During debates in the Democratic primaries, Sen. Barack Obama has been seen drinking Pepsi’s Aquafina water, while Sen. Hillary Clinton has been spotted with a bottle of Coca-Cola’s Dasani. Product placement on a political stage is an excellent opportunity to create brand preference, but, in this election, two powerful brands already have center stage.
The Obama and Clinton campaigns have become full-fledged brands — with each of the candidates working to build brand preference and loyalty that will ultimately pay off at the polls. As communicators, we can learn a lot from observing how the two candidates are managing their brands.
For starters, framing has been crucial. We know that people prefer a brand based on what engages them and not necessarily on quality. The Democratic presidential contenders know it, too. With similar voting records in the Senate, Obama and Clinton have had to differentiate themselves. They have done this, in large part, by understanding and aligning themselves with their stakeholders’ concerns. By now, anybody who has been or is planning to go to the polls is well aware that Obama has framed himself as the candidate of change while Clinton is associated with experience. Both candidates have tapped into a base of voters who identify with those ideals by using their frames as the context for delivering all their key messages. It is a classic example of establishing an emotional connection to a brand.
The tools the candidates have used to deliver their messages are also a statement of their brand identities. Both candidates are using the Internet to reach voters, but Obama’s use of the Web also demonstrates a change in the way political campaigning is done. His campaign Web site not only has links to Facebook, MySpace and YouTube but also to numerous more targeted sites such as Digg, LinkedIn and BlackPlanet. According to Web-analytics firm Compete, Obama has grabbed 60% of the Democratic Party’s FaceTime — a metric of total online time with the public. That’s nearly triple Clinton’s FaceTime share. Obama has integrated social media into his entire media strategy. And, he has embraced an online “Yes We Can” video created by unofficial spokespeople — such as Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Scarlett Johansson — as part of his campaign. He is also using the Web not only to persuade young people to vote but to also attract online donations in small amounts that add up.
Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign has been having its best success by encouraging supporters to make phone calls, volunteer during primaries, plan events and help raise money. Clinton’s Web site features a clip of former President Bill Clinton walking through a list of the senator’s life accomplishments, as well as endorsements from real people such as a mother with sick children and the White House decorator. Clinton uses new media outlets, too — in fact, her campaign joined YouTube three months earlier than Obama’s — but she understands that traditional communication methods are resonating better with voters who are pulling for her.
No matter who wins the party’s nomination, these campaigns demonstrate how a brand can benefit from recognizing and then identifying with what matters to stakeholders. Like any other brand, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have struggled with legitimacy and identity issues. And, like the most effective brands, they have defended themselves best when they have stayed within their established frames and used the communication tools that most effectively reach their stakeholders.
As communicators, let’s be astute observers and see what we can borrow from these brands. Using what we learn, who will create the next breakthrough CEO orator or produce the next hugely viral corporate video? It could be your company or client.
Barri Rafferty is a Partner at Ketchum and the Director of Ketchum New York. She is also the 2008 president of the PRSA New York chapter.
By 
Keywords :