2008 Primaries, Branding Politix • July 2nd, 2008

The case of the reappearing pin

by Chris Lato

I have subscribed to ‘Rolling Stone’ for nearly 20 years now. What can I say? I like the pop culture coverage. As for the political stuff, it’s all been downhill since Hunter died.

Anyway, I was greeted at my mailbox this week with the new issue of ‘RS’ and the grinning face of Barack Obama, eyes closed, head tilted slightly downward…

OK, the coronation of Barack Obama has begun at ‘RS.’ That’s about the least shocking news in recent memory. But what I was struck by was the very conspicuous return of ‘The Pin.’ With such a basic, copy-free cover, that American flag pin on the senator’s lapel just leapt out at me.

Remember the flap a few months ago when Obama took the time to offer a dissertation on why he wasn’t wearing an American flag pin on his lapel? Read this for a refresher.

Now, I wouldn’t deny Sen. Obama the right to change his mind (the more combative term is ‘flip-flop’). Ultimately, it is up to the voters to weigh whether Obama’s changing positions are a thoughtful reconsideration of the issues, or a sign of a candidate who is not prepared to lead.

The flag pin sends an undeniable message. In some states, refusing to wear that pin would cost a whole lot of votes. I appreciate Obama’s belief that his ‘ideas’ are the true sign of patriotism, but sometimes in politics the game is simple: step up and embrace the symbolism along with the substance. Not wearing the pin on the campaign trail, and offering what could be perceived as a condescending explanation of that decision, also sends a powerful message.

The flag is one of those few symbols that many Americans of all generations respond to deeply and without apology –witness the passion that emerges anytime a flag-burning story is in the news. To deny this basic truth is to run the risk of alienating large chunks of voters. It looks as though Senator Obama is learning as he goes on the campaign trail. The real question is whether he is learning fast enough.

Regarding candidates and patriotism, check out this week’s exchange between Greta Van Susteren and Karl Rove. The full piece can be found here.

ROVE: Well, remember also, Senator Obama said that he stopped wearing a flag lapel pin because he decided after 9/11 that true patriotism did not consist in wearing a flag lapel pin but in speaking out on the issues. He questioned the patriotism of anybody who thought, you know, that they were honoring their country by putting a flag lapel pin on. So I mean, I thought it was really interesting that he was so sensitive. I don’t know who he’s talking about questioning his patriotism, but I do know that he questioned the patriotism of literally millions of Americans, who in a symbol of devotion to their country, put a flag on their lapel or on their uniform or on their automobile. I mean, I just — you know, it’s…

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I take sort of a flip on that, though. I actually — I side with Senator Obama partially on that, is that anyone who would criticize him for not wearing a flag pin, because you know, I — I don’t know why, but that’s not the measure of my patriotism, so…

(CROSSTALK)

ROVE: I agree — I agree with you.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK.

ROVE: Nobody should be criticized for not wearing a flag lapel pin. On the other hand, nobody should say that you’re not being a true patriot if you do wear a flag lapel pin, which is what he said. He said true patriotism does not consist of wearing a flag lapel pin but instead speaking out on the issues. Look, you can be a true patriot and wear a flag lapel pin or not. You can be a true patriot speaking out on the issues or not. But the judgmental nature of his approach, saying if you wear a flag lapel pin, that’s not true patriotism, that was calling into question the patriotism of those who make the decision to wear that symbol.

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix, Strategic Blueprints • July 1st, 2008

And the best candidate for vice-president is…

by Chris Lato

You’ll never believe this. Or maybe you will. At first blush it seemed ridiculous, but upon reflection it makes some sense.

Colin Powell for Vice President? For BOTH McCain and Obama? This story offers a fascinating, if egg-headed way of reaching this conclusion. His is the one name that hasn’t really been on the radar screen until now. Perhaps Powell paid for the study?

