Learning From Political Marketing and Vice Versa – Authenticity in Rebranding

How can you tell if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

This article is the third in a series identifying direct observation and analysis from political marketing and its application to customer marketing and vice versa.

Please note that neither this nor any other article in this series attempts to make a political statement. I'm neither advancing nor supporting any candidate or political party in these articles. Instead, this is about marketing—pure and simple—and what we can learn from each other.

Last week, I wrote about reports that the Democratic Party and media are rebranding Vice President Kamala Harris in her presidential run.

I addressed re- versus pro-sitioning, altering the blueprint for developing a brand.

Repositioning is typically "reactive” behavior to (alarming or consistent) sales, market share, and profit declines. It usually necessitates a radical or revolutionary change to an entirely new position.

Pro-sitioning begins while the brand is healthy and before a business declines. It evolves the brand rather than making revolutionary changes.

Repositioning and pro-sitioning direct the “branding” efforts. Branding manifests the intent of the change in brand positioning strategy—regardless of whether it is re- or pro-sitioning.

However, if the branding effort is purposely made inconsistent with the intent, it is a deception designed to get votes or make sales.

It's inauthentic. It's a bald-faced lie!

What happens when we deceive customers? They exit the brand.

What happens when we deceive voters? Hopefully, they vote you out of office.

Changing the branding without changing the intent of the candidate or a brand is not just deceptive; it is also unethical.

Legal and regulatory bodies such as the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) litigate against and punish brands for deceptive promises.

Unfortunately, many politicians from both parties lie to win votes without intending to fulfill promises.

They promise what voters want to hear.

So, we must determine if what they promise is consistent with what they've done (where they have a record).

Be true to your strategic intent and promise.

If not, it’s buyer and voter beware!

THINK ABOUT IT

• What is Kamala Harris' "rebranding"? Is it repositioning or pro-sitioning?
• Might you state her new positioning strategy? In other words, where has she been, and where is she now going?
• What initiatives is the Harris campaign undertaking that manifests the new positioning strategy?
• Has Donald J. Trump changed his positioning strategy? If so, how?
• What brands have successfully rebranded either through re- or pro-sitioning?
• What is the one critical initiative that has led to the successful rebranding of those brands??

MAKE YOUR MARKETING MATTER (EVEN) MORE

1. Choose pro-positioning over repositioning to capitalize on past success and exploit new growth opportunities.
2. Direct all branding activities consistent with the revised brand positioning strategy.
3. Be a good steward of your brand. Use the brand positioning strategy statement to filter all proposed initiatives.
4. Be authentic. Only employ those initiatives that deliver the brand positioning strategy.

Interested in reading my follow-up articles on this subject and all matters marketing? Please follow me on LinkedIn https://www.dhirubhai.net/in/richarddczerniawski/, where I share my perspectives from more than 50 years of successful worldwide “brand” marketing experience across many business sectors.

To learn more about creating a winning brand positioning strategy, read COMPETITIVE POSITIONING - Best Practices for Creating Brand Loyalty, by Richard D. Czerniawski and Michael W. Maloney, and my latest book, AVOIDING CRITICAL MARKETING ERRORS – How to Go from Dumb to Smart Marketing, where I brand positioning in greater detail. Both are available on AMAZON.

Peace and best wishes in making your marketing matter (even) more,

Richard D. Czerniawski