How Famous and Family Names May be More like Supermarket Brands than You Realize
About the book:
Most people are stunned to learn that over 100 families have sent three or more members to Congress. What many people do not realize is just how.
Names sell in politics the same way brands are successful catalysts for strong products. This book exposes the remarkable similarities between the workings of consumer and product brand names and political brand names
Everyone is a brand. The value of a “good name” has been extolled since ancient times. Hiring or electing because of a name is more than simple nepotism. Hiring on the basis of names reflects a trust in a known quantity, a sense of shared background or values, or fine traits of a particular parent or family that are presumed to also be found in the next generation. Why do consumers trust the DOLE brand frozen treats when the DOLE brand is famous for fresh pineapple? Why buy any product because it is endorsed by a famous actor or athlete? Most than just fame of the name itself, a political name is indeed a brand that sells that candidate through linkage to the brand image created and cultivated by his predecessors.
Product names usually come from extensive thought and testing. Political brand names, because they are inherited, don’t have the choice of message that coined new product names can enjoy. But the inherent traits of political names send a message no less important.
Brands have a sort of “use it or lose it” element to them, whether in politics or on product names. Too long a lapse between uses and the value of the name will disintegrate. But the next generation politician can still reap benefits even if there has been a gap of years since the last family member was in office. There is an interesting phenomenon with product brands. Legally, rights in a trademark are gone once the goodwill the name signifies to the purchasing public is gone. The goodwill sometimes dissipates in just a few years. But sometimes, old brands will be revived after a decade or more because of the emotional ties that consumers feel for the name.
Name recognition helps support the advantages of incumbency in Washington. Even an America that hates its partisan dysfunctional government votes for the same representatives in election after election. In 2016 it was the Trump brand against the Clinton brand. In 2020, Trump’s rematch was against the 47 year long Biden political branding experience. Brand recognition helps politicians gain this perpetual support. The book even considers that some countries have even much higher rates of hereditary politicians than the United States.
The value of the incumbency existing office holders get re-elected at astoundingly high rates. Name recognition and brand are no small factor. Re-electing an incumbent does deliver value to the voter, however the more senior an elected official, the most times re-elected. The more power that representative will amass. The power should end up benefiting the constituency. One of the factors that a court will consider when deciding trademark infringing is, of course, how likely is consumer confusion. If the court thinks the product is sold to the unsophisticated consumers, or if the product is low-priced, there is a presumption that consumers are more readily confused because they take less care in their purchase decision. How much care goes into selecting the right candidate?
We will see that sometimes, the political name will not suit the agenda of the next generation candidate, just as product names sometimes fail because the effort to extend the beloved product name to something new does not make sense to consumers. Life savers tried sola, Colgate even tried microwave dinners, neither worked.
Today, consumers see mega brands come out of nowhere to build sales more quickly than ever before (the same is true in politics – see Obama 2008). The name brand attraction today is vast and drives purchase decisions far beyond consumer goods. The phenomenal impact of name brand colleges has preoccupied an entire generation. The significance of name brand school names, once considered the stuffy “old boy” network of the past, has created a four year obsession for millions of high school students and their parents. It makes sense that brand names matter to those people when they are in the voting booth.
What types of names appeal to voters? What messages, for better or worse, are sent by inherent (such as ethnic) traits of names?
But generally, the Obama election was an outlier. And unlike elections to Congress, there is just too intense brand scrutiny in the White House for the power of the brand to overcome so many other factors. Presidents are re-elected at a lower rate (much) than Members of Congress and most other U.S. political incumbents.
Vice Presidents seem to have a huge electoral advantage, but if you discount those who’ve succeed the highest office all those Vice Presidents who have succeed by death or resignation of their predecessor, there are but a handful. Before George H. W. Bush in 1989 (as President Number 41), the last Vice President to be elected President on his own was Martin Van Buren, the eighth President.
Likelihood of confusion is the touchtone of American trademark law. Courts have an intricate list of facts to consider: similarity of marks, similarity of goods, similarity of trade channels, and sophistication of consumers. It is against the law to pass off the product of one company as that of another. Sometimes, politicians try to hijack the brand value of another politician from history. The most famous instance of this in American modern political history may have been when the vice president candidate Dan Quayle tried to liken himself to a young John F. Kennedy. He paid a high price for it when he was belittled in a surgically planned and perfectly timed rejoinder from his Presidential opponent, Texas Senator Lloyd Benson.
The double whammy: celebrity endorsement of politicians. Take a well-known political name and add a famous celebrity endorsement? The effects can be substantial. But naturally, the celebrity endorsement will also no doubt alienate some portion of the politician’s supports who dislike celebrity or some portions of the celebrity’s own politics.
Money can buy and grow brand names for products. On the national level, millionaires and billionaires, from Donald Trump to Ross Perot to Steve Forbes to Michael Bloomberg, have put credibility into Presidential campaigns. In the case of Perot, even though he did not come close to winning, he was able to mount a spectacular third party candidacy that drew him millions of votes, and may well have tipped the balance in the election of Bill Clinton over incumbent George Bush.
Lastly, for all their similarities, the difference between political brands and products cannot be overlooked. A valued brand can be sold and its name recaptured. The capital created by a person’s name in politics is harder to determine. It is hard to resell a valuable political brand, but it can provide a wallet of opportunity for former politicians – especially when book tours, lobbying jobs, and prestige are the coin of the political realm.
Strong Brand Names in American Politics takes a look at brands and thinks about what causes our laws to protect them. Politicians may not use the same name creation process as products. But name development and the factors that go into finding the right way to position a political name will still help sell the politician.
This book should appeal to readers with an interest in branding. But it is not limited to the business audience, and has some interesting stories to tell for people interested in both political and celebrity culture. We are all captivated by the presidency. This book devotes a substantial amount of attention to brand names and presidential politics. It can also help provide a road map for the already successful who want to gain some market insight into how they are perceived. It also understands successful brand names in terms of engineering, marketing, and maintaining the goodwill associated with their name. Whether a political aficionado or political professional, a business person whose profession asks them to understand the unwritten value of products, names, and brands, or really any people who own, or hope to own their own, trademarks.
While there are occasional scholarly studies of political families in America and hereditary politics, few have ever focused on the trademark branding significance, and the lines between brand names and politics.
Read excerpts here