But consider: Powell is seen as a moderate who can work from the middle to achieve consensus. And while he has been tied to GOP administrations and his initial support of the current Iraq war, he offers the ‘elder statesman’ heft that Obama needs, and a moderating influence for those ‘McSame’ critics who believe McCain is little more than a war-monger in the Bush mold. He’d be a pretty strong pick for either one, if you believe (as I do) that the VP choice matters more in the 2008 cycle than it has in the past.

Interestingly, this story surfaces as the debate rages over the degree to which McCain should discuss and campaign on his military service record. Wesley Clark took McCain to task, and now Obama is backpedaling while the GOP lines up in a massive fit of outrage.

I remind you only of this: four years ago, if memory serves, the military service records of our presidential candidates was a pretty darn big deal. Remember the howls from the left about President Bush’s service in the National Guard while John Kerry was in Vietnam? Remember how Kerry proclaimed he was “reporting for duty” at the 2004 national convention? Hmm. I guess certain political experts are counting on the voting public to have a short memory about these things. But I digress.

Back to the VP-picking: Will anyone choose Colin Powell? Nah. He’s probably not interested. But it’s fun to ponder these notions of a dream ticket, and how things like ego trip up notions of a perfect pairing of candidates.

Just like Obama won’t pick Hillary for VP, and McCain is said to be weighing whether he can stomach Mitt Romney as a running mate (seems like a long-shot to me, but that would be a pretty strong ticket), this is the kind of prognosticating that we can - and probably will – be doing right up to national convention time.

No Comments »

Branding Politix, Grass Roots Organization, Views on News • June 26th, 2008

Shameless self-promotion…and another take on Twitter

by Chris Lato

After a couple days in sunny L.A. to work with one of my finest clients, I am back in Wisconsin with this commercial announcement: turn your radios to Wisconsin Public Radio this Friday, June 27 at 8 am to enjoy yours truly on the ‘Week in Review,’ with host Joy Cardin and fellow guest Matthew Rothschild of ‘The Progressive.’ I anticipate more shouting than your average episode of ‘Hannity and Colmes.’ As always - if you call in, be kind.

Since we’re in the middle of a promotion break, ever heard of ‘Twitter?’ A techie genius I work with tipped me off to this…and its possibilities as a promotional tool for political campaigns.

It’s interesting, because not too long ago I remember reading a story (from a reporter, I think – might have been a PR guy) about how the news release is dead – an outmoded way of communicating. Now, Twitter is here to tell us that e-mail is dead, too – if you can’t boil down your message to 140 characters or less, fuggetaboutit.

Read Jon Tingley’s take on Twitter below – as you can see, the Obama campaign is on top of this trend, while McCain’s team isn’t quite there yet. It offers a striking difference – Obama supporters are more technologically savvy based on these numbers. Obama is counting on the youth vote this fall, so it all makes sense.

Twitter has its place in an information-overloaded world where even brief e-mails will cause one’s eyes to glaze over before hitting the ‘delete’ button. Tweets can help connect with voters and volunteers. It is another arrow in the campaign’s quiver that should be deployed. As part of a well-considered campaign that fully incorporates social media opportunities, one shouldn’t ignore these trends.

However, it’s a mistake to over-rely on these trends and proclaim traditional methods of information disbursement dead. They aren’t. For example, there’s a reason every campaign spends millions upon millions of dollars on TV ads – because huge amounts of people can be reached with a single ad. News releases, when well-targeted, provide more detailed information for the media and those who want to do more than skim.

Call me an old fogey (I can take it) but there’s still more smoke than fire related to online campaigning. Again, I stress it should play a role – potentially a big one, depending on the size of the campaign and the resources available – but for the vast numbers of those potential voters out there, who want to feel close to a candidate and who can’t get a sense of who to support from a 140 character message, they need more ways to connect.

It is awfully easy to appear to have an army of support out there by manipulating the online community – just ask Ron Paul. However, there has to be more to fully communicating one’s campaign. Otherwise it will eventually be exposed as the empty exercise it is – just ask Ron Paul.

No Comments »

Branding Politix, Views on News • June 17th, 2008

MoveOn sounds off

by Chris Lato

What do you think of this ad, from the always-reasonable MoveOn.org?

