Oh you thought were were witnessing a general election campaign?

No, no. I made the same mistake to begin with. What we’re seeing now is something entirely different.

A general perception campaign.

Every since the leaders’ debates kicked off two weeks ago, only one thing has mattered.

Appearances.

How they look. How they [...]]]> In this election, appearances are everything.

Oh you thought were were witnessing a general election campaign?

No, no. I made the same mistake to begin with. What we’re seeing now is something entirely different.

A general perception campaign.

Every since the leaders’ debates kicked off two weeks ago, only one thing has mattered.

Appearances.

How they look. How they sound. Whether they’re convincing. Who comes across as honest. Do they look shifty? Who’s making eye contact?  (Nick Clegg cracked that one way before the others, and became Mr Stary Man.)

“I thought Gordon Brown came across as human,” I heard one woman say on Radio 4.

As opposed to what? An animal? A machine? A Cyberman?

Well yes, come to think of it, he does sometimes come across as the last one.

After the Lib Dem bounce following the first debate, Brown quickly realised that presentation wasn’t his strong suit. And he said so in the second debate:

“This may have the feel of a TV popularity contest. But in truth, this election is a fight for Britain’s future. Your future and your jobs. If it’s all about style and PR, count me out. But if you want someone to make decisions…”

(I’ll spare you the rest, as he then reverted to Cyberman mode.)

You see what he’s doing, don’t you?

Facing reality, turning his weakness into a strength, taking the moral high ground and cutting his rivals off at the pass.

That said, it’s only so effective.

He’s right when he says that presentation isn’t his strong suit.

But then neither are his suits, which look baggy and shapeless. Worse, he looks older because he is older, but also because he’s taken the decision not to hide his grey hair – unlike Nick Clegg, whose hair seems to change colour day by day.

So sharp suit or baggy suit? Grey hair or raven’s wing? Son of the manse or public schoolboy?

It’s all so difficult, isn’t it? But maybe help is at hand.

Manifest destiny

A key element of the parties’ communication strategy is their election manifesto.

Have you read them? I have.

Well, to be completely honest, I’ve skimmed them. But then, that’s all we seem to do with anything these days. Even schoolchildren don’t read classics all the way through now. Why bother, when you can download a bullet-pointed synopsis online?

As communication has speeded up, so our attention span has become shorter. Not for us the turgid prose of those dense documents that littered the political landscape 20 years ago.

Remember Labour’s 1983 manifesto? I thought not. It was famously called ‘the longest suicide note in history’ by Gerald Kaufman.

So how do the manifestos shape up in the digital age when our attention span rarely exceeds 140 characters?

Not too badly, all things considered.

• The Tories have seven versions of the manifesto, aimed at different audiences and attention spans – from the 250K ‘easy read’ to the high-res 77MB version (good). But the manifesto page is swimming in a sea of tiny text (bad).
• Labour have just one version, but it’s 77 pages long (bad) and not summarised (bad x2). They also have little cartoon video clips which could amuse or irritate and look a little… laboured (bad). But they have a ‘Share the manifesto’ button so you can upload to Twitter and Facebook (good).
• The Lib Dems have a roll-your-own approach, so you can pick the topics (family, job, life, money etc.) that most matter to you. You can do the same with video clips, and they even let you embed the manifesto video player in your site (er, no thanks). Add BlackBerry updates and an Obama-esque iPhone app, and you’ve got a manifesto that wins hands down – on presentation, that is. Whether it translates into reality is another question entirely.

The business of politics

So what does all this have to do with real life? With positioning your products, services and company?

Everything.

Here are just some of the lessons we can learn from the General Perception campaign 2010:

• Appearances count, which means that often, perception is reality.
• You have to be where the people are – and that means Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, blogs and anywhere else they hang out.
• The unexpected happens, so you need to remain flexible. A Clegg Bounce can come from anywhere, so be prepared.
• Language is powerful. The words you choose matter – so choose them carefully.
• Tailor your message to your audience, because one size never fits all.

So who gets my vote?

Well I think I’ll just float for a little while longer, and check out the ties, the suits and the haircuts.

I’ll look into their eyes – because they’re bound to look into mine, now that it’s the done thing – and I’ll see who looks dodgy. Or not.

And then, on May 6, I’ll put my cross in the box.

But only if the candidate’s got the X Factor.

Find out more:

• Famous last words: Labour’s 1983 manifesto (aka The Longest Suicide Note in History).
• Decisions, decisions. Still floating? Sky News comes to the rescue with its Who should I vote for? election quiz.
• Virtual reality. Who’s winning the election online? Tweetminster thinks it has the answer.
• A bridge too far. No time to plough through Charlotte Brontë’s classic novel Jane Eyre? You could always listen to the abridged audio-book instead.

Every January, I play a little game. I check how long it is before I see the evergreen headline New Year, New You! somewhere.

In past years, winners have been my gym, The Times, and my ex-ex-mobile phone operator (brand loyalty isn’t my strong suit).

This [...]]]> We can all do with a makeover now and then

Every January, I play a little game. I check how long it is before I see the evergreen headline New Year, New You! somewhere.

In past years, winners have been my gym, The Times, and my ex-ex-mobile phone operator (brand loyalty isn’t my strong suit).

This year, the winner was Tesco. For there, above the magazine rack in my local store, were those four fateful words. And it was only 29 December. That took the biscuit (low-fat, Light Choices, of course).

Why does it work year after year?

Because change is good. Any change.

And what goes for our faces, figures and jobs also goes for our businesses, brands and corporate image.

