Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ON THE EVE of the 2016 US Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton held an event in Cleveland, Ohio.
Beyonce performed. As did Jay Z, J-Lo, J Cole, and a host of other artists from elsewhere in the alphabet.
Trump, meanwhile, did what Trump has done every day of his campaign. He held rallies in districts and delivered the same stump speech. Build The Wall. Lock Her Up. Make America Great Again.
While Team Clinton saw out those final 24 hours orbited by a galaxy of megastars, Team Trump flew to meet his public in no fewer than five states; Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Michigan. At each stop, the set list remained the same. Build The Wall. Lock Her Up. Make America Great Again.
Once the dust had settled, Donald J. Trump had won four of those five states and, ultimately, the White House.
Trump understood something that Clinton didn’t — that contemporary democracy is a marketplace, and to win you must sell a simple, consistent and memorable brand. A blunt-force brand that can become embedded in millions of brains through repetition. A brand like Make America Great Again.
Trump’s simple message was easy for the public to absorb and irresistible for content-hungry media to amplify. It’s estimated that Trump enjoyed $2bn in free media coverage in 2016, more than double that of Clinton.
Trump also understood that a powerful brand is essential when selling a contentious product. Many of the world’s most famous brands belong to products associated with obesity, addiction child labour and environmental destruction. The promise carried by a strong, simple and memorable brand can loom larger and longer in the public consciousness than the nuanced misgivings of products they promote.
And that’s especially true in an age of information oversupply. We’re exposed to more messages today than in any point in human history, and yet our biological ability to consume information hasn’t really changed at all.
Studies suggest that our brain has a total capacity of around 2.5 million gigabytes. That’s broadly equivalent to three million hours of digital video. On a given day we can only take in 0.001% of that, around 36 gigabytes. It’s like filling a swimming pool with a teaspoon, and so we’re discerning about what information we choose to engage with, remember and share with others. That’s why simple, consistent and memorable brands are so effective when selling burgers, fizzy drinks or celebrity tycoons.
Fast-forward to 2024, and Trump is still promising to Make America Great Again, still vowing to punish his ever-growing list of enemies that prevent it from being so.
But if you look a little closer, Trump’s current brand campaign lacks the single-minded messaging discipline that proved so decisive in 2016. His recent rallies are a meandering blancmange of petty grievances, and the lines that cut through tend towards the unhinged; “they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats”. That makes it a harder story for the public to absorb, and a harder message for the media to relay.
And yet, Make America Great Again remains one of the most robust brands in modern political history. But this time, Trump faces an opponent who knows what it takes to land a brand in today’s media landscape.
One of the Harris-Walz campaign’s first acts was to attack Trump’s brand with one simple word — weird. Weird went viral, becoming a powerful anti-brand that grew stronger with every unhinged Trump utterance and every sycophantic MAGA surrogate. While weird didn’t quite destroy the MAGA Death Star, it was enough to suggest that its destruction is possible.
Team Harris have yet to fully land their own simple, memorable brand since those promising early days, but they at least have hit upon a clear messaging strategy. Central to this is “We’re Not Going Back”, a chant that Harris leads at each of her rallies. This statement is strong enough to carry a promise of a better future and open enough to allow people to project their own desires onto it. To quote The Boston Globe’s Renée Loth;
“When they chant “We’re not going back”, Harris supporters mean they’re not going back to the chaos and corruption of Donald Trump’s presidency. But they’re also not going back into the closet, as some homophobic, transphobic forces in the opposition party would prescribe. They’re not going back to the back-alley abortions. They’re not going back to the back of the bus. And they’re not going back to a time when unaccountable kings ruled the land.”
Crucially, Kamala Harris also understands how to match message and medium. While Trump persists with his rallies and Fox News appearances, Harris has reached beyond the traditional political ecosystem to present her brand to those who’ve yet to commit to a candidate.
Through appearances on the ‘Call Her Daddy’ podcast, The View and Charlamagne Tha God’s ‘The Breakfast Club’, Harris has been able to put her brand into a different cultural context. Each audience can learn what she stands for and understand how that relates to their own needs and wants.
Trump won in 2016 by appealing to people’s fears and anxieties, presenting a solution in the form of his strong, uncompromising and anti-establishment brand. Clinton lost, in part, because she didn’t believe she had to present herself as a brand at all.
Kamala Harris accepts an uncomfortable truth that Hilary Clinton rejects — in politics, it’s simply not enough to be yourself. Like Trump, Harris knows that democracy is a marketplace that can be won by selling a simple, appealing brand to as broad an audience as possible.
