Trump Seems Much Better at Branding Opponents Than Marketing Policies

Trump hasn't been terribly effective in uniting the Republican Party, in part because his strategy seems to be to try to rule by Executive Order rather than through the usual channels. In an article in the "Upshot" (analysis) section of the New York Times, a pair of writers looks at how he manages branding in politics.

Think about the election campaign... when you think about Trump's remarks on Hillary (his assessment of her), what ONE word comes to mind? "Liar," right? This is an example of his use of "branding" - he creates a "brand"/"Image" of her associated with the word "Liar." And there's "Lyin' Ted Cruz" and "Goofy Elizabeth Warren" and Marcio Rubio ("Little" and "Lightweight" here.) And in spite of what they did, he was pretty successful in putting these brands on these people. It worked well.

This works because it takes up four major points in advertising: repetition, simplicity, consistency, essentializing. You give something a one-word label that is simple and short and describes them (an essence) and you repeat it constantly.

But it seems to be failing when he tries to promote something.

As President, he and the major party that elected him (the Republicans) should be working together because that's how our government works. But he's not very good at promoting ANY agenda -- his own or the Republicans'. While he hammered at Obamacare with "dead, dead, dead", his labeling of his own idea of a health care reform package and later the Republican health care reform package was almost nonexistent. He called them "great" and "good" and "wonderful" -- but there was no single word brand... and more recently he actually referred to the most recent healthcare bill as "mean", which confused everyone.

The article's conclusion? " Either way, one of Mr. Trump’s most remarkable skills hasn’t proved an asset on Capitol Hill." - and I think it's a pretty fair assessment.


Unless you've hit the Times site 10 times in the past month, you should be able to read the full details here.

Trump Seems Much Better at Branding Opponents Than Marketing Policies
By EMILY BADGER and KEVIN QUEALY JULY 18, 2017


Donald J. Trump, the master brander, has never found quite the right selling point for his party’s health care plan.

He has promised “great healthcare,” “truly great healthcare,” “a great plan” and health care that “will soon be great.” But for a politician who has shown remarkable skill distilling his arguments into compact slogans — “fake news,” “witch hunt,” “Crooked Hillary” — those health care pitches have fallen far short of the kind of sharp, memorable refrain that can influence how millions of Americans interpret news in Washington.

Analyzing two years of his tweets highlights a pair of lessons about his messaging prowess that were equally on display as the Republican health care bill, weakly supported by even Republican voters, collapsed again in Congress on Monday. Mr. Trump is much better at branding enemies than policies. And he expends far more effort mocking targets than promoting items on his agenda.

Both patterns point to the limits of the president’s branding powers when it comes to waging policy fights.

Source

Good for him
And your point is (other than hate Trump ?) ? None.Ok
Done
Next

Honestly, he's starting to look more like a third party than his party.

I don't like him, but that could open a door...

originally posted by: Gothmog
Good for him
And your point is (other than hate Trump ?) ? None.Ok
Done
Next

My point was "this is an interesting article that others might read and some might like to discuss it." A lot of effort has been spent asking why and how he's effective. This gave some insights that I thought were important.

That's what made ATS great in the past... discussion rather than one-line cheer-and-sneer.

originally posted by: lordcomac
Honestly, he's starting to look more like a third party than his party.

I don't like him, but that could open a door...

I think I kind of agree with you, and I think his language reflects that he's not really "with" the Republican agenda. At least he's not using it effectively for them.

However, third parties need to get support from other parties and that means they need to be something more than an attack dog.

a reply to: Byrd

Trump hasn't been terribly effective in uniting the Republican Party, in part because his strategy seems to be to try to rule by Executive Order rather than through the usual channels. In an article in the "Upshot" (analysis) section of the New York Times, a pair of writers looks at how he manages branding in politics.

The established Republicans were against him from the beginning. The republicans did not get him elected. The people did. Branding his opponents like the NYT is how he is beating them. To believe an Opinion peace from the NYT is not critical thinking in these days and times. So yes, the established Republicans are against him, just like they have always been. That is not really news.

Think about the election campaign... when you think about Trump's remarks on Hillary (his assessment of her), what ONE word comes to mind? "Liar," right? This is an example of his use of "branding" - he creates a "brand"/"Image" of her associated with the word "Liar." And there's "Lyin' Ted Cruz" and "Goofy Elizabeth Warren" and Marcio Rubio ("Little" and "Lightweight" here.) And in spite of what they did, he was pretty successful in putting these brands on these people. It worked well.

