Jonathan Goldsmith, the actor who is better know as Dos Equis' titled "The Most Interesting Man in the World", is causing a stir by throwing his clout behind Obama and hosting a fundraiser for the president.
This political activism is evidently upsetting some consumers, who in turn are taking it out on Dos Equis by posting their displeasure on the brand's Facebook page. An Ad Age article captured the following quotes: "Since you are supporting Obama you just lost a customer". . . "Mexican beer for Obama............bye-bye Dos Equis" Dos Equis moved to distance itself from the controversy by releasing a statement saying: "Mr. Goldsmith's opinions and views are strictly his own, and do not represent those of Dos Equis." But unlike some celebrity spokesman, Goldsmith's character is closer to a brand mascot. Therefore, he's not only the face of the brand, but also encompasses the full essence of the brand image/equity. So, how can his views not represent the brand in consumers' minds?
There's no doubt that "The Most Interesting Man In the World" campaign has been a tremendous success, perhaps one of the best advertising campaigns in recent CPG history, but anytime you leverage a spokesman you turn over some control of the brand to them. It would be easy for Goldsmith to highjack the brand, but it doesn't feel like he's doing that here and hosting a political fundraiser for the sitting president is far from committing a crime. So, in this case I think it's more what you do about nothing versus a real brand concern at this point. Sure the brand may lose a few consumers, but it's just as likely to gain a few and in the meantime pick up a little free PR. The big question it raises, is does Dos Equis have a longterm transition plan? At some point the brand will have to move on from Goldsmith and that transition will need to be made slowly over time as not to confuse or upset consumers.
Anybody else notice how political advertising has usually the opposite objective of consumer product advertising? What I mean is political ads are usually focused on trying to rebrand the candidate's competitor as something negative vs. trying to sell the benefits of their own candidates. For example, Romney has branded himself as a job creator, but the Obama team is focused on branding Romney as untrustworthy.
Like any good marketer their anti-Romney campaign keeps pushing 'untrustworthy' as the primary theme or essentially trying to develop a reverse brand equity, and the marketing campaign supports this benefit statement with several different platforms of reasons to believe that help reinforce the equity, such as:
1) Suggest Romney will say anything to get elected and switches viewpoints when its convenient
2) Suggest Romney was responsible for outsourcing US jobs while at Bain
3) Suggest Romney lied about when he left Bain and may have committed securities fraud by doing so
4) Suggest Romney is hiding his money in tax havens because he is refusing to show his historic tax returns
This effort has forced Romney to spend a good portion of his time denying these charges, which just makes him look defensive and less trustworthy, especially because he has stubbornly refused to show his tax returns - the only proof of his innocence. While its unfair, Romney started his campaign with a deficit of trust, not only because he's running against an incumbent, but also because the reality working against him is that many American's have a mistrust of the Mormon religion because different scares many people even in this day and age.
While I will not openly support or condemn these attacks on trust, the execution of the campaign is brilliant from a marketing strategy standpoint and follows the perfect formula for reverse branding and ingraining the equity/benefit in consumer/voters minds. A clear benefit that strongly resonates, supported by a clear reason to believe, and then when that reason to believe's shelf life expires and it's impact/breakthrough starts diminishing, rotating to new reasons to believe that all ladder back up.
Outside of politics, marketers rarely get a chance to reverse brand a competitor. Though the best consumer product execution of this strategy was by Apple in their infamous series of Mac vs. PC ads:
Is it just me or is Obama vs. Romney starting to look like Mac vs. PC? Reverse branding works when supported by enough reasons to believe.
I'm just as fascinated by presidential politics as I am by brand building. With the upcoming presidential election, I'll be sneaking in the occasional posting on how the candidates are building their own brands, or in both candidates cases partially re-staging their images. As the campaign heats up, pundits will be analyzing every last word the candidates say, while Obama/Romney will each will look to twist the other's misspoken words against them. This got me thinking on the importance of leveraging classic American symbolism to convey a message, while both leaving the pundits no place to run and elevating themselves to Presidential status. To this end, below is a reposting from a blog I started (though only had one post) on election strategery. ORIGINALLY POSTED ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 20, 2010
Overview: On August 13, 2010, the President spoke about the proposal to build a mosque two blocks from the site of the September 11 terror attacks.
What Obama said: "Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country...And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan."
These comments have been criticized by many on both republicans and democrats alike because they either disagree with his opinion that the mosque should be built - a CNN poll finds nearly 70% of Americans oppose the mosque - or they worry that his image will take another hit as he becomes further linked with Islam.
While I am one of the 30% of Americans that agrees with Obama and appreciate his want to do the right thing, I believe there was a more appropriate way to address the situation given the sensitivity of the subject.
What Obama Should have Said: "On January 20th, 2009 when I was sworn in as the President of the United States I put my hand on the bible and I took an oath . I took an oath, solemnly affirming that I would preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. And that oath, obligates me to preserve, protect and defend freedom of religion for all Americans."
While the substance of the message is the same, by invoking the power of the presidential oath, the constitution, and finally the bible, Obama's message would have carried more weight. In changing his approach, he would have left less rope for his critics to run with and lifted him above the messy debate.
