Target practice

With all the political brou-ha-ha going on in DC right now, this small story from the AP on Tuesday was easily lost in the shuffle. Apparently, John Edwards is very proud of his energy efficient manse.

I think it’s important that politician’s actions match up with their words–they need to walk the walk, if they talk the talk. It’s shows some dedication to their beliefs. However, I wonder if by using a step like this, Edwards is just opening himself up as a target,

Any time a politician ventures to take a strong stand on an issue, they are taking a risk. By patting himself on the back in the press, Edwards may just be giving fuel to his opponents’ arguments. Wouldn’t his home be more eco-friendly if it was smaller? Does his family need a handball court and indoor basketball court?

By bringing attentioin to this, he’s inviting people to dig up energy bills (which he wouldn’t divulge) and to root around in his past to find evidence of his hipocrisy. Al Gore, who isn’t even running (so far) in this election, was called on the carpet a couple of months ago for his excessive energy bills.

I think if we didn’t have the tumult of the AG dismissal story and the buzz surrounding the 1984 Hillary ad, perhaps this would have gotten some more attention, and more people would be investigating Edwards claims. Perhaps this was a brilliant PR move from his campaign–get the news out there that Edwards is doing something about the environment, but do it under the radar. People will be too preoccupied by the unravelling of the Bush administration to scrutinize his claims. Unfortunately, this was more likely just good luck on their part rather than good planning.

Branded, Part II

Continued from yesterday …

In reality, the U.S. has outgrown the two party system. There are too many public policy issues and too many possible opinions to split into two clearly defined, separate groups. Yes, the Democrats used to be the working man’s political party. Today? Not so much. Republicans hold free trade and capitalism near and near, but many are looking to reconcile these views with socially responsible behavior. There are few commonalities to build a political party on, much less a brand.

To think that the prevailing political wisdom is to boil these complex and nuanced concepts into a handful of bullets boggles my mind. The brand of Republican leadership is businesslike? What does that mean? They’ve modeled themselves after Enron (they didn’t specify a good business). That doesn’t speak to their policies. What they’re saying is that they get things done. I think it is more important to know what is getting done.

Politicians aren’t trusted. But, then again, neither is big business. Nor are advertisers. So why adopt the practices that will further degrade your standing in the public’s eye? Yes, the public is OK being advertised tom but I think there is a limit to how much they are willing to be manipulated. I think the further politicians push to define themselves as brands, the more disingenuous they will appear and the less the public will trust them (if that is possible)

Some would argue that this is the public’s fault–we don’t vote; we care more about Britney than Cheney. Yes, that’s true, to an extent. But why indulge us? Regardless of political philosophy, the public needs to be educated on the big issues facing the U.S. Don’t short change them by just throwing out taglines and carefully posed photo ops. At least offer the education they need to make informed decisions.

It would be easy to say the the Founding Fathers would be dismayed by our misuse of our informational resources and reluctance to engage the public in the political process. But I don’t think they would. They were the elite, they liked being the elite and they didn’t envision the U.S. as a classless Utopian society. Instead, they would probably say, “told you so.” What would irk them, I believe, are the men that followed them into public office and their lack of interest in and respect for public policy and political debate.

Politics is one arena where we don’t need shorthand. We’re not buying a car and looking for the best gas mileage or service agreement. Voting is far more complex than that and our politicians should acknowledge that (although it is probably easier to get elected as a brand than as a public policy thought leader, right Al Gore?)

Now that I’ve gotten muddy footprints all over my soapbox, I think it’s time to clean it up and put it away until another day.

Branded

Heaven knows that there is an abundance of political issues to discuss:  the outcry surrounding the AG dismissals; the continuing criticism of the war in Iraq; and further evidence that the White House manipulated government information on global warming.  However, all of this has been analyzed ad nauseum across the web.  What caught my attention was a small thing–a short paragraph in Time’s Swampland blog.  The entry (from yesterday) focuses on comments from a high-ranking Republican Congressman.  It’s this bit in particular that concerns me:

On lessons of 06: “We lost because of incompetence and corruption, with emphasis on incompetence… the BRAND of Republican leadership is businesslike — the trains run on time.” [I assume the representative is unfamiliar with the origin of this cliche.] “It was very debilitating to the national brand.”

The question that loomed over all his comments: So what is that brand now? The congressman seemed to imply that the Republican plan to take back the House is to let the Democrats lose it. Americans say they don’t see a difference in the parties, he said, the Democrats “might solve that problem for us in their first nine months.”

I’ve discussed it before, but I find the use of marketing jargon and strategies truly worrisome in the public policy arena.  Yes, there is a place for strategic communications, to a degree.  In any endeavor, it is crucial to successfully communicate with your constituencies.  However, equating political campaigns with advertising initiatives, candidates with products and parties with brands, may have potentially disastrous results.

