:45 AM
Roaldo,
I agree with you that this is the case, but not always. Today's businesses and service providers often in turn depend largely on OTHER providers to support what they offer. I think the major differentiator for politicians is that when they first run for office, they do not have the actual EXPERIENCE of working directly and over time with all of the people they are going to put into their cabinet, the members of Congress (they now interface with them in a different capacity if the candidate has served in Congress with them), etc. This is like starting a new company and promising IN ADVANCE what the experience of doing business with them will be like, but it's a hollow promise because they just don't know. Time reveals the kinks and faults in the system, if you will. All the weaknesses get revealed once the exchanges between business and customer start.
That is why so many politicians get elected by large majorities in their first election, and then have to work even harder to end up winning by a smaller margin in their reelection campaigns. The "promises" made the first go-round have been replaced by actual "experiences" and a real track record, which rarely lives up to the bold promises made before they were put in office the first time.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Posted by: Dan Gunter | July 23, 2009 at 12:02 PM