Conservative Brands

A ‘brand expert’ was on Newsnight last wednesday night discussing â??David Cameron’sâ?? ‘central brand proposition’, from which could flow (he said) ‘multiple brand communications aimed at different markets’. Needless to say it was only a matter of seconds before he’d descended into a brand-induced world of double-speak, and ended up saying nothing of any consequence.

This idea of ‘multiple brand communications’ got me thinking about what â??Douglas Rushkoffâ?? calls (in his documentary â??Persuaders) ‘narrowcasting’, and he demonstrates how it was used during the most recent presidential elections in the US. This is the use of multimedia messages delivered through various personalised channels, varying in tone and content in accordance with finely honed demographic information provided by the â??Acxiom Corporationâ?? (and collected by them everytime you register for a service online, make a creditcard transaction etc). This was used to ensure that if you were, for example, a potential voter receptive to the idea of tighter gun control, this commitment could be made to you in a targetted message, without the need to make such an emotive and devisive commitment to the wider public, (and therefore risk the possibility of putting off other undecided voters). Very clever indeed, but the bottom line outcome of this approach is political parties making commitments to small groups and individuals based on their understanding of who you are and what you want to hear. So what effect does this have on the value of commitments made during elections, and the already cynical public? And can a party ‘stand’ for something if the future of politics is this kind of narrowcasting of ‘micro-policies’, formulated by using market data to second guess what we want to hear? Of course the same arguements apply to the narrow-casting of commercial brands, but somehow it seems a more emotive issue when these techniques are used in marketing politics.

Back to the ‘Cameron Brand’, on thursday, (and the subject is starting to wear slightly thin at this point), Ulrikka Johnson was on ‘This Week’ discussing how it didn’t really matter what David Cameron’s policies were, rather that he had a good ‘image’. She said that he represented empathy, femininity (?) and compassion, (his ‘brand values’), and this is what matters to voters.

Given that virtually no one votes these days I can’t envisage anything being further from the truth – I imagine the only people who still doggedly turn out on polling day to be real political anoraks who are interested in substance, and revile politics of image. I may be wrong. One thing I am certain of is a forthcoming period of ‘brand’ nonsense talked around Cameron, Blair, Brown and their respective Parties. If you spot any, please add it to the comments section.