The constant constant

No brand can afford to stand still. But not all brands change for the same reason. Some want to, some need to, and some do it just because they can.

So why would you want to change your brand?

• It’s stale. What seemed like a great logo, tagline or look simply doesn’t cut it any more. You’re tired of seeing it, tired of hearing it, tired of putting it out there. And guess what? Your customers probably feel the same way.
• It’s invisible. ‘Brand blindness’ inevitably sets in among your target audience. Been there, done that. Nothing to see, move on. Change your look and they’ll sit up and take notice again.
• It’s falling behind. Makeovers are a me-too thing. If everybody else is doing them, and you’re not, it doesn’t matter how strong your brand is. It’s a game, so learn to do it well and often.

Sometimes, there’s simply no option. A takeover, for example, means that somebody loses out. When HSBC took over Midland Bank, a brand that had been on UK high streets for over a century disappeared without a trace.

The same happened recently when the Spanish giant Santander swallowed up Abbey, Bradford & Bingley and Alliance & Leicester. But when it comes to brands, bigger isn’t always better, as Barclays’ ill-fated ‘big bank’ advertising campaign proved.

Consumers like choice, and smaller banks, with a cosy, corner-shop feel, are preferable to huge multinationals. In an interesting development, the charmingly named Williams and Glyn’s bank looks set to re-emerge from the rubble if the Royal Bank of Scotland is broken up.

Froth with wings

Times change, and brands do too. Could there be a more iconic brand of the boom era than Starbucks? From humble beginnings in 1970s Seattle, it spread around the world and became synonymous with coffee.

Dot.com entrepreneurs hung out with grungy college students, lounging in battered leather seats with chill-out music wafting among the tables.

But that was then. This is now.

Big is now Bad: big banks, big investment houses, big bonuses.

Small is the new big. So Starbucks is going small again, launching unbranded coffee shops in an effort to lure people back.

So if you wander into 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea in Seattle, and think what a welcome alternative to Starbucks, you’re in for a surprise.

Because it’s Starbucks.

The stuff of legend

Sometimes, you really have no choice, and a makeover is not just an option – it’s the only option.

2010 sees the relaunch of a venerable old magazine, with a 90-year track record. The new title is to be Canada’s History.

It’s not going to set the world on fire, but at least it has the virtue of being immediately recognisable and obvious. Unlike its old title, which caused chaos with spam filters in the digital age.

For up until now, it’s revelled in a delightfully unfortunate name.

The Beaver.

Find out more:

• Spam filters stuff Canadian Beaver at The Register.
• Unbranded Starbucks stores attempt to come up with a new brew at Marketing magazine.
• Williams & Glyn’s bank could make comeback at The Times.
• Is it? Isn’t it? 15th Street Coffee and Tea, inspired by Starbucks. (It is.)

Let’s pick a country at random.

How about Brazil? (Top row, second from the left.)

What images come to mind? Sugarloaf Mountain? The long sandy beach of Copacabana? Ronnie Biggs?

It it stable? Safe? Corrupt? Would you consider living there? Retiring there?

And where did you get that impression from?

The Government in the UK is giving serious consideration to plans forcing tobacco companies to sell unbranded cigarettes.

So instead of getting 20 Benson & Hedges in a nice gold box with the distinctive black and red text, smokers will just get a white [...]]]> It’s not what’s in the box – it’s what’s on the box

The Government in the UK is giving serious consideration to plans forcing tobacco companies to sell unbranded cigarettes.

So instead of getting 20 Benson & Hedges in a nice gold box with the distinctive black and red text, smokers will just get a white box that looks like every other white box. Silk Cut, Marlboro, Camel – you name it. One white box after another.

The tobacco industry knows that this could slash their sales and seriously eat into their profits.

Why?

Simple. The power of brand.

Why spend nearly £6 (that’s an eye-watering $11) on some of the best-known brands, when you could have some cut-price ciggies at £3.50 to £4?

After all, it’s just one white box or the other, isn’t it?

The same – but different

Walk down any supermarket aisle and you’ll see own-brand products nestling beside big brand names.

Have the supermarkets suddenly started up their own production lines? Of course not. Most own-brand products are made by the same people who make the branded products. They probably both come off the very same production line.

The only difference is the packaging. Oh yes, and the price.

Branded products always carry a premium. And that premium depends on the power of the brand – which in turn depends on how much money has been pumped into developing that brand.

Kellogg’s decided in 2000 to invest in brand-building and positioning itself as a premium brand.

In 2007, it spent $1bn on marketing for the first time. And this year, it was able to pass on increased ingredient costs to consumers, when other companies couldn’t. Its Q2 2008 sales increased by 11% and profits by 9%, leading it to revise its full-year forecast upwards.

So we have rising costs and an economic downturn. But increased sales.

That’s the power of brand.

In fact Stern Business School at New York University has calculated that 67.7% of the value of Kellogg’s the brand-name value.

And the winner is…

Interbrand and Business Week recently released their Best Global Brands 2008 report.

Coke is on top for the eighth year in a row. The ubiquitous Google has soared from 20th to 10th place. Interestingly, IBM has jumped ahead of Microsoft.

Even more interesting is the reaction of companies to the looming recession.

Some are cutting their marketing budget (Coke, Visa and US car manufacturers) some are keeping steady at a fixed percentage of revenue (Amex and Diageo) and others are actually increasing their marketing spend (Louis Vuitton, Accenture, Kleenex).

My vote goes for the last group. You spend more, the competition spends less. The recession ends. You win.

Game over.

Find out more:

• The Interbrand/Business Week Best Global Brands 2008 report: click here.