Thom Hartmann on Branding/Framing for Democrats

[BlueInRed]

A lot of people have been talking about framing and branding. Hartmann talks about the same thing using basic marketing principles. He says FDR and LBJ used branding to win landslides, but today's Ds have forgotten the art of branding.

Maybe in addition to Clinton's charism, one other thing he did was good branding. I always came away from his speeches thinking he was for the average American. Maybe this is one of the missing links to finding a good candidate, it's charisma, experience and good branding/framing.

Progressives and Democrats: Assert Your Brand!
by Thom Hartmann

~snip~

Politics is all about branding. And brands are not about issues or details - they're about identity.

...Like any good brand, the words "Republican" and "conservative" evoke feelings as much as pictures. The main feeling is one of identity: "My tribe." The main picture is the brand's logo - the American flag. At a deeper level, they carry pictures, stories, and feelings of NASCAR, Budweiser, the American flag, "standing tough" and "standing tall" in the world, and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps .

Not only are most Republican voters largely unaware of the details of the issues facing our nation, studies show that most are badly misinformed. In some part this is the fault of the media, but the larger reason is that when a person has bonded to a brand, it becomes part of their identity. They then develop a psychologically sophisticated and largely unconscious internal system to filter out and reject contradictory information.

Progressives, liberals, and Democrats have failed to apply this simple reality, and therefore have allowed conservatives to define our brands for us. The very sophisticated effort to do this has been led by Gingrich, Luntz, and Limbaugh, three men who understand the psychology of branding, and have used it to sell the Republican party and the word "conservative" to Americans with all the zeal - and all the cash - used by other famous brands like Coke, Levi's, and Wal-Mart.

This is not rocket science, and it's not a secret. There's an entire industry devoted to teaching these concepts (in which I worked for two decades). . . .The largest lights of the Democratic Party - it's founder, Thomas Jefferson, and it's two most famous recent presidents, FDR and LBJ - knew their brand and their identity, and brought the majority of Americans along with them. The largest landslide Democratic election victories of the 20th century were FDR's after he introduced the New Deal, and LBJ's after he introduced the Great Society. Their logo was the flag, and their identity was average working people, and those who aspire to the economic and educational middle class.
~snip~

Continued at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0210-26.htm

[illini]

1. You gota love Thom.

I wish AA would pick him up for a slot.

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. This looks helpful in the coming essential campaigns to get the truth out

to the people who aren't already among the "converted" here onthe internet in activist communities like DU.

When we write all those LTTEs and articles and talks, we need to BEGIN by choosing the framing language very carefully indeed. The blivet** admin thugs have been busily painting us into a corner by using branding that puts them in the desirable psychological categories (responsibility, community, safety and so forth) and us on the outside (conspiracy theorists, "liberals," bitter-enders).

Witness what they'redoing with Gannongate. Wolf Blitzer interviewed first Howie Kurtz and then "Gannon" himself and converted the whole story to one in which "liberal bloggers" viciously attacked poor "Gannon" because of his political beliefs, terrifying him so much that for the good of his family (his mother and his brother) he had to quit Talon. Absolutely amazing. Nothing about any of the facts in the case, all lies and slant. "Gannon" even managed to force a few tears during his Blitzer interview.

This not only is designed to protect the administration from what would come out of a Gannongate probe, it's also a salvo in the coming attack on internet freedom. Rile up the public against those scary, vicious "liberal bloggers," and before you know it, the compliant Rethug majorities in Congress will pass law that will make communities like DU and free access to true information near-impossible. They want to plug this loophole while they bind down the last vestiges of eroded democracy in this country.

Part of fighting back has to be reframing the debate. We can't fight on their chosen ground, it's biased to begin with. So I welcome this article and thank you for posting it.

[BlueInRed]

3. desirable psychological categories -- excellent way to put it

You hit the nail on the head when you said the Rs use "branding that puts them in the desirable psychological categories (responsibility, community, safety and so forth)and us on the outside (conspiracy theorists, "liberals," bitter-enders)."

That is EXACTLY what they are doing. In a way, you made it even clearer that Thom by pointing out some of the labels (brands) we have going right now.

[baron j]

19. looks like they are trying to scare people away from blogging, at all:

snip

Free Expression Can Be Costly When Bloggers Bad-Mouth Jobs

http://tinyurl.com/5u4rb

(Sorry for linking to it at yahoo, but WAPO seems to be down for maintenance right now).

Fear, fear, fear!

Truly scary. Makes me want to blog more and more.