There are two ways to look at this one, I suppose. One way is to consider it a powerful argument for how the Iraq war threatens to bog America down in a quagmire for decades to come.

On the other hand, I’ve watched it a few times and come to the conclusion that it’s a shameless play for the heartstrings that oversimplifies the content and intent of John McCain’s comments to the point that it’s laughable. It is the ultimate example of taking one brief comment out of context, twisting the meaning beyond recognition and attempting to build a campaign around it.

Will anyone, other than those who are in the tank for MoveOn’s extreme and distorted way of viewing things, actually buy into this one? Maybe I’m naïve - and I’m not above giving MoveOn props when they do something effective (the recent John Cusack propaganda piece is one example), but this smacks of manipulative desperation. And it’s only June.

When in doubt, bring in a baby and suggest that John McCain is a bloodthirsty monster looking to take away America’s babies for a hundred-year war in Iraq. Really, it’s a deeply silly and obnoxiously smug ad.

Besides, what if little Alex grows up and wants to join the Army, if for no other reason than to MoveOn from that domineering mommy of his?

The ad does have some discussion value: is it OK to use kids and babies in campaign ads? Is it a wise thing to do, or simply a cheap and revolting ploy? Some might say, whatever works is fair game. Consider ‘Daisy’ from 1964…

This ad must have scared the bejesus out of millions of Americans when it aired. It is undeniably riveting and unsettling. Who knows how many people it swayed?

Nuclear war: the ultimate negative ad. But the idea of John McCain taking America’s babies to turn them into cannon fodder isn’t very far behind.

On a related topic, the man credited with creating the infamous ‘Daisy’ ad, Tony Schwartz, has died. He is also credited, or blamed depending on your point of view, for ushering the era of the ‘negative’ political ad. Since then, many have happily taken the baton and run with it, but Schwartz is undeniably a pioneer.

Comment (1) »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix, Creative, Report from the Field, Views on News • June 12th, 2008

Notes from the silly season

by Chris Lato

In the “Herding Cats” department, some party leaders are straying from the pack – and it’s happening on both sides of the aisle.

Democrats don’t like Barack Obama. Republicans don’t like John McCain. Hillary supporters are saying they’d rather vote for McCain - “Anybody but Obama.”

more »

Comments (4) »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix, Buttons, Messaging • June 2nd, 2008

Cha-ching!

by Chris Lato

Once the ‘Holy cow! $200 million!’ shock wears off, what does this tell us?

First off, for all the talk about new ways of executing political communication (social media, internet, Facebook, you name it) TV is still king, far and away. If you want to catch a lot of attention and eyeballs, it is still the way to go if you have the dough.

But money isn’t enough. John McCain was outspent roughly three-to-one by Mitt Romney, and look who’s still standing. Sometimes all the marketing money in the world won’t get voters to buy what you’re selling – especially if your message is garbled and you have failed to define yourself, what you stand for and why you are running.

And, what a mind-blowing number for the Democrats. All this over a battle for the nomination that has been great fun to watch, yet has allowed John McCain to run his campaign unscathed by Democrat attacks for months. Admittedly, if the Dem nominee will have this level of support at his disposal, McCain will be pelted with a non-stop barrage of attack ads any time now.

Despite the $46 million spent by the Hillary Clinton campaign, the study points out that in a number of key states Barack Obama still had the airwaves all to himself for a significant period of time – and made his biggest gains for a two-week stretch in February. Pure tactical outmaneuvering, coupled with the means to make some big buys, that helped move the needle in Obama’s direction.

Get ready, Wisconsin – the political airwave war in the Battleground Badger State is about to get underway….

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix, Messaging • May 29th, 2008

The pros and cons of ‘going negative’

by Chris Lato

Readers of this blog know I don’t agree with the notion of ‘negative’ campaign ads being, well, negative - particularly if they are addressing an opponent’s record. Calling attention to, and criticizing an opponent’s record, whether it be a vote in Congress, a statement to a reporter, or a lack of pertinent experience, it’s all fair game in my view.

