|The creation of fast acting, upwardly accelerating, new world finding brands. The brand strategy that forces every ounce of growth out of the brand and then some more and right away. This is Rocket Branding.|
It’s the 30% in the middle that needs convincing. The other 10% never seem to matter.
In almost half a century of building branded businesses, I find this rule to be such a great tool. I don’t even know where it came from. Heck, perhaps I made it up.
There is no better example than in politics. And now we may even be seeing a whole new wrinkle in the ‘30 Rule’ with the new Trump White House. Barely two weeks into his Presidency and already it is clear that the word ‘support’ in this definition is inadequate.
Clearly, some 30% do strongly support what President Trump is trying to do. He is doing what he said he would do over the last 18 months. However, there is the other 30% who do not support him at all, indeed they seem to openly hate him at some level. The 30 in the middle clearly have a bit of both. Enough of the ‘middle’ voted for him to win but my guess is that many are just waiting to see what happens before they confirm more support or not.
Interestingly, I see similar phenomena in the upcoming Super Bowl. Typically fans will fall into the three buckets with varying degrees of fanaticism for or against their team, and yes there is passion, but again there seems to be an unusually high amount of angst among the 30% non-supporters especially for the favorite, New England Patriots. Seems you either like them or hate them a lot.
Apparently, the stronger and more dominant those are perceived to be, the more intensely the detractors dectract these days?
I saw the same in the UK last year with Brexit. Those for it were relatively quiet and were able to rally a greater percentage of the middle bucket than the opposition. The opposition though was much more angry and vitriolic … and remains vigilantly so.
So what does all this mean to brand ed businesses and rocketing them?
Firstly, go ahead apply the ‘30 rule’ to your brand market. Yes, I know the specific percentages may change somewhat from brand to brand but think about the principle. You have a brand-building budget. What is the best way to apply it to encourage rocket growth?
A little bit for everyone – lovers, haters, middlers? Costly.
Go after non-supporters who are tending more towards haters today? Good luck with that.
Go after lovers? Hmm, don’t you already have them and especially now as the more the haters hate, the lovers support. Possible waste of money.
Well, how about identifying the potential lovers in the middle and pushing them further into your bucket? That is turning them from supporters to advocates? Thereby expanding the love bucket and hopefully, in doing so, increase brand purchases and frequency. And also importantly provide a bigger antidote to the negativity from the hater camp.
This leads to the second thought.
Beware your brand detractors.
In this new digital world, haters are more vocal and gather as ‘victims-in-arms.’ They can and will mount noisy and emotional campaigns to the middle folk. This can be nasty, personal and disrupting. Trump’s case again.
Of course the term ‘haters’ maybe a tad strong for those negative to your brand. They may just be ambivalent which could be a worse problem. The point remains the same, however. Unless you see the dire need to somehow offset the negative bucket, then we would suggest you aggressively focus on your brand lovers and particularly potential lovers in the middle.
Regarding Trump brand? Well, it is quite simple. His Presidency’s promises are his brand promises. He was elected on those promises and his expected ability to fulfill them. At this stage, if he succeeds in doing what he says he would do, especially with jobs and security, then all is good. If not then his non-supporters will become even more emboldened to hate just that much more.
I do have a final word for him though, and this gets to the heart of his America First position. He has certainly painted the picture of a need to ‘strengthen America again’ but in deference to the globalists, rather than stop there we suggest that he start making the point that a stronger America means a stronger world. Strength starts at home and spreads. If the US is weak then the world is weaker.
What say you?
We at Rocket Branding love this stuff.
Before the barrage of sexual misconduct stories, you could say that the presidential race was still within the confines of the grimy politics of the House of Cards series. Now it,s full-out pop tabloid warfare. Policies forgotten, the media is having their best time ever with Bill Clinton’s dalliances, Hillary’s endless e-mail gaffes and of course Trump’s ‘p**sy grabbing, locker room banter.’ Why even the Kardashians are envious.
Can the Trump brand channel Rodney Dangerfield’s lovable, ‘I get no respect,’ ‘for-the-little-people’ character and save the day? Or is the brand beyond even the perennial box office draw of the underdog champion?
Do enough American female voters look beyond Trump’s foibles or are the endless polls and pundits right in predicting Hillary’s inevitable victory with a few weeks to go?
I guess we’ll find out, but in time left, brand experts what would you do to ensure victory for either brand?
