While the Bushies have blanketed the airwaves with one slick, fraudulant attack ad after another, the Kerry camp’s been toying with little-seen test-market commercials, looking for a single “theme” slogan that would rise above the clutter.
I say they should have lotsa themes, lotsa slogans, lotsa attack angles.
Last week, I berated the influence of product-style “branding” in US politics. But forget that beration for a moment and imagine some of the most successful brand campaigns of all time.
Small- and medium-time brands, with limited ad budgets, are the ones that benefit the most from single-message themes. The truly dominant brands use multi-faceted campaigns that illuminate the product’s image from different angles.
Budweiser has the eagle, the “B” crown, the horses, the cartoon “Bud Man” (who never appears on TV, only in bar merchandise), the serious commercials, the jokey commercials, and a panalopy of slogans, some used simultaneously. The effect is to position Bud as a brand too large, too magnificent, to be summed up by just one phrase or just one symbol.
So should a Presidency, and a Presidential campaign.
The messes created and/or compounded by right-wing peurilety are too many, and too varied, for their solutions to fall under one memorable rubric. We’ve gotta figure at least a semi-graceful exit out of Iraq, get working folk working again, reverse the consolidation of wealth and power, fix health care, put out fewer greenhouse gases, wean ourselves off of petroleum addiction, rebuild communities, promote tolerance, break up a media monopoly or two, stare down the radio demagogues, etc. etc. etc.
How can you stick all that in one pithy mouthful? I say don’t even try. Instead, have different sub-themes, about all the things Kerry promises (or oughta promise) to do.
As for an overarching meta-theme, Kerry’s recent ads already have one: “Together, we can build a stronger America.”
It’s longish, but it’s stuffed w/meanings.
The very first word implies a sharp change-O-course from the divisive, hyper-competitive social ethos of the past decade or two.
Imagine: Instead of early economist Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of competition, society grows via folk working hand-in-hand. Legislation gets enacted on the basis of what might work best for the most people, not what might attract the most campaign contributions. People in high office seek consensus, not domination.
Could it happen? I insist it could, not just that it should.
Kerry & co. should also so insist.
