brand strategy consultants

« July 2005 | August 2005 | September 2005 »

Framing Political Issues and Owning the Conversation

In the United States, the topic of how best to own the conversation in election campaigns is a hot topic among Democrat politicos.

Since the U.S. presidential election last November, some Democratic Party leaders believe they allowed President George W. Bush to own the conversation during the last two presidential campaigns, resulting in defeats for Vice President Al Gore in 2000 and Senator John Kerry in 2004.

According to Matt Bai in the New York Times:

[For Democrats] the problem wasn’t the substance of the party’s agenda or its messenger as much as it was the Democrats’ inability to communicate coherently. They had allowed Republicans to control the language of the debate, and that had been their undoing….

[A] new political word [began] to take hold of the party…. That word was “framing.” Exactly what it means to “frame” issues seems to depend on which Democrat you are talking to, but everyone agrees that it has to do with choosing the language to define a debate and, more important, with fitting individual issues into the contexts of broader story lines. In the months after the election, Democratic consultants and elected officials came to sound like creative-writing teachers, holding forth on the importance of metaphor and narrative.

Choosing language to win a market debate is of little value unless the language is authentic, relevant and compelling to the audience an organization wishes to influence. Inauthentic language only undercuts a brand, and creates a dismissive reaction if any reaction at all, as shown in this unfortunate example.

Just as in 1994, when House Republicans changed the conversation from the legislative agenda of the Clinton White House to a 10-point “Contract For America”, Democrats must establish their unique brand. By itself, framing falls short as a branding tool, addressing only some of the fundamentals needed to craft an engaging brand for a political party, or any organization.

What framing misses is that language by itself is nothing if not backed up by the experience of the listener. To own the conversation an organization must align the language it uses with key beliefs - the promise of their brand - within the context of the audience experience. But the leadership of any organization must first understand these fundamentals as their audience sees them, rather than as leadership believes them to be.

The key to building a powerful brand is to demonstrate its qualities at every point of contact. Creating engagement to which an audience is drawn rather than chased is the essence of great brand strategy.

For people to pay attention, Democrats must be willing to take effective risks and be bold, to change and take control of the dialogue, just as House Republicans demonstrated in 1994.

It’s the only way to own the conversation.

Branding for Nation Export Competitiveness

When the export economy of a country faces competitive pressures, what is the solution? As reported in the Taipei Times, according to a leading economic think tank in Chinese Taipei, the answer is branding:

Taiwan must shift its focus from contract manufacturing to branding to keep up its export competitiveness, Chen Tien-jy, president of the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research, said yesterday.

“Taiwan has to be alert to the fact that it needs to change its business model now, or it will inevitably suffer trade deficits [in the future],” Chen said.

The nation’s economy depends mainly on contract manufacturing, which is especially common in the electronics sector, Chen said.

But according to the latest government data, more than 37 percent of Taiwanese contract manufacturers…moved their production bases abroad, particularly to China, in pursuit of cheaper labor and lower production costs, he added…

In comparison, South Korea chose to build an own-brand business model in the mid-90s and has now started reaping the rewards, with brands like Samsung gaining popularity worldwide, especially in the emerging markets like India…

In any industry, effective branding is an example of how the best defense against competitive market pressures remains a good offense. Branding confers a market premium to what might otherwise be viewed as a commodity. Starbucks is one example.

Contract manufacturers often differentiate themselves by functional capabilities, claiming to offer more and to be better than competitors. We previously discussed the pitfalls of the More/Better approach.

When a More/Better strategy is employed, rather than brand strategy, most any OEM (original equipment manufacturer/customizer) seeking a contract manufacturing option will focus on price first in their decision-making. Serving as an outsourced expense and without a discernable brand, a contract manufacturer remains at the mercy of OEMs viewing manufacturing partners as a commodity.

For a contract manufacturer viewed as interchangeable with any number of competitors, and thus highly sensitive to supply chain price pressure, the OEM will chase the lowest price available.

To fight back, not only to maintain market share but also to grow it, the answer is the use of the powerful thinking behind an effective brand strategy. Only then is one fully armed with the world’s most commanding business tool.

A potent weapon, for any export economy.


« July 2005 | Home | September 2005 »