You can thank the liberals for that tactic. He use to be a democrat. He spent a lot of time with the liberal Hollywood. Now the left is angry because he beat them at their own game.

This works because it takes up four major points in advertising: repetition, simplicity, consistency, essentializing. You give something a one-word label that is simple and short and describes them (an essence) and you repeat it constantly.

That is as good an explanation for how it works as any other. Making people remember it. Although I think it didn't work out so well with Hillary. Deplorable. lol. She didn't realize that you shouldn't call the voters names, but your opponent. But in her fragile frame of mind I doubt she was aware of that mistake.

But it seems to be failing when he tries to promote something.

The biggest thing he is promoting is the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. He doesn't need to promote it, the majority already want it replaced. That is were the house and senate come into play. As I have stated the established republicans and democrats are against Trump as they always have been. So promoting it as branding is kind of a silly thing to talk about. It reminds of the "Two Scoop" tragedy that happened earlier.

As President, he and the major party that elected him (the Republicans) should be working together because that's how our government works. But he's not very good at promoting ANY agenda -- his own or the Republicans'. While he hammered at Obamacare with "dead, dead, dead", his labeling of his own idea of a health care reform package and later the Republican health care reform package was almost nonexistent. He called them "great" and "good" and "wonderful" -- but there was no single word brand... and more recently he actually referred to the most recent healthcare bill as "mean", which confused everyone.

Kind of like this. You are saying that healthcare reform needs to be promoted to gain acceptance. Have you forgot the words of a leader in the liberal army. "We will have to pass the bill before we can know what is in it." Yeah, this is that kind of story.

a reply to: lordcomac

Honestly, he's starting to look more like a third party than his party.

That is exactly what it is, and the established GOP know it. Trump was the 3rd party. He sliced through the other nominates like a hot knife through butter. I have never seen a President that is so Pro America in all my life. In fact, since this thread is about Promoting an agenda, President Trump has promoted America like none in this new millennium.

Imo, the corrupt career politicians on both sides of the aisle are against president Trump. The corrupt career politicians in conjunction with the MSM & their advertisers (pharmaceutical industry, military industrial complex, etc.) form the deep state. It's no wonder to me why he hasn't gotten much accomplished policy wise. He has accomplished some things, like the nomination/confirmation of Gorsuch to the supreme court (president Trump will most likely get to nominate a couple more). He has also mandated that for every new regulation, two regulations must be eliminated. He has also put a freeze on federal governnent new hires & put some restrictions on lobbyists. Gorsuch on the supreme court alone was worth voting for president Trump. On a side note guns sales are down, compared to Obama's presidency & illegal immigrants are leaving in droves & less likely to cross the border into the USA. I'm not happy with everything he's done or not done so far, but at least he's not Hillary & we're not at war with Russia. Hopefully more non-career politicians get elected in the future & our constitutional rights get restored. The USA is like the Titanic, except we hit multiple icebergs, like the Federal Reserve being founded & devaluing our currency for over the past 100 years or us going off the gold standard once we went bankrupt 40+ years ago, or 911, or going to war in Afghanistan & Iraq, or the election of President Obama, or being $20,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Imo, President Trump is trying his best & he's up against over 100 years of establishment croni-capitalist (fascist government/corporate) corruption. He's only the 1st step in restoring our constitutional republic. We just have to continue not voting for career politicians.

Here are some of the conflicts of interest during Obama's presidency:
1) ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obama's National Security Adviser.
2) CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.
3) ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Obama Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney.
4) ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary.
5) ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
6) CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.

originally posted by: 3daysgone Branding his opponents like the NYT is how he is beating them.

Exactly - and this was the point that the article I posted was making.

You can thank the liberals for that tactic. He use to be a democrat. He spent a lot of time with the liberal Hollywood. Now the left is angry because he beat them at their own game.

Actually, it's not their tactic. They're kind of bad at it. it's more a marketing thing.

That is as good an explanation for how it works as any other. Making people remember it. Although I think it didn't work out so well with Hillary.

The Democrats have not been good at promoting things. They tend to react like cats, going their own way. Lakoff and others have lectured them about how to get an effective message out and I think they just listen to their coffeepots or something.