Hillary’s brand is shaky but OK. Her ‘career politician’ label is still a double-edged sword. Supports her experience but turns off the growing numbers who feel ‘Washington’ has failed them. If all the pollsters are right then it’s her’s to lose at this stage. So probably best to stay the course. Push policy and ‘Presidential tone’ and keep goading Trump. Yes, it’s possible that more damaging emails will surface. It would have to be pretty bad to change the game. She has already been exposed for probable lies, possible Clinton Foundation issues and her unfortunate views of voters … deplorable etc. But it is probably all ‘baked in’ at this stage. And as long as she stands up in public, her health issues if any will not be a factor.
Now to Donald. Well, as mentioned earlier, a tough path to victory. Again if you believe the experts, Trump’s poor numbers among women will be hard to reverse especially with the prospect of the first female POTUS let alone more ‘sexual predator’ stories. This on top of reports that his ground game is no match for the Democratic Machine in the supposed ‘swing’ States.
But we are brand experts and love a challenge, right?
This may well be impossible, but Trump should try to take the spotlight off him and put it back on the American voter. Like Al for the little people, not for him.
His supporters are reportedly still with him. If he spends the time left fighting his accusers, then he will do little to woo new voters … women or ‘undedicededs.’ His ground and media support are not favorable. He needs to muster all his media genius and focus on one message. It’s not about me. It has never been about me. It is about YOU and WINNING. The bigger the Government. The bigger the loss for YOU. Let US fix the problems and get us back to jobs, peace, and prosperity. If you believe that the likes of Hillary, Obama, Pelosi and so on will lead us out of the mess, we are in, then vote for them. If you want change. If you want to be able to support your family and have some control over your life then vote for my party and together we’ll make American Great Again. Vote For us, for our children and the world.
Further, with this as an opening, he needs to get personal so that voters can see themselves in what he is saying. Something like. Today you pay X% of your income in Government costs. That was Y% before Obama and Hillary took over. Vote for her and bigger govt. and you will pay 2X% in four years, and your children will each have $X million dollars in debt on their head every day. If you make less than $50K with the current regime, you are more likely to be closer to the poverty line than in no other time in history. Quality education and health services will be out of your reach, and shared housing and living will become your new norm. Yes, dark picture but it is America’s reality unless we do something about it.
Now I have no idea if any of this is possible or even true, but quite frankly the Hillary brand will prevail unless the Trump brand can go back to their original premise and make it real. Just like Al in Caddyshack if Trump can be the peoples’ force against the ‘establishment’ then his message may resonate with voters as they go into the booth. Hey, it might coalesce his party and even bring in a few Bernie Sanders voters who are still skeptical of a Hillary Government? Win-win for all.
What say you?
We love this stuff at Rocketbranding.com. Let us know what you think.
Well, here we are. The big choice. Hillary or Trump? An incredibly important choice between two huge but sadly unpopular brands. Not Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump but ‘Hillary’ and ‘Trump.’ The brands are that precisely defined now and recognizable as such the world over.
Unfortunately behind that exalted status are very low levels of popularity and respect. When the dust settles, it is hard to imagine the losing supporters accepting the other candidate. In fact one could argue that this is about ‘voting against’ more than ‘voting for.’ The popular phrase – ‘I’ll vote for anyone but …”
The stakes are ridiculously high. International and domestic issues have never been more complex or uncertain. The next ‘leader of the free world’ will have less margin for error than any other in history and unless that individual can lead a government that unifies and creates positive momentum for all, then tough times will be the new norm.
Yes, I know someone will find a speech from a hundred years ago that spouts the same gloom and yes, we all survived just fine. Far be it for me to be so learned and profound, but humor me. Let’s play this out.
You are the brand master for Hillary or Trump. Do you take the high road like Obama did and promise love and unity or do you play the anyone-but-the-other card and just hammer the bejesus out of the opposing brand?
My guess is that everyone would prefer to take the high road and tout unity and hope for all. Hal Riney wrote perhaps the sweetest Presidential ‘love’ campaign ever for Ronald Reagan called “Morning in America.” Made you cry.
But then the new media reality pops up and no matter what positive pitch your candidate makes someone will find a grainy clip or dog-eared speech from childhood that will serve to knock your contender right off the high road. And then, well, it’s time to start pointing fingers again and poking at your opponent for their similarly shoddy history.
