ARE YOU TIRED of the word "brand"? Political pundits apparently love it.
"Barack Obama is three things you want in a brand. New, different, and attractive." "John McCain has a strong brand identity as being a maverick." "Obama and his senior advisers crafted a strategy to fit the Obama brand." "McCain's out there working on his brand: I'm a different kind of Republican."
Even many journalists who are jargon-wary, fad-wary, and capitalism-wary find the B word irresistible.
Yet the candidate-as-brand idea demeans the candidates and the voters.
As Democratic presidential nominee Adlai E. Stevenson said in 1956, "The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal . . . is, I think, the ultimate indignity to the democratic process."
Brand is the identity of a company or product, symbolized by its logo and slogan. Talking about a candidate's brand - rather than reputation or record - implies that the candidate is a packaged product and voters are mere consumers.
An example of this marketing mindset is the media ridicule of McCain for giving a televised speech in front of a green backdrop. "Ghoulish green" was the way a CNN reporter described it recently - five weeks after the speech. If you consider how much thought and pride goes into designing a TV news set, you'll understand why TV pundits deem McCain's "lime green monster" a terrible gaffe. ("He undermined his brand!")
By contrast, reporters noted approvingly that Obama and Hillary Clinton were "color coordinated" at their unity rally. (Quality brands require consistent colors.)
We expect such cynicism from veteran politicos, but now we hear it from TV reporters covering the campaigns.
Reporters are supposed to be objective, yet increasingly many talk like political consultants (NBC's Andrea Mitchell: Obama "must move to the center"). Some try to sound like veteran strategist and Fox News analyst Dick Morris, who only seems to smile when being vitriolic or shedding darkness on a subject.
Yes, presidential campaigns use identity-marketing. In 1840, the "Log Cabin and Hard Cider" candidate, William Henry Harrison, was promoted as "Old Tippecanoe" to succeed "Old Hickory," President Andrew Jackson.
But we saw the limits of "brand positioning" in this year's campaign when Mitt Romney and John Edwards got image makeovers by their handlers so they would better appeal to primary voters. It didn't work. Both were glib and telegenic, but voters instead wanted "authenticity" - another favorite media buzzword of 2008.
"Brand" differentiates a product from its competitors, and brand marketing made sense in the primaries when there were eight candidates in both parties. Each candidate needed to stand out.
But now we have two candidates who already stand out. And both are intriguing. Obama has a mystique. McCain is a war hero. Why should TV reporters depict and diminish them as creatures of marketing when there are so many critical questions to be explored about their policies, qualifications, and principles?
To be fair, TV pundits often use shorthand concepts like "brand" because they only get two to six sentences to make a point. After all, TV anchors and reporters are required to introduce one another as "part of the best political team on television," "fair and balanced," "the best political team ever" - and that eats up a lot of time.
Perhaps TV reporters have so rationalized how marketing has turned broadcast news into "infotainment" that they like to feel that candidates are in show business too. Maybe they view would-be presidents as fellow Teleprompter-readers, not real leaders. Regardless, to have a well-informed electorate we need journalists to act as professional skeptics, not cynics.
Many voters are already cynical about the democratic process. When they hear reporters criticize a candidate for "not staying on message," instead of reporters urging candidates to open up and be less scripted, how can voters not feel that something's wrong with the process?
Voters rightly want to feel that issues matter, not just image - character matters, not just advertising - and voting matters, even if you don't belong to a "targeted demographic" in a swing state.
Meanwhile, all this talk about "brand" will end when the candidates finally debate. Then the substance of issues will matter more than style.
Unless, of course, one of the candidates wears a lime-green tie.
Todd Domke is a Boston-area Republican political analyst, public relations strategist, and author.
