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

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I