[AP]

4. Psst. Edwards was doing all this during the primaries.

It's too bad that he didn't have a little more time and money. It's too bad that he wasn't the VP choice in 2000. That probably would have given him just enough steam to get past Kerry (and Gore probably would have won had Edwards been the VP).

Well, anyway, if this is what Hartman wants, and if Edwards runs again, then Hartman is going to get what he wants.

[BlueInRed]

5. I agree about 2000

I know Gore considered him and from what I heard, wanted to choose him but thought he was too inexperienced. In my 20/20 hindsight, I think Edwards would have been much better in the debate with Cheney, much better on the trail and would have created an energetic dynamic with Gore.

When Clinton and Gore ran together in 92, they had a real synergy and just kind of exuded enthusiasm and hope. I think Edwards would have put Gore more in that mindset than Joe, and that alone could have made a difference. Plus having Edwards involved on message wouldn't have been a bad thing at all.

[cobaindrain]

22. Edwards was too inexperienced in 2000

I believe it was only his 2nd year of politics, and while JRE is a fast learner, it was too big a risk for Gore. Lieberman was not as bad a pick as everybody made him out to be, a lot of it was revisionist history based on Joe's putrid repug lite display in the 04 primaries. Ultimately the best VP candidate in 2000 would've been Richard Gephardt.

[BlueInRed]

6. NYT has article on teaching Dems to talk about their values

On the same basic topic, the NYT has an article, Democrats Getting Lessons in Speaking Their Values, http://nytimes.com/2005/02/11/politics/11values.html.

snip
"Republicans talk about tort reform, but nobody talks about the tort justice system," Mr. Lakoff said. Of the Democrats he said: "I urged them to talk in details of their values, but they're not used to talking that way. They're used to talking in terms of programs, and that's a disaster."
snip

I guess this is actually a little distinct from the branding stuff, but it all seems to be the same theme.

[sandnsea]

7. Benefits without features

This is an excellent article. As usual with liberals, it gets windy in the middle and you have to slug through it to get back on track. But he's completely right regarding branding. The Republican party has branded us and people who vote Republican are voting against what they perceive to be liberal.

But his article also clearly points out another problem, features. He thinks the Democratic Party has these features:

"Most progressives know all the features they're interested in: Universal single payer health care, a viable social safety net, prison and sentencing reform, a livable wage, support for unions and the repeal of Taft-Hartley and its heirs, voting (and voting machine) reforms, revoking corporate personhood and getting corporate money out of politics, moral leadership in the world, and working for a reduction of crime and poverty at home and towards stable, lasting worldwide peace (to name a few)."

Most people wouldn't include all of these as Democratic Party features and wouldn't put most of them at the top of the list. Perhaps we could brand easier if the Greens branded as Greens and Dems branded as Dems and we came together as necessary to elect Senators and the President. Or, we agree on the brand and learn to compromise on the features.

[BlueInRed]

8. I agree and think FDR's list was better than Hartmann's

I thought what FDR said still applied today:

snip
The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are :

"Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.

"Jobs for those who can work.

"Security for those who need it.

"The ending of special privilege for the few.

"The preservation of civil liberties for all.

"The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

"These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations."
snip

[sandnsea]

9. Well, hell yes

We could probably add a couple of quotes on international relations and defense; but otherwise, that's it to me.

And the brand is, "Beacon of Light"

[DirtyDawg]

10. Branding Smanding...

...as someone that has also spent more than a few years beating the drum for corporate understanding and commitment to 'brand strategy', I've got to say that after all those years of preaching, I've come to believe that applying all those catch words and jargon: Brand...Nomenclature...Hierarchy...Benefits...Positioning Statement...and it goes on and on endlessly, believe me...
trivializes what's at the core of it all. Another thing I've come to believe about this 'branding thing', is that the more you peal back the layers of the vernacular, the easier it is to get people to understand and accept it...to, in fact, 'get it'.

Take Andrew Card's off-handed reference to not talking up the Iraq war until September because everybody knew that you don't launch a new product, or 'brand', or campaign, in the Summer. Must we fall into the trap of having to put all this in Business School Marketing parlance? Hell, haven't the CEO President and his minions bastardized it enough?

No, I think it's time to call a spade a spade. To hell with 'The Brand'. This is more fundamental than any marketing terminology...this is about the country's soul. This is about WHAT WE STAND FOR. You can call it 'identity' if you wish and you can break it down into a list of 'attributes' that describe you, but in the end you must ask yourself - no you must know and believe in your gut - WHAT TRULY MATTERS...AND DOES IT MATTER TO OTHERS?

Maybe Hartmann and I are saying the same thing, but frankly adopting the language of bushco makes my skin crawl. I'd rather adopt the language of our founding fathers and of what's been accepted as 'good' throughout history...but that's just me and I needed to get it off my chest.

