John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week

Brand Winner...	And Loser...

John Tantillo’s Winner and Loser of The Week:

Winner:  Colbert and Stewart

Loser:  The Obama White House                                     

Winner: 

For sheer brand promotion: Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert go to the winner’s circle this week.

Their rally over the weekend attracted 100,000-plus fans.  Last week, there was Stewart’s interview with the president; a few weeks before that Colbert’s much-publicized immigration testimony on Capitol Hill.

Both brands are really on a roll with their Target Markets and doing what they do best: entertain.  

But with the election looming, and assuming that Stewart and Colbert also have larger political objectives, did they do much to achieve these objectives?

Fuggedaboutit!

Stewart and Colbert remind me of the biggest brand management difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals tend to cannibalize each other’s brands or step on each other by being putting their own individual brand traits and success first and, ultimately, tending more toward brand disunity than unity.  Conservatives –because of better brand management and discipline and maybe also a more cohesive brand ideology— tend not to do this.

Take Beck and Limbaugh.  Both men are wildly successful brands who speak to their Target Markets and motivate political action without –and this is a big without— impairing the political brands of their brothers and sisters in arms.  In other words, Beck and Limbaugh prosper, but not at the expense of most conservative candidates.  They entertain but they don’t detract from their movement.  They are partisan brands but being partisan is built into their brand definitions to begin with so that’s okay.

Not so with Stewart and Colbert.  Fact is, Stewart and Colbert don’t (and probably can’t) do what Limbaugh and Beck do because they are comedy brands. 

Folks, it’s simply impossible to stay “on message” if on some level you’re supposed to be making fun of it.

For example, Stewart made the decision to bring the President onto his show.  However, since Stewart’s show is a laugh-fest, it was inevitable that at some point it would look like Stewart’s audience was laughing at –not with— the president.  Then Stewart addressed the Commander-in-Chief as “dude.” 

That’s perfect for Stewart’s brand because that’s what his audience expects, but being called “dude” won’t help the president’s brand no matter how you slice it.

Bottom line, what the ascension of the Stewart and Colbert brands tells us is that the Democrats have a leadership vacuum.  Whereas, Limbaugh and Beck point their followers toward definite political brand action (i.e., endorse those who support smaller government, stronger immigration policies and lower taxes), Stewart and Colbert entertain and appeal to larger sentiments and ideals that don’t have immediate political brand impact. 

The fact that pundits are looking toward Stewart and Colbert for a semblance of liberal leadership is bad news for Democrats. 

Stewart’s appeal for sanity is admirable and, again, it makes the Stewart brand look great but it won’t help any Democrats keep their seats.

Loser:

With the approach of what looks to be a real drubbing at the polls, the Obama White House is about to get some genuine market feedback.

When President Obama was still Candidate Obama, we looked at the impressive marketing machine he had developed in the form of his campaign’s unprecedented email database. 

At the time, it looked like he and his White House would be able to turn his interactive, hands-on and energetic supporter base into a political “e-force” of the sort that America had never seen before. 

All those email addresses could have served as an instantaneous way to motivate his supporters to help get legislation passed and continue to build up Brand Obama as interactive and responsive.

Well, folks, it just hasn’t worked out that way.  Instead, that e-mail list and that youthful supporter base that helped get him into office has been so poorly handled that it’s no longer a force at all. 

I’ve written about Brand Obama having all the classic signs of being a fad. 

Now there’s some proof, courtesy of an in-depth article in The New York Times.

Basically, interviews and a look at how the White House used that amazing email list show that the campaign that built itself around “listening” to voters began talking too much and listening too little after it won office.

As one disappointed young Democrat put it: “He made young people feel important, then he got into office and there was no one talking to us.”

What else do you need to add?  The best marketing is about listening and responding to needs.  Instead it looks like these emails told supporters what to do.  It was all a one-way street.   Wow!  Talk about mis-using a resource.

No surprise that after enough of these one-way-street emails instructing Obama’s young faithful in exactly how to talk about health care or other legislation, most of the supporters tuned out.

Corporations dream of the kind of youth networks that the Obama administration had in its pocket…  Once they are built, you keep them engaged.  Like everything in marketing, you never take your customer (or supporter) for granted.  Never.  But the Obama White House did.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.