Mark Newsome of Chernoff Newman discussing the appeal of Barack Obama in the San Francisco Chronicle: 

Obama has excelled in selling his political ideas by "expanding the market" for his message, said Mark Newsom, senior vice president and chief marketing officer of Chernoff Newman, a South Carolina consumer marketing firm that has conducted polls to track the marketing strengths of presidential candidates.

Like Winfrey, Jordan and Woods, Obama's appeal conveys what Newsom calls "the X-factor or the star factor ... a core strength that is very engaging."

But the common bond shared by all these successful people, he said, is that "they are superlative in their field. Michael is a fantastic athlete, Oprah a great entertainer, and Barack brings a very fresh outlook to things."

To many American voters, "he's a good-looking guy who is intelligent and articulate and the kind of person who I would like to hang out with," Newsom said.

It takes time, effort and money to create a brand identity – and it can take even more time, effort and money to change it once it’s established.  Presidential candidates, of course, operate on a much different, more compressed schedule than traditional companies or organizations.  But just as with products and services, once consumers have a collection of images and ideas in mind, it’s not easy to change those perceptions.

Think of the auto industry. German automaker Daimler Benz became Daimler Chrysler a few years ago.  But even some pretty good ads featuring company chairman Dr. Dieter Zetsche couldn’t change a Chrysler into a Mercedes.

As another example, major oil companies have spent plenty of marketing dollars over the last few years touting “green” initiatives and environmental stewardship.  But in a 2006 study by Harris Interactive, just seven percent of adults surveyed believe oil companies “are concerned about the local community and environment.”

Democrats see Hillary Clinton as the best prepared, most experienced and most competent candidate for the presidency despite a lack of warmth and likability.  Barack Obama has all the personal attributes Clinton lacks – but he also lacks her depth of experience.  Despite efforts to address these brand weaknesses, each candidate’s success at changing these perceptions has thus far proven marginal.  However…

2. A Tiger Can't Ignore Changes In The Jungle

While changing brand perception isn’t easy, a brand must respond to change.  When digital cameras became all the rage, Kodak couldn’t survive long by being the biggest brand of film.  When consumers became concerned about their weight, McDonald’s added salads to its menu.  When every kid in America started wearing Nikes, Converse had to position Chuck Taylors as retro-cool.

John McCain has a strong, stable brand identity – but that brand is losing market share among Republican primary voters, in large part because…

3. A New Tiger Can Change Everything

Competitors can significantly affect a brand identity – especially when something brand spankin’ new comes along.

Apple didn’t invent the digital music player – but the iPod quickly came to dominate the space.  Fred Thompson isn’t the first Republican to talk about cutting taxes and protecting the rights of gun owners, but his entrance into the race has, at least for now, changed the competitive landscape.

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.”

What is really at issue here is whether Republican primary and caucus voters will vote with their heart or their head early next year.

What is really at issue here is whether Republican primary and caucus voters will vote with their heart or their head early next year.

Giuliani is clearly the head choice; his moderate stances on social issues make him palatable to independent and moderate voters and he remains inextricably linked (in a positive way) to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Much of Giuliani's rise and continued success is tied into the fact that there is no obvious heart candidate in the field. Romney is doing his damndest to be just that -- espousing conservative positions on nearly every hot button issue -- but his past statements on things like abortion and gay rights make it a tough sell. Thompson was thought to be the heart candidate for the conservative base of the party but his campaign has sputtered since the beginning and voters may well be losing faith.

Hillary Clinton remains the frontrunner among South Carolina Democrats, although her market share has dropped a bit.

If the race is narrowed to the top three contenders, Clinton leads with 41 percent, Obama has 34 percent and Edwards is at 20 percent. 

This represents a two-point drop for Clinton, a five-point decrease for Edwards and a nine-point increase for Obama.  Clinton held a 43-25 lead over Obama in April.

Thompson Surges In Close Republican Race

The race is much closer – and much changed – on the Republican side.

Among all candidates, Fred Thompson now leads with 27 percent, followed by Giuliani at 22, McCain at 17, non-candidate Newt Gingrich at 10 and Mitt Romney at 9.  If the race is narrowed down to the top four contenders candidates, Thompson has 35 percent; Giuliani is second with 25; McCain is at 21, and Romney claims 13 percent.

This is a significant change from April, when McCain led a three-way race with Giuliani and Romney with 36 percent, followed by Giuliani (34%) and Romney (21%).

These are the major findings of a follow-up to our May Presidential Brand Study that we are releasing today.

In developing a brand strategy for a political candidate or a product, the key decision is whether to base your appeal on emotion or intellect.

In our study, we're finding that the leading Republican candidate brands are personality-based, and the brand identity of the clear Democratic frontrunner is built on performance.  At the moment, Republican consumers seem to be searching their hearts for a candidate to love, while Democrats prefer a more intellectual approach to picking their candidate.

These findings  challenge the conventional wisdom about the two parties.  Republicans are often considered the less emotional, more business-like, more pragmatic party;  Democrats are supposed to be more emotional and empathetic.

