Study Explores the “Un-candidate” and “Safe Choice” Brand Strategies
Millward Brown, the world’s leading expert in helping clients grow great brands, today released a study exploring the brands behind the two U.S. presidential candidates, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, comparing them with brand profiles in the company’s extensive brand database. The Clinton brand aligned with profiles of proficient but undifferentiated brands, including American Airlines, the United States Postal Service and Visit Florida, the state’s travel arm, while the Trump brand was unlike any brand found in the company’s BrandZ™ database of more than 100,000 brands.
The study, Candidates as Brands, assessed each candidate’s brand using Millward Brown’s Meaningfully Different framework, a method used to evaluate a commercial brand’s Power via its Meaning, Difference and Salience. The framework has been validated against sales outcomes and correlates with brand success and market share.
“We know that meaningfully different brands are much more likely to be selected, to command greater premiums and to grow in the future,” said Christopher Murphy, Chief Client Officer, Millward Brown North America. “And while our typical study might evaluate the strength of, for example, a CPG, financial services or automotive brand, political candidates can be evaluated through a brand lens too: Does the candidate meaningfully connect – either functionally or emotionally? Is the candidate seen as different or capable of driving positive change? And, is the candidate top of mind, or salient?”
In comparing the candidates’ scores to the database, Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders was also assessed, and aligned with brands including JetBlue, Instagram and Ghirardelli Chocolate. When the primary season was in full swing, the Sanders brand showed a stronger combination of Meaning and Difference when compared with the Clinton and Trump brands, but had much lower Salience.
Commenting on the findings, Murphy said, “The Clinton brand profile aligns with brands in our database that are accessible and reliable, but not particularly innovative or disruptive; that is, her brand is Salient and Meaningful to many, but it has little differentiation. Brand Trump is unlike any brand in our database; extraordinary when considering we measure more than 100,000 brands. Trump seems to have employed a true category disassociation strategy; he’s the ‘un-candidate’ and has created a brand like no other.”
When comparing the Clinton and Trump brands, both index highly on Salience (149 and 159 respectively, where an average index is 100), but show dissimilar profiles for Meaning and Difference. Clinton leads on Meaning (108 compared with Trump’s 76), with Trump well ahead on Difference (157 compared with Clinton’s 70). But while Trump’s unique combination of extreme Difference and Salience helped his brand stand apart from 16 relatively undifferentiated Republican candidates during the primary season, his low Meaning score now poses a significant hurdle in a narrowed general election field.
In contrast, while Sanders was the least Salient of the three with an index of 78, he had the strongest Meaning score in the group, measured at 130, and a markedly higher Difference score, 121, compared with Brand Clinton. Murphy commented, “While the primary schedule did not work in Sanders’ favor – his Salience was still building but substantially lagged Clinton’s – his brand’s Meaning and Difference would be the envy of many marketers.”
The study also explored the lack of brand love for both Trump and Clinton, and concludes that twice as many voters will hate our next president than will love him or her, and that the majority will not trust our next president. The hatred and brand rejection expressed towards Trump among some groups was significant, with 64 percent of women and 90 percent of African Americans rejecting the brand.
Compared with Trump, Clinton has much stronger Brand Power (a combination of Meaning, Difference and Salience and expressed as share of preference) among key demographic groups, including women, African-Americans, Hispanics, younger and religiously unaffiliated voters. With Christians essentially split between Trump and Clinton, those who practice other religions and the estimated quarter of the population that is religiously unaffiliated are firmly aligned with Brand Clinton with a Power score of 74, compared to Trump’s score of 26.
Murphy concluded, “There might not be many campaign bumper stickers in the months ahead, but relative Meaning matters most in a two-way battle where both brands are so well known. Brand Clinton may struggle with trust and differentiation, but if the election were held today, she would win because of meaningfully connecting with a greater array of demographic groups and the estimated quarter of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated.“