3rd November 2016
by Richard Eastwood
brands, Communications, Social Media
First off, let’s be clear either way I am purely a neutral with no aversion to either parties, this is purely an exercise in brand power.
Let’s start with the heiress to the throne; Hillary Clinton, a well seasoned vet of the campaign trail…and it shows! From a slick online media presence, perfectly formed, classy, without being overly cheesy, a colour palette that complements, type that is friendly, modern, messaging that is softer, fluffier if you will. On the whole, brand Hillary is a strong, competent excercise for any would be candidate. Question is, should she have gone further, braver, is it too safe?
In today’s social age, the Hillary camp could and probably should have pushed harder, one battleground that could really sway the voters seems to have been overlooked.
Now for Trump; I’ve mentioned above about brassiness, now this campaign has it in abundance. With a budget that is unmatchable, although you wouldn’t have guessed it, the trump brand is not a slick outfit, it feels pieced together, fast, bold, obvious, cheesy.
But this may be the desired intention, he is targeting a demographic that wants to feel included, so why be overly polished, this is the differentiator, the fork in the road, which is more appealing, brand polish or brand brass?
One thing is for certain, Trump’s social dominance is plain for everyone to see, a more avid, agile, determined social entreprenaur, engagement through these channels is paramount to his campaign and judging by the latest polls it seems to be having an effect.
The race still has some way to go, but if Hillary really wants to win then battleground social could be the deciding factor.