So Mr. or Mrs. or Mx. Brand Master, how do you help your Hillary or Trump brand win and save the world to boot?
Well here’s a thought. I have not read Trump’s book the Art of the Deal, but I do like the notion of ‘win-win’ that most deal makers support. Who doesn’t? Everyone is happy. What if your candidate announced a radical new approach that made their unpopular aspects dissolve in the bold pursuit of real solutions?
If this was a business, you might entertain the idea of having, not one, but two official Vice Presidents. One dedicated to each of the two biggest problems facing the US and the world – ‘jobs’ and ‘peace’ – with real resources and goals. Yes, you could say that this is just more government, etc. but perhaps by doing this, all voters can start to believe that there is hope for solutions and action? This might soften the blow for Hillary haters or establish a higher level of credibility for Trump haters. And maybe restore some respect for politicians? (Well, maybe that is a bit too optimistic)
Or how about this? What if one of the candidates gets up and announces a new world initiative, called UNOJ, The United Nations of Jobs. It’s not hard to see that the biggest single problem today is people finding jobs. Disenfranchised young people are becoming terrorists. Mature workers are losing out to robots. People, not working grind capitalist countries to a halt and create untold anarchy for the others. What if the new world order’s mantra was ‘jobs for all’ and the UNOJ was legitimate and singularly focused on that one goal? Pollyanna-ish? Of course. Naïve? Certainly. But at least it’s an attempt at changing the narrative from the usual ‘well he/she said this shitty thing about kittens BS’, that just sinks a Presidential brand and turns off voters.
Hey, perhaps Trump can use his famous border wall as the HQ for the UNOJ and change it from a border crossing to a job fair? Or Hillary can use her rich Clinton Foundation as a sponsor?
Ok, so there are my feeble attempts. What thoughts do you have brand wizards?
Can we innovate and provide the American voter with credible hope for the ‘good’ brand America? Or are we now just destined to remain divided, mediocre and lost?
We love this stuff at Rocket Branding. Let us know what you think of a way forward for either brand? firstname.lastname@example.org
And, last week, I was in London, in the midst of Brexit, UK’s similar battle. They voted to leave the EU.
Different outcomes but largely driven by the same basic issue … protecting sovereignty i.e. not having others dictate their future and culture. The Greek’s poor economy trumped their ability to rid themselves of EU rule but the Brits are financially able to stand-alone. They can regain independence from EU leadership and more pointedly control the open in-flow of unskilled migrants. They lower the wages, soak up the social benefits, fuel the fear of terrorism, and in time, change the culture.
These are emotionally charged decisions and run deep and wide across the populations. It would be somewhat akin to a California or Texas deciding to become independent of the US. It strikes at the heart of the livelihoods and security of each individual. Over the next year we’ll watch the same story play out for many other European countries who will also be assessing their sovereignty and independence in light of a possible ‘exit’ from the EU.
So what is really happening here and, importantly as ‘master branders’ what should we take from all this?
Well actually it is fairly simple.
As generations march forward things change and some times that change is quite pivotal. In each case, Grexit and Brexit, the older generations voted overwhelming for ‘exit’. They wanted to keep their cultures and traditions and resented deeply the changes they saw around them with foreign migrants taking over their neighborhoods, jobs and social benefits, terrorism etc.
The younger generations (under 35) certainly understand the loss of tradition but they are in a completely different place. They voted to stay. They are underemployed. They want jobs and see the opportunity to freely travel throughout the larger European market as an enormous benefit. This is certainly the case with Greece with very high unemployment for under 30’s but also in the UK where again the chance to easily work in other countries is tremendously beneficial.
The younger generations are also very different in some very important ways. They are more globally oriented and connected. They are less trusting of politicians, moderately ‘sovereignty-centric’ and generally much more sensitive to the overall global condition … environment, resources, hope for everyone. Yes, they do understand and respect tradition but “it’s really tough when you are still living at home”. “And it would be really great if they could find a better way to live on earth”.
This is not just European. Younger voters, the world-over is similar. In the US they jumped on the Sander’s ‘share the wealth’ and the Trump ‘anti-establishment’ platforms in droves in the current election season. These aren’t ‘stay the traditional course’ and rigid sovereignty sentiments.
All this I believe triggers quite a sea change.