Without going into a history lesson, the U.S., to be blunt, was founded on the principle that the public was not well-informed or engaged enough to govern itself.  This is why we elect representatives to Congress (let the experts do the decision-making).  The Federalist Papers warned of an easily manipulated public and the potential for a mob mentality to take over, giving special interest groups the power to run government.  In short, the U.S. has never trusted its citizens to make sound public policy decisions.

But now, things have degenerated even further.  Due to the social and economic environment 200 years ago, very few people had access to an education or information.  They did not have the facts they needed to make decisions about government.  Today, we gave vast amounts of information at our fingertips and an education is within reach for most.  Yet, today’s politicians have all but completely taken public policy out of the political arena. 

Public policy is about thought and reflection.  Advertising is not.  Advertising and marketing rely on boiling a brand down to its essence and using this (whether its a word, value, or image) to manipulate people into a desired action.  You’re not really requiring people to think–rather, you’re hoping to create a kind of mindless Pavlovian response.  To reduce the individuals and political parties that lead our country into this is dismissive and insulting to the public.

To have a successful brand, you need to create loyalty and trust over time so that your customers know that they can rely on you.  Today, it seems like politicians are skipping this part and just emerging as slickly packaged brands with a few key messages that are supposed to reflect their political philosophy, moral standing and ethics.  That’s not possible, nor should it be desired.

To be continued…

Is the Past, Past?

Troublesome family histories are nothing new in politics.  Unfortunately, they can be a liability for a campaign.  Some have overcome this (albeit in simpler times) such as Bush, Clinton and Reagan.  But with today’s intense scrutiny of the press and bloggers, can a candidate survive?

Rudy Giuliani looks to be the first guinea pig of the 2008 election.  Today, the head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention announced that Evangelical Christians, a strong GOP base, have doubts about Giuliani’s character.  This announcement isn’t helped by revelations earlier this week that Giuliani’s son, Andrew, remains estranged from his father and will not be participating in the presidential campaign.

Giuliani remains ahead in the polls for the Republican presidential primary, but how long can it last, especially as coverage begins to focus more and more on his failed marriages and strained relationships with his children?  Not to mention the whole marrying a second-cousin thing.

It’s a sure bet that other conservative leaders will come out against Giuliani for his questionable character.  However, it just seems to be another tactic to criticize a Republican candidate whose views on certain issues (guns, gays, and abortions) are seen as too liberal. 

Ideally, these types of policy issues should be the focus of campaign coverage.  However, today’s world craves tabloid headlines.  Even well-respected publications, such as the New York Times, veer off into scandal coverage when reporting on Giuliani’s campaign.

But, I am not sure that this conduct has any bearing on his abilities to be an effective president (although I don’t believe he’s qualified for the job).  His personal life is personal–if he can make good, rational policy decisions, we should be happy.  To some people, his messy personal life indicates a lack of morals and questionable ethics–something you don’t want in a leader.  At the very least, as a public official, he should have realized the PR repercussions his behavior would have and how they may affect him later in his career.

As I said, this is not new. During the 1884 presidential election, Cleveland was rumored to have an illegitimate son.  The opposition mocked him with the rhyme, “Ma! Ma! Where’s my Pa?” The joke was on them, he was elected president.  After his victory, his supporters replied, “Gone to the White House, ha! Ha! Ha!”

Too much?

Last week, New York magazine featured a short blurb about New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s prodigious press release production.  Apparently, the AG’s office had distributed about 50 press releases in the first 7 weeks of 2007.  As of 3/5, it looks like he’s up to 61. 

From the perspective of the AG’s office, these releases can serve two purposes: one practical, one political.  As Cuomo’s deputy press secretary, John Milgrim, states in the piece, they believe that they are deterring crime by actively promoting the office’s tenacity in going after crooks.  On the political side, the next time Cuomo runs for office and voters demand, “what have you done for me?” he has a nice little scrapbook commemorating every victory.

But is this too much?  Most PR practitioners walk a fine line–they want to be aggressive in reaching out to reporters, but not annoy them, causing alienation.  I wouldn’t be surprised if some journalists saw the constant flow of releases to their inbox as a nuisance.  We can only hope that each is not accompanied by a number of follow-up calls.

PR professionals want to develop a positive relationship with reporters and for journalists to become familiar with them and trust their information.  Hopefully, after the groundwork is laid, the tide will turn and reporters will be reaching out to the PR people.

I can’t help but think that these releases become a great cloud of white noise.  “Oh great!  It’s a day ending in ‘y!’–we’ll be getting a Cuomo release today!”  Do the less important releases take away from the credibility of weightier releases, just because of sheer numbers?  In PR, generally, organizations should be judicious about the releases they distribute.  Releases should have “news” value (which many of these do) but not overload their buddies in the newsroom.  What effect will this aggressive communications tactic have on Cuomo’s image as AG?

