|
Not Just Values
By Michael Alan Hamlin
November 11, 2004
When George W. Bush won re-election
to a second term as U.S. president last week, commentators observed
that it wasn't the War against Terrorism or the fear of changing
leaders while fighting insurgents in Iraq that made Mr. Bush the
first majority-elected president since his father was elected in
1988. It was, they said on the basis of exit poll data, Mr. Bush's
conservative values that overcame doubts regarding such things as
the nation's fiscal debt and the invasion of Iraq in the first place.
But these observers are not exactly
correct. What made the difference for Mr. Bush - and accounted for
contender John Kerry's downfall - was Mr. Bush's success in credibly
defining himself as a man of conservative values. What accounts
for this success? To answer that question, let's assume that when
we refer to values, we're referring to a set of deeply held convictions.
Track Record. As I've observed
regularly in this space, image - whether of a corporate or personal
brand - is essentially a product that has two parts. One part is
reality. If the reality is substance-driven, that's a good thing.
However, when the reality is not substance-driven, that's a bad
thing leading to such things as inconsistent positions, lack of
clarity, and shallow convictions, for instance, in the case of a
politician's personal brand.
The second part of image is communication.
Although a politician, for example, may have strong convictions,
a consistent record, and perseverance, for instance, if these things
are not communicated credibly, regularly, and with impact, track
record won't matter much because the people who it matters to -
voters - won't base their decisions on that information. They'll
base their decisions on lack of information; or worse, on information
provided by the politician's opponent.
The bottom line in the context of
the U.S. presidential election is not that Mr. Kerry lacked a track
record, however. Rather, it was that he tried to cover up his track
record, and when he did this, he didn't do a credible job. It is
after all, very difficult to color reality and get away with it
even for a short time, and it is impossible to get away with it
for an extended presidential campaign.
A good example is Mr. Kerry's wavering
support of the Iraq War. When the U.S. went to war with Iraq, Mr.
Kerry voted to support the war. But in the middle of the Democratic
primaries under pressure from presidential aspirant Howard Dean,
Mr. Kerry voted against providing financial support for the war
effort that was intended to provide additional logistical support
and protection for U.S. troops. Worse, whether one is for or against
the war itself, it was politically ill advised to object to the
war at the troops' expense while they were in Iraq fighting for
their country and their lives.
In contrast, Mr. Bush has made a
series of decisions many of his supporters have deep doubts about,
and that sent his detractors into frenzied fits of rage. Despite
broad concern that the Iraq occupation was not well planned and
has resulted in needless deaths of Iraqis, U.S. troops, and others,
a majority of those who voted in the election voted for Mr. Bush
because he is viewed as a man of principle. Make sure you get the
point here. It is that mistakes can be forgiven, even some tough
ones. But lack of principles cannot.
Communication Strategy. Effective
communication is more than meets the eye, or the ear. Most observers
agree that Mr. Kerry defeated Mr. Bush in all three debates in terms
of style. Unfortunately for Mr. Kerry, reality did not match style.
Mr. Kerry tried to communicate the notion that he could be tough-minded,
resolute, and unwavering in the face of adversity. And that he is
religious, too. In reality, Mr. Kerry's record is one driven more
by opportunity and convenience than conviction. As far as his religious
credentials go, he had difficulty getting the backing of his own
church because of his stand on abortion, which itself represented
another easy political concession to liberal activists.
Mr. Bush, on the other hand, frequently
looked and sounded somewhat juvenile in the debates. But he also
spoke with a passion that was credible. And Mr. Bush stuck to his
principal message that presidents must be willing to make tough,
unpopular decisions for the benefit of the nation. That message
resonated in part because it was so apparent that Mr. Kerry couldn't
credibly argue that he was up to that task.
In the end, as a result, Mr. Bush
clearly defined and differentiated himself from Mr. Kerry, and forcefully
articulated those differences. Mr. Kerry said he was different,
and voters agreed. But not that Mr. Kerry was different in a possible
and believable way, at least in the view of a majority of those
who voted in the election last week. So is the U.S. growing more
conservative? I'm not sure. But I am sure that a majority of U.S.
voters can pretty easily tell when a politician isn't living up
to his brand.
(Michael Alan Hamlin is the managing
director of consultancy TeamAsia and the author of three books on
Asian economies and companies. His latest book is Marketing
Asian Places, of which he is a co-author (Wiley, 2001), and
he is currently at work on High Visibility: The Making and Marketing
of Asian Professionals into Celebrities. Write him at mahamlin@teamasia.com.).
Copyright © 2004 Michael Alan Hamlin. All Rights
Reserved.
(###)
|