We really need to take a pause and have a serious look at the next 5-10 years or so and see what this all means to these new generations of consumers, leaders and influencers. Brands that do not do this are at great peril of falling way off the radar of this new group. A mere whiff of personal irrelevance will be whisked away with a click, swipe or touch. Brands that get it will thrive big time. Brands that don’t will die quickly. And the sad thing is that they may not know it until it is too late.
We at Rocket Branding have a grand global view and understand how this relates to each individual across the age and need spectrums. Let us help you plot the future of your brand. www.rocketbranding.com. 312 316 5290.
Are the two preeminent political parties losing enough relevance that now a new party could actually emerge?
Unlikely is this cycle but what about the next?
History is full of new brands emerging out of the growing irrelevance of the incumbents … Fed Ex, Lexus/Kia/Hyundai, Home Depot, Visio, Starbucks and, of course, Apple (over IBM and Dell), to name a few.
When leading brands, even icons, lose relevance the stage is set for a new one to rocket.
Is this possible in this political arena?
The ‘voter’ market is certainly not happy with their parties.
Voters have overwhelmingly lost confidence in either party ‘regulars’ to solve economic or national security problems. Words like ‘Washington’ and ‘Establishment Politician’ have about as much brand cache now as ‘Wall Street’ and ‘Fund Managers’. Accordingly, the newer so-called millennial voters appear less politically engaged with the parties. Getting a job, paying off loans is the daily reality and petty, mud-slinging politicians with their party cronies and self interests are just not on their radar.
It’s easy to see why the political outsiders, Trump, and Sanders have energized voters. They speak to a simplified, less corrupt and more action-orientated view of government. A view, which again is not entirely aligned with the party planks. This has attracted new interest and record voter turn out. Voters are not stupid, and if they realize that the party delegates and super delegates can easily subvert their votes, then their anger and frustration with their party will only intensify.
On the larger scale, our culture is also changing in subtle ways that will challenge the traditional party foundations and relevance going forward.
New voters are often less religious and to a degree less nationalistic. Global connectivity and the increasingly mixed races are creating much more sensitivity towards the world at large and a deep ‘dislike of the ‘isms’ … racism, classism, extremism, elitism and anything that smells of subversism.
And relevance is a problem for both parties.
The Republican Party has been lost for a decade. The Tea Party set the table for Mitt Romney to win the 2012 Election but he didn’t. Now he and his establishment conservatives are spearheading an anti-Trump movement and splitting the party. Whether Trump represents a compelling new Republican voice or voters are just regaling against the seemingly ineffectual ‘establishment’ Republicans, is an interesting debate. Either way, it’s a hard to see how the Republican Party can stop their relevance from continuing to erode across the broad spectrum of voters.
The Democrats aren’t in much better shape. President Obama offered a positive, unifying leadership, which many believe has, after two terms, achieved little beyond his attempts at legacy building. Of their two candidates for President, one is a proud socialist and probably unelectable and the other with FBI investigations and single digit honesty ratings is in many ways the poster child for what angers many about today’s politicians.
Further, it’s, at least, clear to me that as both parties have become such adversaries any opportunities for compromise and moderate outcomes are zero. The extremes seem to be the norm. But how many voters are not hard-liners? Many Republicans I speak to are fiscally conservative and defense-concerned but socially moderate even quite liberal on some topics. Likewise, many Democrats are strong on equality and progressive issues but are also becoming increasingly worried about the fiscal, national security fears and yes big government debt concerns.
Is it possible for a new party, say The America Party, to emerge from the ashes of the incumbents and represent the best of both … not the worst of both?
Yes, I know parties like the Libertarians have made some impact but they have not succeeded to the main stage to date. Mostly I believe because they stand as a contrast to the others with fairly narrow platforms. And there is always a well of independents who just maybe waiting for The America Party.
If The America Party brand can represent a new and positive voice that appeals to the best of both parties, then why not? No one wants to fight against something. Always better to fight for something. Let us fight for America and without all the infighting, pettiness and old machine corruption and, of course, the ‘isms’.
Yes, I know more parties create more problems. Look at Europe. And yes a one party system won’t work but we are just talking here, and maybe The America Party could be a remake or evolution of either party. ‘New and Improved’ so to speak.
Overly simplistic you say? Well maybe but in history the biggest ideas have typically come from the simplest of notions.
Whatever the solution, this writer believes that if these parties do not look up and out a bit, their brand will remain as irrelevant and uninspiring as they certainly have become today.
What say you brand wizards?