But unlike Trump, Harris is selling a brand that appeals to people’s hopes and aspirations, rather than their fears and anxieties. Hers is a brand that promises progress, and an America that can move forward together. An America that is not going back.
Like 2016, the 2024 US Presidential Election will come down to fine margins. But unlike 2016, Trump has a worthy adversary in the battle of the brands.
It’s a contest between two strong, memorable and diametrically opposed visions for Brand America, and it’ll be an outcome that – one way or another – will change the world.
Paul Fisher is Chief Strategy Officer of TBWA\Ireland.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It might be inconvenient but the vast majority of those people were peaceful protestors, the e are always headcases amongst decent, if not misguided people, just like BLM.
Strange how its being framed and the difference in description.
I think they were both totally out of order.
Its just interetesting watching the coordinated group think and morals depending on who it is, not, what they do.
Sad times for objectivity and fairness.
@l: of course your observations are based on the assumption that the coverage you yourself consumed was unbiased and correct, which you then used as a basis for comparison for further coverage. Unless I’m wrong and you we’re actually there?
@l: the point of the impeachment is the part played by the president. Trump did not directly call for the storming of the building but that’s because he’s clever enough to know that a lot of his supporters aren’t.
@l: youre right there is a difference . There were almost 9000 blm in the US last year and the vast majority of them were peaceful. Those that weren’t included places Minnesota for example where 80% of those arrested were found to be from out of state and were not there for the BLM proteat but to cause trouble. Other violence happened as a result of police shooting projectiles and rubber bullets into crowds of peaceful protestors because the president wanted to take a photo with a bible outside a church he does not attend., many of those peaceful protestors were on their knees something else that didn’t happen at Capitol Hill. The BLM protests began as solidarity against police brutality and systematic racism . Which continued with false reports for example by police about Rolex stores being looted when Rolex confirmed there was no theft. Many deaths occurred as a result of armed white far right extremists and driving vehicles into crowds, as far as I have seen so far I didnt notice any BLM at capitol hill, another difference. Capitol Hill while many protestors may have been peaceful many who have been told they are “patriots ” did something very unpatriotic. They arrived to ambush their government armed with pipe bombs, napalm, petrol bombs and guns to try and stop certifying of a democratic vote. So there is the biggest difference, one was protesting after 100s of years of racism, poverty and police brutality and pleding just for equal rights and the other was trying to over turn the government in an act of terrisom after 4 years of lies because their leader and chief is a sore looser.
@Damian Tubbritt: I don’t feed into left/right or feed off any echo Chambers. I am aware of agendas left, right and centre. Try to get as many views as possible.
And still I will always be influenced to some degree.
Don’t know why I told you that as it appears you don’t really care. You appear to just want to make a snipey comment for likes. Another problem society has. Crack on..
@l: Turn off Fox news for a while sweetie..your brain is turning to mush.
@Rachel Dawson: dont you mean turn off cnn
@Damian Tubbritt: Agreed. I watched the different live channels on YouTube. All were providing commentary and context around the images being shown except for Fox News They were showing video of what was happening, but there was absolutely no commentary.
I wonder why!
@l: peaceful?
If I break into a property and ignore police blockades to stop me, how exactly am I peaceful?
@l: ‘feed off any echo chambers’?
@l: let’s look at motive. BLM protests were to raise awareness of systemic racism. Stop the Steal is an attempt to overturn the result of a free and fair election. Yes, both had elements of violence, this is true, but the entire purpose of Stop the Steal’s end goal is illegal. They were protesting against democracy. Then a large number of them engaged in many, many crimes.
@l: not apples to apples. Protesting police brutality is very different to protesting a legitimate and fair election. Rioting is wrong. Security reactions to BLM was the polar opposite to the defence of the Capitol. Systematic racism example 1.
@Dave O’Keeffe: you make the crucial point. The Trump leaning support conveniently ignore the months of lies and deception that led to the mob storming the Capitol. They don’t have much to say about the murder of a police officer either. And they’re desperately try to conceal that the motive is to overthrow a lawfully elected president.
@Rachel Dawson: what of cnn news, does that channel do the opposite
@Dave O’Keeffe: thats all a matter of perspective really. If protesters really believe that the election was stolen then their motivations for protest are good no?
@Damian Tubbritt: The algorithm told me to do it.
Apparently yesterday was Kayleigh’s last day as Press Spokesperson. Forbes have told the 500 top companies that if they hire any of Trump’s administration staff, then Forbes will pay very close scrutiny to these companies, on the basis that Forbes will assume the companies hired Trump’s staff to lie. You have to take consolations in this life where ever you can find them.
