First thing I want to say is this is not a political discussion. The last thing I want this particular post to be about is party priorities and who's the best candidate. The reason I'm writing this post is to talk about the image from a design standpoint that Obama has been able to create. Because I don't want this to turn into a political ad I will not put Obama's imagery on this blog - but if you haven't seen any of it (which I would have a hard time believing) do a little research on the web.
Obama's team has assembled such a great collection of graphic imagery to represent their candidate that it's hard to even believe that it's politics. The approach has been more of a brand instead of a political candidate. A couple of the popular designs are even propaganda like in their conception. Is this changing politics? Of course it is. By approaching the candidate as a brand instead of a person with ideals you take the actual thought process out of the "selection" process. Look at brands like Apple and Nike as a couple of examples. The younger generations identify with these brands regardless of the reality of the company itself. Ipods are successful because of their ad campaigns and a couple unique product developments 8 years ago. Is their product sooo much better than any new products - not really, but their brand is. (FYI - I'm a huge Apple fan). So as the younger generations make their decisions based more and more on image, brand for political candidates becomes that much more important. I wish that this wasn't the case. I wish that every single voter in this country made their decision based on "their" beliefs for this country instead of party affiliations or who someone else tells them to vote for. And I really hate that fact that any individual will support or back a candidate because of their brand without even doing the research to find out what the candidate is all about. In this modern day of clothing labels and brand names plastered all over America's youth it's not hard to wonder why we find it necessary to put candidates t-shirts on 9 year olds. Is there a point where we've gone to far? Are candidates going to start partnering with applesauce companies to make sure their brand gets developed for the future? Where do we draw the line? So bravo to the democrats for a great brand. To the republications, where is your brand development. It's obvious that regardless of how good or crappy your "product" is a great brand can still be sold to anyone. Is it going to be the case in the future that any empty suit with a great brand will win elections in America? Let's hope not. Let's hope that politics will get back to the fundamentals of what voters want for their future, for their country and for their wellbeing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
This is so true. While I think that Obama's ads and designs (especially the t-shirts) are pretty cool for a politician, I ponder on the same question that you ask. Does this mean that people will just vote because of the brand? If that is the case, we are in a sad state. People should vote on what they believe. Political parties and branding should not even impact that decision. It'll be interesting to see what kind of impact this branding has on the voting process. And, like you said, does this mean that future presidential candidates will brand themselves on food products?
This notion presupposes that everyone is making their decision based on the brand and not the fact that they happen to agree with the "ideas" of the person behind that brand. Yes, I will agree that brand identity goes a long way, we see that every day, but that does not mean that every good branding campaign is making up for hollow values. Sometimes people with a message and good ideas happen to "get it" on branding as well! Sometimes you can have a complete package.
Post a Comment