Essay 1:
In this essay I will be looking at 3 texts
relating to branding and its importance to leading a company or person to
success. In particular, I’m looking at political branding and how politics
borrows concepts from the world of commercial branding in western democracy’s. I
will research into different opinions of what makes a brand successful and how
crucially important branding is to a politician or party. This is based on
quote from: Downer, L.
(2015) Political branding
strategies: Campaigning and governing in Australian politics. Australia:
Palgrave. 'More
and more in Western democracies, branding is used by political practitioners as
a strategy for campaigning and governing. Brands are crafted for parties,
politicians and policies. Put simply, political branding sees parties and
politicians borrowing concepts and techniques from the world of commerce.'
The
book ‘Branded?’ by Gareth Williams looks at some of the most successful brands
and gives context on the history of the brands and how they manage to create
brand and stay a strong brand. The combination of names, slogans, logos,
product design, packaging, advertisement and marketing creates a brand.
Williams writes brands must engender trust and loyalty if they are ultimately
to be purchased. People like trust and familiarity. Like how politicians try to
gain the publics vote through gaining trust and creating a brand for themselves,
that is approachable and familiar. In the western world politicians use
branding as a strategy for campaigning, and its much like a product being sold
to a consumer. Politicians and parties sell themselves as a brand, and portray
themselves in a way to capture the target market or should I say voters. This
is interesting, as on so many occasions this has caused mayhem as politicians
portray themselves as one thing but aren’t. This is different for branding
commercially as products and companies aren’t a person and products mostly do
what they say on the tin, unlike politicians.
I
then moved on to look at ‘corporate identity’ by Wally Olins which is similar
to branded? but a lot more informative. It’s about business strategy through
design, and how companies build a big business identity. Its also clearly shows
how big cooperation’s keep themselves in the public eye, and how doing this
leads to fast expansion. Looking through this book it makes me realise for a
brand to work it must stand out and have a personality. This is interesting as
this book is still so relevant, even though it was first published in 1989. Parties
and politicians are forced to think like big cooperation’s, this is to try and
mimic their identity and brand strategy to reach as big of an audience as
possible. Its like people rather spending the extra money when buying a brand
that’s well known, as its what everyone knows and there for feels like the more
reliable option. I feel this is similar in politics, you hear about the
candidates with big backing and money behind them and they automatically become
the only options. Unlike back bench MP’s or small independent candidates that don’t
stand nearly as much of a chance, also similar to independent companies finding
it hard to get their product on the market. This isn’t due to their product
standard and quality, its because they don’t have the name yet.
Finally,
I went on to look at an article actually based on branding within politics
called; ‘The importance of branding in modern political campaigns’. The
article, written by Steve Penhollow is based around American politics and the
building up a brand image. This article was written recently, being released at
the beginning of the American election process last years summer. Political
branding is a touchy area as with the slightest hic up, can cause huge
controversy. Unlike a lot of commercial brands, when trying to sell a
politician, they always have a past. This can complete change how a candidate
is viewed, and can create huge sways that seriously effect election poles. We have
just seen the impacts of branding in politics with Donald Trumps strong
branding campaign. My point is enforced here as so many Americans voted for him
on the basis that he is supposedly a good business man that’s very wealthy. Im
sure as a accomplished business man he knows better than anyone how to sell a
brand, and all he needed to do was turn himself into one. This supports my
point of how compulsory branding is to success. it isn’t trumps policies and
care for the nation, it was money and the way him branding himself as an
outspoken business man of America that managed win him a lot of votes. Mentioned
in the article, Obamas first election was clearly pushed on the road to success
with the branding, the notorious Obama ‘o’ logo conveying a brighter road to
the future as well as his powerful slogan, ‘yes we can’. The article also
highlights the impact of music within political broadcasts something which can
aid a brand and use the music to convey the politician’s vibe.
Concluding,
researching into this area makes me frustrated at politicians. It has really
opened up my eyes to the lie that we live in. In terms of being sold leaders
and parties that tell us what we want to hear not what will actually happen. I
feel branding pushes this concept and helps aid people with money to create an
image which isn’t necessarily accurate. It makes me wonder whether there should
be restraints to branding in politics like the UK have for party broadcast
elections. I feel it gives a massive disadvantage if a candidate or party
doesn’t have the funds or knowledge to get their policies and views out there.
