Skip to main content

Democratic Branding is Not an Oxymoron

After decades spent shooting themselves in the foot, Democrats are finally learning what Republicans have known for fifty years: marketing matters.

There’s a billboard up in Times Square — a huge red, white, and blue electronic display. High tech, high visibility, letters several stories high, spelling out:

“Thank You Joe Biden and Democrats.”

Imagine that. Democrats taking credit for something. Democrats letting people know who’s responsible for that cash in their pockets and those shots in their arms.

Admittedly, Times Square isn’t the media powerhouse it was pre-pandemic. But still. We’re talking Democrats. Democrats take blame better than credit. Or they used to. Now they seem to be doing real marketing. They’re putting out a coherent brand and they’re doing it with a degree of sophistication.

Yes, they’ve long had the technology side covered. Yes, they’ve long known how to micro-target the electorate and put out custom messages to each zip code, and yes, that stuff is important.

But up to now, the messages themselves have been mostly inept. They’ve always felt designed by committee, like all the life had been focus-grouped out of them. Often, they felt defensive, like liberal ideas needed to be apologized for.

But finally, the DNC seems to have learned that while reaching an audience is one thing, having something useful to say to that audience is quite another. And to that end, there’s interesting stuff going on.

The tagline — “Build Back Better” — is okay. It has a lot of good ingredients and somebody smart has thought through its multiple meanings. It acts like a good tagline should. It folds all the many ideas and messages going out there into one unifying brand message — without getting in the way. Despite feeling a little clunky, it works just fine.

That’s mostly because Democrats are making it work. They’re making the brand mean something. And they’re using it consistently, from Biden on down.

Jen Psaki is the perfect spokesperson. She articulates the brand in everything she says. She’s smarter than we are, she takes no bullshit from anyone, and she’s quick on her feet. In many ways, she’s already the public face of the Democrats.

And the cool thing is that the messages coming from her — and from the whole administration — aren’t empty. They’re all positive. They all come with promises and workable plans — real products that real people want. Vaccines, healthcare, infrastructure, economy, justice reform, jobs.

Then there’s this, from a highway in Wisconsin:

Right now, these billboards, customized by state, are popping up on major highways, telling motorists exactly which elected officials are delivering in a crisis. And which are not.

And here’s the thing about billboards. In the age of digital media — with all those ad-tech, AI-based, micro-targeted, marketing automation and analytics platforms — you might think the humble billboard is hopelessly low tech and out of touch. Not so.

Billboards can do something few other media can. They can penetrate the Fox bubble. They can talk directly to the Trump base.

Almost alone among media, billboards can reach multiple demographics with the same buy. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, if you drive on the highway, you’ll see a billboard. If you drive that way every day, you might see it every day. To some extent, you’re a captive audience. You can’t turn it off or switch the channel.

If you’re a Trump voter, seeing a billboard won’t sway you. It might even enrage you. But that’s fine. Democrats don’t need you to like the message, just see it. Preferably every day. Because you certainly won’t see it on Fox, and there’s something to be said for having Trump voters experience reality every now and then. Even if they can’t personally relate to it. What other medium can do that?

But Trump voters aren’t even the target for these particular billboards. The primary target, I’m guessing, is low-interest voters. People who think about politics once every four years, if at all. This is a large audience, filled with a lot of Republicans and independents, and even some Democrats — none of them paying much attention.

But a good billboard gets you to pay attention, if only for a few seconds. Will it make an impression? Will it make that same impression twenty times in a month? Who knows? But those impressions have value — advertisers pay good money for them.

And again, these billboards reach everybody who drives by. Which includes committed Democrats, many of whom would like to feel good about something they voted for. For a change. And calling out a jerk like Ron Johnson warms their hearts.

Remember, a big part of our current predicament stems from complacency, from Democrats’ chronic habit — only recently broken — of not showing up to vote. Democrats need constant reminding of what’s at stake. A good billboard is a small but effective way of doing that.

There’s lots of other good stuff going on, especially in the way Democrats are shaping their legislation while marketing it at the same time. It’s all designed to get people to buy in, to give them a stake in what’s happening.

But it’s also designed to put Republicans under pressure, to make them play defense. All the positive messaging shines a harsh light on the nonstop, over-the-top, bad faith obstruction that defines today’s GOP.

It shines an even harsher light on the filibuster. By their actions — especially their voter suppression schemes — Republicans are forcing that issue. A filibuster showdown is now inevitable, not because Democrats are pushing it, but because Republicans are daring them not to.

Which is one reason why the marketing is so important. People need to hear, not just that there’s good stuff in the pipeline, not just that there are real solutions being proposed, but also who’s standing in the way. We can’t just assume they know.

The differences between the parties couldn’t be more glaring, but that’s nothing new. What’s new is a serious effort — professional, coordinated, and strategic — to show voters what they’ve been missing. And why.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Blackmail for Fun and Profit

Once in a while, I like to use this space to indulge in some idle speculation, taking a few what-ifs and seeing where they lead. I tend to do this in response to some stimulus, some ping to my brain. Which is just what Keith Olbermann provided in one of his podcasts last week. He was talking about Jeff Bezos’ upcoming wedding to Lauren Sanchez, the woman with whom Bezos had been having the affair that ultimately ended his marriage. You'll recall that in 2019, Trump operators had a heavy hand in that breakup, having attempted to blackmail Bezos into coercing The Washington Post, which he owns, into covering Trump more obsequiously. It's rare to see such an instance of high-level blackmail surface in public, and we only know about it because Bezos didn't bite. He outed himself, he went public about the whole affair, thereby ending his marriage, which was apparently on the ropes anyway. An unusually happy postscript to this otherwise routine multi-bill

The Mainstream Media Continues to Disappoint

The awkward term "both-siderism" has, at long last, stepped into the limelight, thanks to the graceful gravitas of CNN icon Christiane Amanpour (full disclosure: our dog used to play with her dog). In one brilliant commencement address , to the Columbia School of Journalism, she dope-slapped her own profession and, indeed, her own boss, both of whom richly deserved it. That takes guts, not to mention a reputation for integrity. Both of which she has in abundance. What she said about the "both sides" problem in journalism is nothing new. But to those of us who've been screaming about it for years, it's refreshing to hear it denounced by a mainstream journalist of her stature, in a venue that serves as an incubator of mainstream journalism. While she declined to mention names, there was no doubt about the targets of her irritation. CNN and its chairman, Chris Licht, were still licking their wounds from their treacherous but buffoonish

The Definition of Defamation is Up in the Air

Underlying all the recent commotion surrounding Fox, Tucker Carlson, and the mess they've created for themselves, there's an important legal issue that has flown largely under the radar, but may soon be ready for its closeup. It's a First Amendment issue concerning the meaning of defamation, and the standard that must be met to prove it. The constitutionality of the existing standard was expected to be tested in the Fox-Dominion case, had that case come to trial. But since that didn't happen, I figured it would go back to the back burner. But then, last week, Ron DeSantis had it blow up in his face , giving the whole issue new momentum, and from a surprising direction. His own people took him down. DeSantis had talked his pet legislature into launching an outrageous assault on freedom of the press, eviscerating existing libel laws, and making it easier for public figures — like, say, DeSantis himself— to sue for defamation. One can just imagine DeSantis cackling