Obama Marketing

I've been thinking of the Obama campaign a lot over the last few days. Here's my take on the campaign from a brand strategy stand point. I've read lots of posts on lessons learned and posts that deconstruct the campaign down to a tactical level. I'm interested in your thoughts on what you liked and what you didn't like. Bring it on.

Creativity and design matters The logo has forever changed the approach to political branding. The campaign logo can be compared to any top consumer brand. Its evocative and has built in talking points. Not only that but it is memorable and customizable to various groups without diluting the core intent.

Convergence is key
The campaign used a combination of traditional, online and mobile media such as ads on TV, print ads, ads on online vehicles like facebook, mobile/SMS advertising, opt-in SMS communications, a mobile app for iPhones, email with a variety of senders and content, online videos, infomercials/TV ads that lasted 30 minutes on major networks, phone calls, oor hangers, door-to-door visits by volunteers. The vehicles all pushed people towards the website and the online community.

Messaging matters
Consistency is key. The message was always the same - to inform you of Obama's position on a variety of issues, evoke involvement with the campaign - and in a positive manner. The objectives were awareness (getting the word out), lead generation and fulfillment (volunteers and fundraising). Not to mention Obama drawing on "great political brands of the past" (Kennedy, Clinton, MLK, and even Perot).

People need anchor points
The marketing seemed to be anchored by personalization, video messages, and of course, events. The video message ran the gamut from computer cams to music videos.

Pre and post marketing helps solidify your position
I can't help thinking of the books as great pre-marketing and the thank you emails that continued after the win (and the continued focus on the audience in the acceptance speech).

Thinking big
Who would have thought that spending time and money in Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado and New Mexico could make a difference? Goes against the grain of traditional political marketing strategy of the past. And the numbers show that outspending still helps. The Obama campaign has only been outspent in the last 9 months by AT&T.

Emotional involvement
The emotional involvement of the Obama campaign seemed to convert more evangelists for the brand.

- Duncan Alney Facebook | Twitter | Naymz

Comments

[Kim]

I voted for McCain, but Obama certainly left no stone unturned. His campaign seemed to run like a well oiled machine. I commend him for that.

[Ryan]

Great analysis Duncan. I was a strong supporter, but I was also amazed at his efforts. His campaign used social media, they made it very easy to participate (financially, personally, etc). They made it easy to become connected.

The logo was warm, proud, wise. He also changed it slightly for energy (windmills), green initiatives (added a tree and changed to green), etc. It was a logo, but also an icon.

He maintained consistent messages and acted as the perfect brand. Always on message. Always breaking molds. Always challenging and (nearly) always positive.

The infomercials?

This changes everything.

[Mark JUleen]

"Consistency is key." Almost enough said right here. While his campaign took advantage of new media resources, outspent his competitor, and made his messages personal, the key to it all was the consistent message.

I signed up for both the McCain and Obama email lists as a marketing experiment. Honestly neither one impressed me with the general content of their emails more than the other. Most of the message content seemed to be in defense of statements made by the other party. Two things did stand out in the Obama emails however. One, the volume of messages was higher. And two, the Obama campaign asked for just $5 every time. Whatever was said in the email didn't matter, they always ended with please support us with just $5. Loved the consistency.

Who knows if things would have changed toward the end if Obama were the one behind in the polls? Maybe the campaign would have shifted gears, maybe they would have shook up their message, but I think not. They had a strategy of "Change" and stuck with it to the end. With any marketing, with any brand, it is a consistent message that wins over consumers, fans, and supporters. The flavor-of-the-day gimmick marketing approach is for amateurs. This was no amateur campaign.

However, while his campaign was extremely well run, he also did run against an inferior opponent and running mate. John McCain was just not very likable. There is much to say in presidential elections, sales, and relationships about being genuine and likable regardless of marketing. The Republican party made a poor choice in their selections. I'm not saying this as an armchair quarterback after the game is over either. I questioned it from the beginning. It would have been interesting to see Obama running against Fred Thompson. Thompson would have had the charisma and likable factor that was obviously overlooked when people voted for McCain in the primaries.