That’s why this article from the Harvard Business School intrigued me. The author breaks down the ‘negative’ ads being fired by the Hillary Clinton campaign at Barack Obama and makes a case for why political ads use this tactic while B2B ads typically do not.

One partial quote did jump out at me – referring to “…Obama trying to stay positive and clinging to the moral high ground by staying positive…” Unless you’re an ardent Hillary supporter, Obama is the clear front-runner. He’s running on the ‘moral superiority’ platform – that is, his campaign would have you believe Obama is above petty politics. It’s a new day in America, etc. It sounds almost….Reaganesque.

Everyone’s buying it for now, but will it last? Once this race tightens up, and it will, can Obama resist jumping on the ‘negative’ campaign bandwagon? For example, John McCain has a long, long record of votes in the Senate that will be prime fodder for attacks. And that is fine. McCain should have to defend his record and Obama will undoubtedly begin to take aim, as he should.

And ironically, McCain’s own leadership role on campaign finance ‘reform,’ working in concert with our own Senator Russ Feingold, could be McCain’s undoing. Third party independent spending has grown exponentially thanks to this ‘reform,’ and while McCain will undoubtedly benefit from some of that spending, he will also be the target of the George Soros types who will spend untold millions ripping McCain up and down right up to Election Day.

In other words, Obama could potentially stay largely above the fray while the ‘independent’ groups tear McCain to shreds. And they will.

————-

WISPUNDITS MEDIA ALERT! Listen to Wisconsin Public Radio tomorrow morning from 8-9 AM to enjoy yours truly discussing “The Week in Review.” And if you feel compelled to call in, make sure to tell ‘em Wispundits sent ya.

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix, Creative, Global Concerns, public relations • May 14th, 2008

McCain goes green and conservatives see red

by Chris Lato

This guy just can’t catch a break with conservatives.

The John McCain campaign has unveiled what it calls eco-friendly campaign items for sale on its website. And some conservative commentators are apoplectic about it.

Geez, settle down, people. Some of these guys are looking for something, anything, as a reason to tear McCain a new one. To those people, the question remains: would you really rather have Barack Obama? Seriously? This is hardly a case of high treason against the conservative cause.

I think it’s absolutely ingenious. From a pure marketing standpoint, the ‘green’ movement is white-hot. Heck, the whole issue is hot, and there is room for everyone to get into the debate over whether the climate change folks are right-on, or are alarmists blowing a lot of, ahem, hot air. People are talking about it, people care about it. To simply dismiss it out of hand is short-sighted and out-of touch, and McCain recognizes this.

McCain is making a move to steal a key issue the Dems claim to dominate on, and make it his own. He is working to defuse the rhetoric that he will aid and abet the big polluters, who of course are all Republicans who sleep on beds of hundred-dollar bills.

McCain’s ‘green’ collateral is a great example of brilliant thinking when it comes to campaign promotional items. On the flip side, this reminds me of a couple of minor brouhahas that erupted back in the day. Great examples of how bad choices in collateral can totally ruin your day.

Brouhaha #1: The sale of Republican-themed shirts at a GOP booth at the Wisconsin State Fair a few years back. Turns out the shirts were made in, I believe, Mexico. A local TV station was tipped off by a Democrat operative, and things took off from there.

Brouhaha #2: When I was a radio news reporter in Madison back in the late 90s, Wisconsin celebrated its 150^th year of statehood with a special ceremony that included handing out small bells to ring. Only problem: the bells came with a small “Made in China” sticker affixed to each one. Oops!

The moral of the story, if you’re doing anything even remotely political: consider ‘buying American.’ Yes, I know, Americans are involved in design, production, sales, etc. of products that are ‘made’ overseas, but what it says on the label will make a symbolic difference. Let’s face it, you don’t want to be put in the position of trying to explain the nuances of global commerce.

Bottom line: The McCain campaign seems to get the messages it needs to send out. The underlying McCain policy will be what tells the real story, but for now this is a clever, funny and audacious move. I’ll recycle a plastic bottle in their honor today.