[BlueInRed]

11. It doesn't matter to me what it's called, branding, framing, etc

I just want to see us focus on getting our language and identity right. We have ask ourselves why so many Americans agree with the Democratic position on most issues (which polling reflects they do, as long as it's not identified as the Democratic position), but then vote the other way. I think the Democratic position is far more moral and American than the Republican, but a lot of voters don't seem to agree at the ballot box.

I guess I figure if tweaking our language and learning a few basic marketing principles will help this country get back on track, it is well worth it. This old dog is willing to learn a new trick for the good of the country.

[DirtyDawg]

13. You're Right BinR...

...to 'coin' one of those phrases that I so detest, I suppose we're in 'violent agreement'.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

14. Hey BlueInRed. The Blue vs Red meme is part of the dividing scam!

I'm sorry to point out that your own DU handle is part of the problem.

Dividing Americans into two opposing camps like sports teams is part of the tactic of obscuring the common humanity in us and demonizing the 'other side.'

Here is something I just posted about the Ward Churchill flap that applies:
>snip<

Most Americans don’t realize that they have a fake president who is asked fake questions about a fake war by fake reporters like 'Jeff Gannon.'

This is applies to Bush** supporters, too. Churchill failed to make this distinction and fanned the emotional fire and smoke which is used to hide the truth from Americans and demonize other truth-tellers.

This is something I keep trying to highlight by showing how propaganda from the CIA/Corporate-steered press manipulates Americans into supporting atrocities while thinking they are virtues.

This is the same moral distinction made in saying "support the troops, not the war."

Our troops have also been lied to and are attempting to do 'the right thing' with the self-sacrifice of their own lives and their families based on what they know, just what the White House/Media complex tells them.

Churchill's crass words were successfully used to distract from the release of two things:

1) The 9/11 Ommission Panel report showing pre-knowledge of the threat to air traffic.
http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
(Operation Vigilant Warrior)

2) The CIA papers released showing the US took in five assistants of Nazi Adolph Eichmann after WWII.
http://test.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/536364.html

The keyword 'Eichmann' was cleverly played on so even people using search engines would get the Churchill story as a result instead of the CIA story of US-Nazi complicity 50 years ago which Prescott Bush was part of.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040513-052654-5254r
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2
http://web.archive.org/web/20011225163401/www.mbpolitics.com/bush2000/VestingExplain.htm#10

These bastards in the White House know how to play every mistake made by their detractors in their favor.

We must learn from this and do better by the American people we want to protect by informing them of the White Houses's deadly scam.

To do this, we need to protect our own moral credibility as well by recognizing that most Americans don't know how their country is being destroyed right in front of them with the elimination of the Bill of Rights and a free press.

We must reach out to Republicans and even 'Reagan Democrats' with good information to show we care about them and want a united America, united against lying torturing stealing murdering sons-of-bitches like Saddam Hussein AND George W. Bush**.

[BlueInRed]

15. Actually, if you've read many of my posts

you'd know I generally talk of purple states, not red and blue. I have also posted a lot on how the stereotypes of people in "red" states are not very accurate and that they are not the enemy and are actually pretty nice, caring people in a whole lot of ways. It's strange to see some of these people voting for someone like Bush.

I chose my name as a way to convey to the people on this Democratic board that I live in a state where we are losing voters. Since I often post on ways to get people to cross over from Republican to Democratic, this name allows people to know I live around exactly the kind of voters we are losing. I think it is hard sometimes for people who live in solidly Democratic areas to understand what the people are really like in the so-called red states.

I agree it is a purple map, not simply red/blue, but I find my name useful in letting people know my background.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

17. Cool. Thanks for the expansion on the theme. We're on the same page.

I think this is the hardest thing for DU-ers to get. We need to both understand Repubs and learn from them while we show them what 'we' are made of.

Unfortunately, it is easier to play 'us vs. them' and be against something than for it.

So finding the common enemies Americans share, violence-corruption-pollution-ignorance-hatred, will probably accomplish this.

[Clark2008]

21. Bravo.

I am also a blue voter in a red state.
One of my pet peeves has always been the backwards perception people not from the South and mid-West have about those of us who are.
I think it stems from the fact that I worked in a tourist area and saw some of it firsthand (once, I was interviewing a local shopkeeper and a couple with a distinctly Northern accent came in and asked, in subdued tones, where they could go to see the "hillbillies." I guess they thought there were whole hoardes of us about with overalls, no shoes, long beards and moonshine jugs. LOL!)
I think people like you and I know what appeals to voters here - and it's not necessarily a "liberal" or "conservative" point of view. Sometimes it's simply understanding, compassion, passion and overriding the very conservative media we have down here.