In any event, the Obama campaign chose a platform and brand of "Change." They stuck with their message, never strayed, and consistently shared that message with a variety of media resources. I'm not sure if any other candidate could have won against this platform and brand they chose. This country is ready for "Change," and we can only hope that President Elect Obama can deliver not only "Change" but change that we all can agree on.

[Jenni Edwards]

Coming from a Hilary supporter that is still licking her wounds...a couple comments :)

1. Logo - Seriously? Sorry, but this has always come across very much like Pepsi to me (always inferior to CocaCola). A bit cheesy and something very reminiscent of my first attempts at fooling with PhotoShop...
2. Politics vs. Brand - I struggle to compare the two completely on the same playing field. Obama himself was so charismatic, so people wanted to engage/join a community and be part of something big so social media completely "worked"...but if I am producing widgets, how can average brand/company produce this same passion and evangelism? (this is not a criticism, rather a question of how this translates?)
3. Couldn't agree more on the pre-marketing...the books were clutch, seems very pre-planned in a good way.

There ya go...good post, hope we can all learn a bit from this campaign!

[Duncan]

Mark Great points. I agree with you. Perhaps it all came down to consistency, message and tone.

[Gennefer Snowfield]

Speaking purely about mechanics, I agree with your overall assessment of Obama's campaign. It was well strategized, fully integrated and consistent -- the core elements of any successful branding campaign.

I don't happen to think that the logo is all that engaging, BUT it did do what a good brand strategy does: it connected the message to the visual and in doing so, transcended the image, making it synonymous with the tenets of his campaign, 'Change,' 'A New America' and 'Possibilities' (via 'Yes We Can).

A compelling visual is not a pre-requisite for building a strong brand. Look at Nike, for example. It's the intrinsic brand value/association that turns that silly swoosh into a beacon of athletic passion. Their message and core brand attributes compel you via the image and have made it a standalone icon. But before that message and brand personality was infused, it was just a meaningless symbol.

But the reason Nike's symbol has remained strong over the years is because they've *delivered* on their brand promise with a quality product/commitment/innovation. It is by virtue of that delivery [and consistency] that the swoosh still has tangible meaning today.

Coke is another example of a brand that has stood the test of time by maintaining a commitment to their brand benefits, and delivering on the product experience. It was Coke who taught the world to sing, and it is now a Coke and a smile. They know how to connect with people emotionally through their brand, just as Obama did through his.

But until he takes office officially on November 20th, and begins to demonstrate how he is going to institute the change he promised, he has yet to solidify his brand. He must put the same passion behind *fulfilling* those promises as he did in making them. And that is the most important element of the entire campaign; otherwise, it will have been the grandest, most expensive buzz campaign in history -- political or otherwise.

[Duncan]

Gennefer - great comments. Im curious. What do you think the Coke commitment is? I agree with you - that Obama must fulfil the brand commitment. Technically, Obama does not become President till Jan 20. Till then I think he should defer to President Bush. However people are already looking to Obama for leadership now and he will take heat if he doesn't participate now. All this in regards to brand commitment.

I think he is also fulfilling the commitments through change.gov, a white youtube channel, and SMS messages. This is all technology but it is chang already. I'm hopeful. Yes he must fulfill the commitments. He will need everyone's help though.

[Gennefer Snowfield]

To answer your question re: Coke, I think their commitment is -- and always has been -- to the *experience* vs. the product itself. It's the hanging out with friends and enjoying life that they focus on, and the fact that you are drinking their soft drink is secondary. It's brilliant, really, because they use experiential marketing in such a subtle yet powerful way.

And remember, while Coke was teaching the world to sing, Pepsi was saying 'We're better than Coke.' with the Pepsi Challenge.

You could actually relate this same principle back to the Obama campaign as well. McCain's marketing focused on contrasting against Obama (like Pepsi's competitive stance with Coke) and Obama continued to focus ahead on change and the positives around what his presidency could represent for America. It will be interesting to see how it plays out because Coke is still the market leader today.

(post-script: In my previous comment, I meant Jaunary 20th; I typed November in error.)

