George Romanyk
'Veni, vidi, vici," the Latin phrase coined by Julius Caesar in 47 BC, translates as "I came, I saw, I conquered". Caesar's terse remarks proclaimed his victory and reminded everyone of his military prowess. As a slogan, it has endured for over two millennia and is inextricably linked to Caesar "the brand" much as the slogan; "Just do it" is linked to the Nike today.
Branding in its most widely understood sense has always had a political role. Slogans, which are now used to promote everything from shampoo to instant noodles, originated as rallying cries of warring factions (the word itself is Gaelic and means "war cry"). Who could argue that the Nazi party or the Communist Party of the former Soviet Union did not present strongly branded identities? The graphic image of Che{aac} Guevara, a communist revolutionary, is one of the most enduring politically inspired brand images.
Colours have also played a central role in differentiating political parties and ideologies. Much like colour being used throughout history to differentiate soldiers from opposing armies, so it is today used for political parties. Witness the yellow campaigns of Cory Aquino in the Philippines, and more recently the orange revolution in the Ukraine. Closer to home, yellow has also taken on an important role in Thailand.
Historically, however, as on the supermarket shelves, branding techniques were used to reinforce and communicate fundamental points of difference in politics. The west has a long history of applying the same tools to sway popular opinion about political issues as manufacturers use to market their wares to their consumers. They use sophisticated polling techniques, customer segmentation, demographics, psychographics and so on. The classic Dustin Hoffman and Robert de Niro movie Wag the Dog illustrated the power public relations has in shaping opinion.
Branding is now taken seriously in politics and good political brands stand for a clear ideology.
Successful political identity allows people to form a relationships with the party _ relationships that may be passed on from generation to generation. For the vast majority of people, their politics are decided by their parents and peers. It's only when their brand no longer delivers the results that they look to a new product to take its place.
Branding is an essential political tool if the aim is to create repeat positive contact. Politics is more clearly aspirational. It seems that solid aspirational branding spiced with some easy deliverable is acceptable in politics. But is it this easy?
Thailand is on the eve of a general election and the campaigning is starting to warm up. Political parties, their alliances and campaign positioning are perhaps in their embryonic form and still fluid. Apart from the usual colours being incorporated in their graphics, no clear differentiating slogans have emerged as yet. Well, except for the recent Palang Prachachon's (People's Power Party) "Choose Samak, get Thaksin" campaign slogan.
We are beginning to see product parity in the political arena just as in the consumer goods arena; policy is converging, and the key differences between the major political parties are attitudinal, rather than substantial.
Political parties need to use the communication tools that members of society understand, recognise and interact with. Perhaps the "carpet bombing" technique of the past (that is, plastering the streets with millions of political posters) is no longer the way to communicate the real differences among political parties in Thailand. As with branding, what is needed will be clear platforms to reach target groups more effectively.
Successful brands allow three things to happen _ customer inspiration, involvement and reward _ all attributes needed to allow democracy. The lead-up to the Dec 23 election and beyond would hopefully allow these three things to happen. In this season when advertising shops and their respective media companies rub their hands with glee at the expected financial windfall they will receive from the election, the leader/party/brand that delivers on these three is likely to be the brand leader and win.
Branding is about perception and in any political campaign, perception is what really matters to get the votes flowing in. As to whether the politician is a good performer in reality, that's another branding challenge altogether.
George Romanyk is chief executive officer of the brand consultancy Creative Inhouse, and Regional Director for Asia Pacific of ICOM, the leading global independent advertising agency association, email george@inhouse.co.th
— thebangkokpost.com
Politics and branding
FE Team | Published: October 20, 2007 00:00:00 | Updated: February 01, 2018 00:00:00
Share if you like