Tangled

On Friday, conservative Ann Coulter spoke off-the-cuff at the American Conservative Union’s Political Action Conference and used an anti-gay slur to insult John Edwards.  To most traditional PR people, this is their worst nightmare.  Flacks dread nothing more than their spokespeople going off-message and causing a stir.  However, Coulter is a different beast–she’s built a career on being shocking and provocative.  For her, any press is good press.

Luckily for us, this incident offers a great opportunity to see how intertwined technology, politics, and commercial interests have become and how this can affect communications, especially in the 2008 election.

First, as we’ve seen, the Edwards campaign has been pretty progressive in its use of technology.  As a counter-attack to Coulter’s outburst, they placed video of the incident on the campaign web site, offering supporters the opportunity to view the video and donate to the campaign.  The goal is to raise $100,000 in “Coulter Cash” to fight back against right-wing extremists.

This brings campaigning into a new era.  The Edwards campaign no longer has to rely on the mainstream media to transmit the offending clip and raise the ire of Edwards’ supporters.  It can broadcast the video itself, on demand, for little or no cost.  Using opposing viewpoints against themselves isn’t a new tactic, we’ve all seen the campaign ads that display the text of divisive quotes.  Video creates an entirely different experience–you can see first-hand the emotion behind the words, perhaps stirring your own feelings.  As we’ve seen with the George Allen incident in the fall, video on the web can be a powerful political tool.

Second, Verizon, Sallie Mae and Netbank have pulled their ads from Coulter’s web site.  This brings up a myriad of questions and issues.  First is the lack of control an organization may have when using a third-party company to place online ads.  You can see a similar situation with televisionPSAs.  Organizations must rely on the benevolence of the television stations to offer free air time.  But they have no control over the programming during which the ad is broadcast.  The public may not realize this, and may see the ad as an implicit sponsorship of questionable programming–causing people to complain to the organization.

Verizon, Sallie Mae and NetBank were afraid that their ads’ appearanceson Coulter’s web site implied endorsement of her views.  This could potentially alienate their customers who find her offensive.  Surprisingly (although I am not really familiar with these ad placement companies), Verizon and Sallie Mae have both claimed that their ads were not supposed to be placed on extreme political or religious web sites.  The way this oversight was exposed was through an eagle-eyed blogger on the Daily Kos who encouraged customers to complain.

How can this be effectively policed?  What constitutes a radical site?  Boundaries are not clearly defined on the web and organizations need to be careful about the content and vehicles of their messages.

Your Strategy is Showing

On Tuesday, the media reported on the leak of Mitt Romney’s campaign strategy document (with the awesome title, “Primal Code for Brand Romney”).  Reading this coverage is fascinating–it offers insight into the thinking behind packaging and promoting a candidate.

I use “packaging” and “promoting” intentionally–it’s clear we’ve entered an age where the politician is the product or, more accurately, a brand.  Campaigns are using the same marketing communications research and strategies to sell Romney to the public as they would a tube of Crest toothpaste. 

The use of these strategies is blatant in the document.  For example, it states that Romney should position himself as the “anti-Kerry.” It refers to McCain as a “mature brand” and mentions the dangers facing the “GOP brand” as well.

It’s amazing how the language of marketing communications has infiltrated politics.  It’s no longer about beliefs, it’s about who has the better positioning and branding. 

This is probably why Oprah could make a strong presidential candidate.  She is not a politician, nor does she have a background in policy.  However, she probably has the most powerful brand in the U.S. (which should have Obama kicking up his heels).  If Oprah endorses it, it’s a best seller.  Why?  Because she is easily recognizable and people identify her with the philanthropic, caring brand that she’s built up over the past 20 years.  It’s no longer about politics.

The goal is now to become a strong brand with a simple, one or two word description.  Sort of like a weird poltical word-association game or bizarre psychological test.  According to a report from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released last week, words frequently associated with Hillary are “good,” “husband,” or “Bill.”  Obama’s descriptors include “inexperienced.”  McCain is associated with Vietnam.

A good bet in the coming months is that the campaigns will be dedicating a lot of time to these few choice words–looking to change and improve them.  May the best brand win.

Old Medium, New Campaign Tool

Last Thursday’s New York Times highlighted an interesting phenomenon among the growing crop of presidential candidates–almost all of them have published a book.

Referring to this trend as “candidate lit,” the article looks at books’ effectiveness as campaign tools.  The verdict?  They can be handy.  Successful books can offer the candidate another infusion of cash, build his or her credibility and create a name and a brand.

As The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, proves, some can be very successful.  Others, such as George W. Bush’s A Charge to Keep, are not.

What’s noteworthy about this article is the idea that a book and its accompanying publicity tour can serve as both a boot camp for campaigning as well as a means to measure public support.