[Andrea]

Obama's marketing strategy with little money (or at least less than McCain) and he would not be our President-Elect. His marketing strategy, however, allowed him to generate those funds. Yes, he asked for a donation in every email. Sometimes three and four times a day which was a little over the top. But if you had just finished watching a debate or seeing the 30-minute infomercial and were moved, then that email waiting for you asking for the donation worked. How do I know? I gave 4 times and had never previously donated to any political campaign.

[Julie Schrader]

I strongly believe that a person's leadership is shown through action and not words. It is his social responsibility on the line now. I mirror Gennefer's comments above about Nike, and that its brand has remained strong because it delivered on quality and expectations. I think this is an exciting time; our next President is a man who represents diversity and the potential for positive change. Personally, I think his campaign was further reaching for the younger audiences, and I could better identify with his plan. When I would see the circular logo, I could say it was his. Isn't that a part of brand recognition? If so, I'd say it worked!

[Ginger]

If you look at it from a "branding 101" point of view... Obama's campaign hit it right on the money. They appealed to the feelings and emotions of people around the world. And where most important, their brand, Barack Obama, hit the emotions of Americans, by appealing to our need for change and hope for future generations. This will be a lesson for marketing courses forever forward.

[jason_elephant]

Thanks Duncan for the insight! Here's a different angle:

The Obama campaign was a classical painting, relying on tightly crafting each layer so the following one would have a strong foundation.

The stretchers, linen, nails were all top quality, meant to last centuries. The preparation too. The paints, brushes, all very specific in their function and usage based on years of training. By the time the artist begins to put pigment on the surface the canvas itself is beautiful, something not lost on the artist, it propels the artist forward with a reverence for the medium, the history, and the purpose of image-making.

This inherent quality in each step provides ample resiliency to attract different facets of a diverse audience. Those that prefer craft can admire the process, those that seek color can bask in the glow, those yearning for content find that front and center.

Using the logo-branding as an example, 2 points:
1. These images are based on a history of poster-making, of icon-branding. There are so many references.
2. One popular image was drafted by Shepherd Fairey (the modestly famous creator of the OBEY stickers which like Kudzu is found almost everywhere and was anywhere a surface existed). Some folks who knew this facet and saw the added dimension.

We can point out the surface level examples of how the campaign "worked" (a local biz is putting on a paid seminar on how the lessons of the Obama campaign can add to your bottom line, PA-LEEZ! It's not about your bottom line, its about having the courage to build "anything" from the ground up).

I think the essence of the lesson points to classical "patience" in the process; crafting each layer as tight as possible. When the painting is complete it sings to a wide audience on many deep levels.

Thanks for the spark Duncan!

[Derek Miller]

I was far from an Obama supporter but I also was not a McCain fan. I actually like the Constitution Party views nowadays. You've got to hand it to Obama with his McDonalds type of branding and using everything under the sun to blitz out plea's for votes. The thing that worries me about his election run was the amount of money spent. When Forbes ran for President I was happy that he was not able to "buy" the office of the President. If Obama had not lied and used the same amount of money limits as McCain and did not have the sinful amount of money to advertise with you have to wonder if he would have won. I look at Obama like McDonalds and McCain like Wendy’s. Wendy's makes a better burger but when I pull over to get a burger I seem to stop at the McDonalds more than Wendy's. I think it is because I see those golden arch ad's everywhere so I am programmed to stop there first. I think that is what Obama was able to do with his brand. Everyone heard the name so much that is how they voted instead of really looking at the issues and other parties (Constitution, Green, etc). Now this whole thing of The Office of the President Elect cracks me up. This "office" does not exist but once again he is branding an illusion of leadership during this transition period. Maybe it is a good thing, I don't know, but I think it is a bit overkill.

[shishir]

well is it really a occasion to celebrate when the world is in such a situation http://controversial-affairs.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-presidential-inauguration-2009.html

[Jeff Paul Internet Millions]

I think they had a strategy of "Change" and stuck with it to the end. With any marketing, with any brand, it is a consistent message that wins over consumers, fans, and supporters.