[UL_Approved]

18. People need a summary

Your rant about branding and a deviation from "purist" philosophy may be true, but if we don't have a clear and solid platform to run on, how will we ever.

We can talk about the dirty business of marketing, but people need a summary and image to follow in this nation. Humans cannot operate effectively without having some information, and most don't have time to do the necessary research. If we can't provide something as a clear and effective alternative to the GOP, we will never get ahead.

The moral high ground is gone, and we are forced to fight in the trenches. We need catch phrases, selling points, and a "Presidential" leader. Nothing else works, and history is the proof.

[KissMeKate]

12. at this point,. my brand is green.

When the Democrats start repudiating the laissez faire free market religion of the WTO, I might consider going Blue.

[yurbud]

16. great one

[BlueInRed]

20. This quote from Arnold about selling politics is really relevant to this

This article is about Arnold using movie selling techniques to sell his policies. It seemed right on point to this discussion about branding / framing / selling political ideas.

~snip~
In an age when the blurring of entertainment and reality is taken for granted, Mr. Schwarzenegger has gone one step farther, blending Hollywood marketing into his governorship in a way that makes them almost indistinguishable.

"You have to do more than just go and have a little press conference," Mr. Schwarzenegger said in a recent telephone interview. "So the spectacle, showmanship, selling, promoting, marketing, publicizing, all of those things are extremely important."

He started doing this years ago in Hollywood, he recalled. "We did all of this to make the people pay attention, the same as in this thing," he added, in a reference to politics. "You also have to think about how you can sell the policy, how can we get it so that everyone in California at home starts paying attention to it?"

Peter Sealey, a former marketing president at Columbia Pictures who is now an adjunct professor of business at the University of California, Berkeley, said, "He is marketing the governorship just like he did 'Terminator 3.' "

~snip~
Continued at http://nytimes.com/2005/02/13/fashion/13arno.html

[Democrat Dragon]

23. i've been yapping about this for a loooooong time

Only to be ridiculed.

I call recall explaining how the GOP comes from the hostile world of big business and how they bring it into the political office. People responded with "they just lazy assholes who cheat all the time". Yes, they do cheat but most of the "cheating" is actually branding, framing, martketing, nitpicking, exagerration, strategy, direct mailing, demographic studies, focus groups, and of course, real cheating.

[BlueInRed]

24. I won't ridicule you!!! :) You're right!

I'm glad others like you are trying to spread the message. :hi:

[sunnystarr]

25. While I agree that packaging is important ...

so is the truth. We Americans aren't stupid and can spot sincerity when we see it. I watched Kerry throughout the campaign and all too often he didn't come across any more sincere than Bush. Americans respond to the truth ... witness the success of Perot and Ventura. Unfortunately Kerry hemmed and hawed too much at crucial interviews and didn't take a firm stand. Of course these were the clips that were played over and over again. In spite of this Kerry would have won if not for Blackwell. It would have been a landslide if Kerry hadn't given the MSM the opportunity to capitalize on his nuanced moments that the RNC packaged for them.

Dems have it right now tho. Start from the grassroots up and don't leave any state out. Our message has to be clear and carried by every Dem in their communities, emails, phone calls, etc. The MSM is never going to help the Dem message get out to people. It's obvious that they have aligned with the neocons. I believe that Dean will do a fantastic job getting our message together and out there.

What the Dems don't seem to be doing that the Pukes are is distributing talking points so that at least a coordinated message is out there at every opportunity. Don't we have pundits that can actually deliver our message? Where are they getting these lameO's? I watched 2 lame ones yesterday who were on with Fund representing the other side that set me screaming at my TV. We sure have to do better.

[BlueInRed]

26. I don't view it as a lack of sincerity or lack of grassroots

And I for one am very glad Dean is a proponent of the Lackoff/Hartmann techniques. Dean is precisely why I became interested in this issue in the first place. All along he has been about talking about our values and policies differently, rather than this constant talk of shifting around on issues trying to find exactly the right position. And he also believes we can persuade people in all 50 states if we do it correctly. We don't have to be insincere to use good marketing techiques.

I think Hartmann is dead on when he quoted FDR as a master salesman who knew exactly what the Democrats are all about. See my posts above on what FDR had to say.

On the talking points stuff, I completely agree with you. We should have a unified, coordinated message that everyone knows and can recite at a moment's notice. :hi:

[BlueInRed]

27. kick for Hartmann's insight!