I think that these are definitely valid points, but there’s a flaw in the plan.  It’s highly unlikely that these books will appeal to the general public.  These are books that will be read by those who dwell within the DC Fishbowl–the media and political elite.  Jane Doe will probably not want to spend the time or money to learn more about a little-known politician.  Of course, there are the exceptions that become best sellers, but these are few and far between.

However, while the group that will read these books may be small, it is very influential.  By placing candidates’ views and intentions in their hands, campaigns are helping to inform and frame the national political dialogue.

This story dovetails nicely with another from Sunday’s Times, stating that the Daily Show and Colbert Report are key targets for book tours supporting “serious” tomes.  What better way to kill two birds with one stone than to promote your book to Jon Stewart while over a million of young voters tune in?

What this means, to me, is that, like college applications, it is growing increasingly important for politicians to have “extracurriculars” through which the public can get to know them.  The largest obstacle in campaigning is that people do not trust politicians.  By taking the candidates out of this context and offering a different side of their personality, you’re giving the public something more human to connect to.

The best example of this? (Say it with me) Al Gore.  Not only does he have a couple of books under his belt, but he also has an Oscar winning movie.  Plus, he’s expected to release two more books this spring.  While there are a lot of factors to take into account (chiefly, America’s disillusionment with Bush), there is no denying that Gore is more popular than ever.  People have connected with him, like him, and respect him.  Now they are desperate for him to run for President, as illustrated during Sunday’s Academy Awards.

Is there a lesson in this?  I don’t know.  Maybe everyone should have a film.  On second thought, maybe not.

Really?

Even though it’s a week-old story, I feel I need to comment on the whole Clinton-Geffen-Obama  dust up.  This is news?  Really?  Petty sniping between fundraisers, candidates and their campaigns seems to be pretty routine. 

What I am surprised about is the untempered venom with which Clinton’s campaign, specifically Howard Wolfson, the communications director, responded.  We still have more than a year before the parties officially nominate their presidential candidates, and more than eighteen months until the 2008 general election.  Viscious mudslinging so early in the cycle does not bode well for anyone.  Plus, it has undermined the candidates’ promise to avoid name-calling and run positive campaigns, returning them to politics as usual. 

According to the New York Times, Clinton’s campaigned responded so swiftly because they were worried about the effect of Geffen’s comments on average voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Again, I am forced to ask, really?  Does the average voter in the heartland really know who David Geffen is?  Do they care what he thinks?  Will it really affect their voting a year from now? 

Since Clinton’s campaign pounced so aggressively, this probably became a bigger story than it would have been if they had let it slide.  So now the campaign has just shot itself in the foot–those average voters they are so concerned about are being barraged by this story.  The result?  The campaign’s biggest fear–they will learn about Geffen and his history with the Democratic party. 

Perhaps the wise move in this case would have been a little bit of patience to see where the story went, and maybe a more measured response.  Granted, as a communications professional, you want to stay ahead of the story, but sometimes it’s better to wait.

The Scandal That Wasn’t

Turns out that the controversies surrounding intellectual property, trademark, and copyright law are not exclusive to the recording and film industries–they can pop up in politics as well. 

Last week, the GOP distributed a press release stating that video clips featured on Nancy Pelosi’s web site violated copyright and trademark law.  In their efforts to take advantage of online video, Pelosi’s staff used YouTube clips of Congressional debate about the Iraq War for their blog.  The problem, according to the Republican Study Committee (RSC) was that the clips clearly displayed C-SPAN’s logo.  The group claimed, after speaking to a C-SPAN representative, that this violated C-SPAN’s copyright.

Unfortunately for the RSC, this was incorrect, since the footage was shot by cameras owned by Congress and was in the public domain.  The release was retracted two hours later and left the RSC looking a little foolish, but offering an important lesson.

The timing of the release followed a long line of accusations leveled against Pelosi since she took the post of Speaker of the House.  While the RSC had every right to believe that they were correct (based on the C-SPAN representative’s response), they wound up looking like just another kid jumping on the dog pile to beat up on the Democrats. 

However, organizations and individuals eager to embrace blogs and online videos, but who who may lack expertise in these areas, should take note.  In adopting these tools, they are also opening themselves up to the problems associated with them.  While this content may be useful or even educational, bloggers and web site producers must be certain they are not violating the rights of others.  Failure to do so can lead to a number of headaches and potential embarrassment from the ensuing controversy should someone challenge them. 

So, not only do politicians need to worry about the content of their messages online, but also how they are delivered.  If they run afoul of intellectual property law, their message will be lost amid criticism and accusations of stealing others’ content.  In Pelosi’s case, her critics were incorrect, so she was spared most of the bad press that would follow these accusations and her opponents wound up with egg on their faces.  But it’s clear that in addition to the number of specialists politicians and government officials must have on their staffs, they must now also consult with experts in these areas to protect themselves online and in the public eye.