A brand is all of the images, ideas, feelings and experiences consumers have with a particular product or service. The ultimate purpose of branding is to stand out in the marketplace - and to convince the consumer to buy what we’re selling.

For candidate brands, the vote is equivalent to the sale.  Looking at the individual presidential brands and assessing where they currently stand in the marketplace according to our “horserace” question brings up the ultimate question in branding: emotional vs. intellectual appeal. 

Said another way, can we sell more widgets by tugging at consumers’ heart strings or by convincing them with cold, hard facts?  Another way of thinking about this is to assume that a brand that emphasizes performance is primarily aiming at the head; a brand built on personality tries to appeal to the heart.

Challenging Traditional Views of the Major Parties?

At first glance, looking at the state of the race in each party reveals something many might find counterintuitive.

At the risk of offending some partisans on both sides of the aisle, we generally think of Republicans as the less emotional, more intellectual, more pragmatic party.  That is, Republicans are generally seen as the party of fiscal discipline and a pragmatic foreign policy and as business-friendly.  Republicans generally see government as a means of protecting individual rights.

For instance, when then-Vice President George H.W. Bush accepted his party’s nomination for president in 1988, one of the most memorable lines in his acceptance speech was a desire to build a “kinder, gentler” Republican party.

By its very nature, that line implied a notion that the emotional – the warm and fuzzy, if you will – is the province of the Democrats.  Democrats are regarded as the party of social programs and human rights and as environmentally-friendly.  Democrats generally view government as a tool for improving society as a whole by helping those less fortunate.

But looking at the current front-runners in each party belies these traditional images of the two parties.  The brand images of three of the four major candidates in the Republican primary are currently more aligned with personality rather than performance.  Put simply, Republican “buyers” right now seem to be looking for a candidate they can love.  While John McCain continues to lead his opponents on performance (although some slippage has occurred) he’s falling even further behind in terms of personality – and he’s gone from first in the horserace to third.

On the other hand, from the moment she entered the race Hillary Clinton has been the Democratic frontrunner – and her brand is based almost solely on performance.  At this point, a rather large plurality of Democrats wants a no nonsense candidate, with “warm and fuzzy” of little concern (although as we’ve seen, Clinton has begun to make some progress, especially on the question of likability).

Things may not really be this simple, however.  Even among Democrats, a slight majority prefers a more personality-oriented candidate.  Unfortunately for Obama and Edwards they are currently splitting this segment of the political marketplace.

Striking the Right Balance

The reality, of course, is that all branding - whether we’re talking about widgets or candidates - is about striking the right balance between the heart and the head.

Both candidates and voters like to believe they are driven by their heads.  Candidates want to appear knowledgeable on the issues and to have rational reasons for their positions.  Likewise, voters want to believe they approach the issues rationally and analyze the candidates carefully, presumably to choose a candidate based on their stands on the issues.  In the process, however, both candidates and voters often find themselves drifting toward matters of the heart while still believing they've been quite rational.

Traditional Branding vs. Presidential Branding

The belief that we always act rationally – despite evidence to the contrary – holds as true for consumers as it does voters. In branding studies we’ve conducted for hospitals and electric utilities, we often talk with consumers about "hard and soft" issues that are equivalent to this "head/heart" terminology.

When asked whether they prefer "a hospital that is stronger on the clinical side (i.e., the head) or one that is stronger on the patient care side (the heart),” more people say they prefer the clinical side than the patient care side.  Similarly, with electric utilities, a majority choose the utility with the strongest rating on performance (the head).

But why, in many instances, does actual consumer behavior contradict this? In our experience, consumers – and voters – will tend to “go with their hearts” when they see their options as sufficiently similar on the “hard stuff.” In the same way, if consumers lack the knowledge or experience to compare brands on rational issues, they can be swayed by a “softer” appeal.

There is one very major difference between branding a product or service and branding a candidate.  A traditional brand can survive – and even thrive – without a majority or even a plurality of market share. A brand with ten percent market share might be highly profitable, but candidates don’t have this luxury because American elections are a winner-take-all game.  

So far we have looked at each candidate within the confines of  their own parties.  But the ultimate winner will be the brand that keeps current customers, lures in a few customers from a competitor, and wins over enough customers with shifting brand loyalty to make the difference on “Sale Day.”