Brownback: Looks as if was created by a college student (with no design skills) using Microsoft Word. The initial capital "B" and the red lines look clumsy.

Clinton: The professional design is obvious: the kerning of her name is spot-on, the way "for President" is sitting on top if her name looks good and the banner has a retro feel. Choosing her first name makes sense, coming across as friendly and recognizable. Using "Clinton for President" might confuse some folks.

Dodd: One of the few candidates who didn't state the obvious: "I'm running for President." The design is simple and middle-of-the-road, but it doesn't have the compact feel the Biden logo has.

Edwards: Another very professional design, different from most all the others. It's clean and modern with sans serif type, and doesn't push the patriotic buttons too much. This says he respects the voter enough to not drape a flag over the logo. The only problem is the web address is a bit small.

Giuliani: Another candidate who didn't feel a need to state the obvious. The domain name they chose is good; it makes us a part of the team. The design is pretty understated and friendly with the use of the first name.

Gravel: This loses points for a clip-art looking flag, poor balance in the design, poor kerning; the '08 looks like it might fall off the capital "L." I bet this guy wears a cheap suit.

Huckabee: With a long and memorable name like "Huckabee," they should just drop the first name. I can't tell what the arrangement of the stars is supposed to represent.

Hunter: Pretty boring. The only pizzaz in it is the '08, but because it's behind "for President" it's hard to read.

Kucinich: This guy has a tough choice: Use the first name and it sounds like a boy or use the last name and it's hard to read. I would have gone for the last name. Regarding the design: the flag/banner looks more like a radio wave, and hanging "for President" on the right looks awkward and unbalanced.

McCain: Top-notch, it screams that he's confident. It assumes you know what he's running for and the year he's doing it. It's also very martial without hitting you on the head. This is one of my favorites.

Obama: This has the best icon with the capital O and flag/horizon thing. The type choice is a little weak, but that may be on purpose.

Paul: Another amateur-looking design, but not offensive. This is one of those benign looking logos that is instantly forgettable.

Richardson: Well-designed, nice use of type. This one looks hawkish, like a fighter jet.

Romney: Just horrible design and clumsy type. The flag/banner/eagle looks like it could be claw marks. I'd lose the first name, too - "Mitt Romney" doesn't even sound like a real name. "Romney for President" is better.

Tancredo:

On her blog, Hue, Rachel Perls, an associate of the International Association of Color Consultants, is underwhelmed:

Every election, politicians struggle to develop their image into a cohesive, marketable package to sell to voters. Everyone gets a logo that is wrapped up in a (hopefully) unique brand message. But frankly, I'm pretty bored with what is out there. The few variations include the green tail on a star (a nod to environmentalism?) from John Edwards, the black background symbolizing John McCain's military background. Chris Dodd's is beige, brown, and boring.* Barack Obama has a nice modern design, very "Web 2.0", though.

Like it or not, a candidate's attractiveness affects how people vote, especially in the presidential race. Presidential elections are in many ways the most personal and intimate of all because a president -- unlike a state legislator, Congressman or Senator -- is almost certain to be a regular presence in American homes for at least four years. But even on downballot races, looks are often part of the debate. Rep. Brad Ellsworth's (D-Ind.) good looks became the talk of Washington during his successful 2006 race against Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.).

Shanto Iyengar, Professor of Communication and director of the Political Communication Lab at Stanford University, has done studies on how candidates' appearance affect voters' responses. In one study done in partnership with washingtonpost.com Iyengar demonstrated that incumbents or any candidate who gets a lot of media coverage may benefit from voters' natural affinity for familiar faces.

A brand is all about consumer experience represented by a collection of images and ideas that help to uniquely differentiate products or services that appear to be identical.  Packaging is a key component of brand appeal, especially for consumer products.  In many ways, a presidential candidate is the ultimate consumer product - and, for better or worse, the package that brand comes in is important.

In our brand study, we directly asked respondents which candidate looks "most presidential." 

On the Democratic side, 23 percent said Hillary Clinton looks most presidential, followed by John Edwards at 19 percent. For Republicans, 22 percent said Mitt Romney looks the most like a president, followed by John McCain at 19 percent.

Excerpts of Media Politics, written by the Political Communications Lab's Shanto and Jennifer McGrady are available on the lab's website.

Having spent more than a decade in the world of advertising, I suppose it's only natural I tend to view political candidates and their campaigns as brands. Brands can be broken down into two components: a rational offer (I buy Product X because it does Y) and an emotional appeal (I buy Product X because it makes me feel Y). Of course, the most successful brands do both, presenting a compelling reason for consumers to choose one product over another.

In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination right now we're witnessing a battle between two powerful brands. Yes, John Edwards remains a factor in Iowa and Bill Richardson has the aura of a potential dark horse, but in reality it has boiled down to a two-person contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama much more quickly than many expected.

And if you look at the head-to-head clash between the brands of Clinton and Obama, you can see a very apt analogy in the long (and ongoing) battle between two of the most successful brands in U.S. history: Microsoft and Apple.