MarketingDoctor.tv
John Tantillo's Brand Winner... And Loser: The Philadelphia Eagles and The Nanny State
Posted by The Marketing Doctor at 8/17/2009 7:29 AM 
Categories: Branding
Tags: individualism OPA government government institutions dog owners health care unemployment brand GI bill healthcare Target Market Eagles NFL football Office of Price Administration Obama Depression Vick marketing G.I. bill football team Tantillo Nanny State Philadelphia Eagles America dogs situational help socialized medicine institutionalized help Michael Vick socialism big government
Categories: Branding
Tags: individualism OPA government government institutions dog owners health care unemployment brand GI bill healthcare Target Market Eagles NFL football Office of Price Administration Obama Depression Vick marketing G.I. bill football team Tantillo Nanny State Philadelphia Eagles America dogs situational help socialized medicine institutionalized help Michael Vick socialism big government
Brand Winner… | And Loser |
 |  |
John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:
Winner: Philadelphia Eagles
Loser: Nanny State
Folks, without further ado:
The Winner
The Philadelphia Eagles have made a gutsy and smart brand move by bringing Michael Vick on board.
It's a move that shows they understand their Target Market.
First, football fans are more male than female; dog owners are split 50/50 between men and women;
Second, football fans are younger, while dog owners are older; and
Third, football fans are more affluent than dog owners.
But, most of all, The Eagles understand the core feature of their brand: they are a football team; and football teams need to win. Michael Vick is a superb (and contrite) football player who will make the franchise much stronger and more likely to win.
Fans will be forgiving and applaud this move when the Eagles do win. Sports brands are performance brands. End of story.
The Loser
The Nanny State in America.
With talk that the Obama administration is moving away from its vision of the government as the insurer of the uninsured, America is showing once again why the cradle-to-grave nanny state ethic of other countries simply doesn’t fit with our brand.
Americans want government to help when they really need it. But only when they really need it. The rest of the time, they’d rather be doing things on their own.
The angry outbursts and popular movements against the perceived health care putsch, as well as the general disfavor for a big government plan, have reminded us that America is majority right of center and still hews to the ideal of rugged individualism.
By and large, the twentieth century has shown that Americans favor “situational” help but not “institutionalized” help.
After World War II, we had the GI Bill to provide important assistance to returning vets. During the war, of course, we had The Office of Price Administration… Now that sounds like Big Brother, and it was —but it was temporary (a necessity during wartime), and that’s the key.
Americans are willing to accept government intervention in extraordinary circumstances, but when things return to normal —fuggedaboutit.
This is critical to understanding the Target Market —which, for Barack Obama, as it is for every president, is all of the American people.
The situational help has to respond to the situational reality if it is to be politically viable in America. During the Depression, unemployment was close to triple what it is now and desperately needed Federal help –—help was provided. We’re nowhere near that number now, and our policy has to reflect this fact, as do the policy responses across the board, from health care to the auto industry. (Cash For Clunkers, for all its management faults, hit about the right level of responsive help.)
Folks, this isn’t Charles Dickens’ England.
Going forward, the Democrats and the White House (as well as Republicans crafting a viable opposition) need to remember that the Nanny State model simply does not correspond to America's core brand features.
And remember, it’s always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY -
When considering a radical brand move, your Target Market’s sensibilities must come first.
Comments