Kind of like this. You are saying that healthcare reform needs to be promoted to gain acceptance.

Actually, no. The public wants healthcare costs brought to heel.

What I'm saying is that (according to the article) he is better at putting a negative label on it than he is at marketing (selling) the idea that he and the Republicans came up with the best solution.

I think this may be the Era of the Tweet, and as the article says he's good at exploiting it for negative purposes.

a reply to: Byrd

This works because it takes up four major points in advertising: repetition, simplicity, consistency, essentializing. You give something a one-word label that is simple and short and describes them (an essence) and you repeat it constantly.

On repetition: "I'm sitting here, pen in hand waiting for the Republicans to give me a bill to sign."

Maybe "The pen in hand bill"
or
"Waiting for somebody else to do it bill."
The old "It's going to be so easy! bill" has already exploded.

He did say a few times "...and if it doesn't get passed, that's fine too."
maybe "the I don't care bill". That's pretty snappy.

Yeah, none of those seem particularly good brands.

a reply to: pthena

A good question is "why is he so (apparently) bad at positive marketing when he's so good at negative marketing?" As the article says, he's incredibly effective with negative marketing.

a reply to: Byrd

Hi, my name is pthena and I am a recovering narcissist.

A couple of decades ago, a psychologist acquaintance of mine asked, "Have you considered that you just may be a narcissist?" Given the circumstances surrounding the conversation, I considered the question to be legitimate.

Any way, I found an interesting piece:

Neurotic pride
"The third aspect of an idealized image is neurotic pride, a false pride based, not on a realistic view of the true self, but on a spurious image of the idealized self.

Neurotic pride is qualitatively different from healthy pride or realistic self-esteem. Genuine self-esteem is based on realistic attributes and accomplishments and is generally expressed with quiet dignity. Neurotic pride, on the other hand, is based on an idealized image of self and is usually loudly proclaimed in order to protect and support a glorified view of one's self (Horney, 1950).

"Neurotics imagine themselves to be glorious, wonderful and perfect, so when others fail to treat them with special consideration, their neurotic pride is hurt. To prevent the hurt, they avoid people who refuse to yield to their neurotic claims, and, instead, they try to become associated with socially prominent and prestigious institutions and acquisitions" (Feist, pg. 255-56).

I would suggest that the thing which Trump is most interested in selling is himself and his superior deal making ability as indispensable commodity. "The only one who can fix this mess!" "The only one who can make America Great Again"

He's already branded himself as the man uniquely qualified; and the end product MAGA. Every detail of actually making any "positive" change is subcontracted out. The sub-contractors are responsible for the branding of the elements, and the production required.

The opposition which challenges his idealized self-image is seen as a personal threat. These he takes on himself to defeat. Therefore, it is his job to brand the opposition. "Crooked Hillary" "Fake News" "Conflicted Mueller" "Disappointing Republicans" "disloyal Justice Department" and etc.

Just a suggestion. I'm not a licensed mental health professional. And as Trump has said "I don't know him. I never met him."

originally posted by: pthena
I would suggest that the thing which Trump is most interested in selling is himself and his superior deal making ability as indispensable commodity. "The only one who can fix this mess!" "The only one who can make America Great Again"

He's already branded himself as the man uniquely qualified; and the end product MAGA. Every detail of actually making any "positive" change is subcontracted out. The sub-contractors are responsible for the branding of the elements, and the production required.

Hadn't thought of it in those terms, but it makes sense. He gives the orders in a broad scope and leaves others to figure out the details. They're the ones who are supposed to make it happen.

I don't think that the others understand that they should craft the sound bite/slogan for him. They probably expect him to come up with one because he's good at it in the personal arena.

The opposition which challenges his idealized self-image is seen as a personal threat. These he takes on himself to defeat. Therefore, it is his job to brand the opposition. "Crooked Hillary" "Fake News" "Conflicted Mueller" "Disappointing Republicans" "disloyal Justice Department" and etc.

Just a suggestion. I'm not a licensed mental health professional. And as Trump has said "I don't know him. I never met him."

And that, too, makes a lot of sense. I suppose we'll never know unless we somehow got training as psychologists and then sat the man down and ran a battery of tests on him and interviewed him for months. But he certainly does leap to attack when he sees what he thinks is a personal threat.