No Comments »

Branding Politix, Messaging, Speeches, public relations • May 1st, 2008

Mission accomplished?

by Chris Lato

I bring this up not to argue about Iraq – plenty of bloggers across the political spectrum do that daily.

This is a question of communications, public relations, and event management – an example of a colossal misfire that really could have been avoided had cooler heads prevailed.

I’m talking about one of the less illustrious anniversaries for the Bush administration. Remember the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner flown five years ago today on the USS Abraham Lincoln? President Bush made his dramatic entrance on the aircraft carrier and declared that “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

Oops.

Again, I’m not arguing Iraq here. But let’s break down the communications missteps.

#1 - That damn banner. The administration’s opponents have embraced it as a sign of arrogance and hubris, and rammed it down their collective throat for five years now. It’s hard to argue the point. It was an overreaching PR blunder on an occasion that called for restraint.

Was it a bad decision? You betcha. An administration that generally understands and adheres to message discipline really stepped in it, with the perception being that the war was over way, WAY before it really was. It was politically tone-deaf.

#2-The post-banner mangling. The White House offered a string of reasons for the banner, none of which rang true. The more excuses and contradictory reasons you offer, well, the less truthful and forthcoming you appear - especially if you can’t offer a definitive response ASAP and be done with it.

That won’t stop your enemies from frothing at the mouth, but at least you have put your response out there, quickly and on the record, and can point to that every time the issue comes up again. You have the force and clarity of your argument on your side.

#3-The speech. What can I say? I’m sure President Bush didn’t write it, but clearly his staff was all charged up over what they saw as a big victory and overreached wildly.

Again, considering the setting and what should have been a fairly solemn occasion, it was treated as a rah-rah moment that, to this day, we’re still talking about in a less-than-favorable light.

One poorly conceived press event that resonates for years. You could make the argument that no one could have predicted where things would be five years later, but good PR consultation offers a sense of where things may go, the positives and negatives behind what you do to engage the press. For whatever reason, that apparently didn’t happen here, but the price for that shortsightedness is still being paid.

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix, Messaging, Views on News, public relations • April 30th, 2008

The Wright stuff

by Chris Lato

Am I the only one who’s really jazzed to see Hillary Clinton go toe-to-toe against Bill O’Reilly tonight? She is throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. It’s a Hail Mary pass. Pick your favorite cliché and go with it. How it will go is anybody’s guess, but this is as good a test as any of Clinton’s ability to defuse the enemy and connect with an audience that, charitably, is not inclined to support her. Check your local listings to find out when World War III begins.

While we’re at it, do you think Barack Obama’s head is ready to explode yet over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy? These are the kinds of things that, if played right or not addressed properly by the candidate, can absolutely derail campaigns. Rev. Wright has been saying things that will be viewed as incendiary by many. When tied to Obama’s longtime relationship, people may justifiably ask what Obama was doing giving this gentleman so much credence in his spiritual life.

There is a strong case to be made that this isn’t over, and a smart campaign will know how to maneuver this public-relations nightmare into a positive – both Clinton and, later, McCain will be able to really dent Obama if they play their cards right.

The fascinating thing here is that people are defining the enigmatic Obama by his associations, and there is a lot of political heat around this issue now. Why? Because Obama has, quite vaguely, defined himself as an ‘agent of change.’ OK, that’s fine as far as it goes, and thus far it has definitely resonated in his favor.

But here’s where things get tough - it is time for Obama to start putting some meat on the bones. The press will lend a helping hand if you are unwilling to do the defining yourself, or wait too long to address the issue at hand. Rev. Wright has captured so much attention because we know too little about what Obama stands for. For better or worse, Rev. Wright gives us insight into where Obama is REALLY at.

It’s quite unfair to exclusively define Obama by his relationship to Rev. Wright, but by the same token it is an illustrative association. As for the ongoing press heat, I’ve said it before – the honeymoon is over. The protests that this is all ‘politics as usual’ only carry you so far. The press certainly isn’t buying that one anymore. Is Team Obama really ready to step up and take these serious issues head-on?

No Comments »