I was at the New York Times building in Manhattan last Thursday, waiting to meet with advertising columnist Stuart Elliott. The lobby was crowded, mostly with people who were lined up to buy copies of Wednesday’s post-election paper. Observing so many people who wanted a keepsake of Tuesday’s pivotal election, I had three seemingly disparate observations on the events of the week: the awesome significance of the election of the first African-American President, the power of the Obama “brand,” and the value people still attach to paper-based media at such a momentous time.
I had not intended to write a post on the results of the presidential campaign. I figured plenty of other people would be publishing their opinions, and I was right. Now that Barack Obama is president-elect, many marketing commentators are pointing out the lessons for marketers.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Obama brand is a strong one, not just here in the United States but around the world. But I think many commentators focus on the mechanics of his campaign rather than his overall strategy. For a brand to make significant progress in any market, it must disrupt the status quo. Obama did just that.
Obama recognized that he couldn’t win if he played the game in the customary way. So he changed the rules. Jack Welch comments on this in the current issue of BusinessWeek, pointing out that while Hilary Clinton was playing to win the big state primaries in New York, California, and Ohio, Obama managed to gain ground by winning the often overlooked caucuses. Welch goes on to draw a parallel with business:
The business analog couldn’t be more apt. So often, companies think they’ve nailed execution by doing the same old “milk run” better and better. But winning execution means doing the milk run perfectly—and finding new customers and opening new markets along the way. You can’t just beat your rivals by the old rules; to grow, you have to invent a new game and beat them at that, too. (Click here to read the full column.)
So over the past two years Obama convinced people who were discouraged and frustrated with the status quo that he had something truly different to offer.
In this respect, the positioning of Obama’s campaign was spot on. The messages of “change” and “hope” resonated with those who thought the country was on the wrong path. Al Ries, commentating in AdAge, suggests that the Obama campaign had the merits of simplicity, consistency and relevance. Indeed it resonated so well that Obama’s opponents, whether McCain or Clinton, were forced to try to match it.
Those in charge of the Obama campaign also recognized that there was a significant opportunity to shift the battle for votes from the last few days of the campaign to earlier in the process. As Pete Snyder points out, by the time Election Day actually rolled around, over 30% of the entire electorate of America had already voted.
Obama’s use of the new media was instrumental in helping voters make up their minds earlier. Quoted in Wired magazine, Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of the nonprofit think-tank NDN states, “[Obama's] run a campaign where he’s used very modern tools, spoke to a new coalition, talked about new issues, and along the way, he’s reinvented the way campaigns are run.”
And that brings me back to people lining up to by a paper copy of The New York Times.
Given the prominent role that online and mobile played in Obama’s campaign, it is interesting to note that people did not consider a text message or a copy of the headline on a Web page to be a suitable memento of the event. They wanted a hard copy of The New York Times. Digital communications, while immensely powerful at reaching out and motivating people at a point in time, apparently still lack the permanence, the gravitas and the authenticity of paper-based media.
I confidently expect all news media to migrate to a digital format. I have written on this before. (Click here to see post.) As a result we will gain flexibility and immediacy, but in the process we will lose the specificity of something printed on a particular date to celebrate a particular event. But then, I am sure that comment was made centuries ago, when someone suggested that information might better be recorded by being written on papyrus rather than being baked onto clay tablets. What do you think?
(3 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
November 10th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Sorry Nigel, Obama didn’t disrupt the status quo. The financial markets did that all by themselves. Prior to that point in time, the presidential race was close (2 pts)
Change is not a new message for politicians looking to break in. However, what was transformational was Obama’s use of social/web media to build a phenomenal grass roots organization that executed the strategy and stayed on course throughout the campaign - unlike McCain.
When the press announced that September’s campaign contribution pull for Obama was $150 million versus McCain’s $45 million, the race was over. The people had bought the brand they wanted.
They say that chance favors a prepared mind, but Obama was handed some exceptionally strong trump cards - a financial nuclear meltdown that blew its toxic mushroom cloud over onto the Main Street economy, a disenfranchised middle class, a highly unpopular outgoing president, an opponent that lost credibility by his poor/unfavorable choice of a running mate, Oprah, SNL … with all of this wind in his sails - how could Obama have possibly lost?
Not taking anything away from Obama - in fact if I were American I would have voted for him - but as a brand he was up against a tainted product recall. And as a brand of the Web 2.0 world, his (in fact every) political team will continue to redefine the 1.0 playbook. Here’s a taste of what’s in store - check out this this “get the vote out” viral campaign. It’s imply amazing!
Miro