@David A. Murray: so in other words, we’ll continue to turn a blind eye unless you hire these people
@Declan Edward: I may have phrased my comment badly, but Forbes meant the opposite. It may just be posturing and temporary by Forbes, but it appears that senior and junior staff who worked for Trump in the White House are finding it very difficult to even get job interviews.
@David A. Murray: The Journal, can we please have an edit comment option. I misunderstood Declan Edward’s comment and typed a non-sensical first sentence reply to him.
@David A. Murray: yeah forbes and those companies are no angles themselves. Do a quick Google and I’m sure will will find that all have been involved in some questionable stuff. Obviously with a lovely smile and some corporate giving!
@David A. Murray: A blacklist for those with the wrong political views!
@David A. Murray: thats great news, we can now cancel anyone who ever worked for trump because their former employer was an eejit. A brave new world.
@bread of heaven: A blacklist of Lying sycophants
They need to get trump,the senators who supported the claims of voter fraud and giuliani to backtrack,say it was all lies and concede. The only argument rioters have in court is our president told us to do it,Patetic.
The world has enough on its plate besides dealing with this and brexit which was also based on lies.
@Mark Jones: Remember the Democrats called voter fraud and Russian collusion 4 years ago. People have very short memories
@Seosamh Ohuaine: there was collusion. It was in the FBI report
@Seosamh Ohuaine: Yeah & they were right, with evidence to back it up. Also I don’t remember them inciting riotous combat!
@Hotirish: Its early days still. Who’s to say there wasn’t voter collusion or fraud. It took 3 years to show there was collusion with Russia for Trump, but everyone denies it only after 3 months for the Republicans. I’m no conspiracy nut, just playing devils advocate.
@Seosamh Ohuaine: true, they complained but they didn’t try to overthrow the government
@Alan Wright: they lies about the voting machines have been proven lies , the ballots that turned up lies the deaf voting lies , the lies have been exposed already .
@Alan Wright: Who’s to say? After god knows how many recounts,audits and investigations, every state governor, every state election board, every state AG, the DOJ and the independent election scrutineers. So I’d say it’s fairly much said.
Pelosi, an extremely partisan politician, talking about investigations into her opposition?
Kangaroo courts coming it seems.
America is abandoning their morals and democracy. First, the Republicans challenge their elections and their president invites violence, now the Democrats try to remove their opposition bit by bit.
@Local Ore: GOP gave recon tours to the insurrectionists the day before, want to bring loaded weapons into Congress and now have qanon members in their caucas..but Pelosi is the problem LOL #fail
@Local Ore: seriously, you need to stop watching YouTube videos.
Step away from the screen for the sake of your brain.
@Rachel Dawson: Really, they gave ‘reconnaissance tours’? And they say the far right are the “conspiracy nuts”, hmmmm. Both extremes, left and right are as bad as each other from what I witness in the comment section here.
@Alan Wright: The Capitol was closed to tours and yet there were tours given by certain members. This wasn’t “showing their family around”
But I’m sure you wouldn’t object to an investigation, right?
@Local Ore: You can’t blame Pelosi, they ransacked her office and some of them inside Capitol Hill were actively seeking her out for a lynching.
It was a setup
@skip 84: yeah, and Covid is a take too… right?
@Ciaran Whyte: fake.. not take. Doh
@skip 84: completely. Police even invited them in.
The Democrats would have to prosecute themselves since most of the agitators if not all were loyal supporters of Democrats. Blm and antifa.
@Owen: you know, it will come out in the prosecutions, a simple look at a defendants social media will show what party they align with. And it won’t be all Republicans for sure. Will the Dems hold themselves to the same scrutiny, i think not?
@Alan Wright: look at the price of those arrested all right wing . The fbi ,doj, capital cops all say no antifa or blm but you no better .
@Alan Wright: have you looked at the profile of those arrested so far ???
@Owen: what are you waffling on about… twaddle..you actually believe Internet conspiracy carry on…social network is hilariously full of this stuff..
@Owen: And all those players who won six-in-a-row in the Dublin jersey are Kerrymen
Odious character Pelosi – and while your at it you might look closer to home where many of your Dem party kit and kin stoked the flames of riot and civil commotion in US cities like Portland for months on end.
@Jon Boylan: Fair point , dems encouraging celebs to pay bail for marxist / socialists thugs rioting earlier in the year
@Jon Boylan: to accuse people of being racist just because they wont vote for you is an amazing development which pelosi pushed hard
Pelosi is the definition of Evil.
Enough milk to feed two bull calves by the looks of it
have your say