The battle of the brands

Looking at today’s market environment, one factor that developed a great deal of influence over consumers’ purchasing decisions is branding. The brand, the identity of a company or its various product and service offerings has become an essential ingredient to marketing success. Branding has evolved into one of the most potent business concepts. To many universally known brands – FedEx, Rolex, Starbucks and Volvo to name a few, or even to local names like Jollibee – it is cited as the secret ingredient behind their widespread popularity and acceptance, and more important, tremendous corporate gains.

Branding as a marketing function has been with us since the dawn of business. In fact, a merchant’s honorable name has been used to communicate a positive brand image to both captured and prospective customers. But now, with multifarious product and marketing choices, many companies are still hesitant to give their brand name the prominence it should have in the formulation of their goals, strategies and executions. Some even make the mistake of believing that technology solutions alone will help them capture their elusive markets. Still others implement disparate strategies, and expect to gain profitable sale and market share dominance, without the branding process.

The most pervasive application of the branding discipline is in the commercial marketplace, but as volumes of case studies will tell us, it is also very much applicable to non-profits, educational institutions and political products. Of late, we have seen non-government organizations and foundations harping on their names and sterling accomplishments to generate sponsorships, co-branding activities and all types of partnerships with companies that can allow for better logistics support in pursuing a common goal. And as we scan the broadsheets and tabloids, or monitor the broadcast media, we can observe the increase in advertising exposure for institutions of learning – IT schools like AMA, STI and Informatics, or universities with full courses – projecting their respective brand strengths and competitive advantages.

We just concluded an electoral process, and we can all agree that branding played a major role in the way political communication was applied by the national candidates. We were witnesses to a battle of political brands. In this column however, we will zero-in on the senatorial contenders. As records will show, most of them spent big money to buy advertising time and space to get themselves known, remembered and preferred. Advertising is an expensive tool, yes, but it is unquestionably powerful in generating the desired result. There were some who saw the power of advertising early on, and there were also some who procrastinated at the beginning, but tried to catch up during the last three or four weeks of the advertising period to drumbeat and project their own merits.

Personally, every time I get hit by the advertising for wannabe senators during the last election, I look at the candidates as brands. Several questions always cross my mind as I watch their pitches: What image does this candidate want to convey? What aspects of his or her communication are most compelling to the voters? How effective is it in portraying an image of quality and substance? Of course, the answers to these queries were compared to see who among them stands out. The list of mental questions may appear to be too cerebral or scientific for comfort, but that’s how the evaluation is done professionally. There is a fun part to this exercise though, by checking the executional elements used – is the jingle viral, is the tag line memorable, is the talking head sincere and credible, is the dramatization believable, is the overall mood and tone empathetic, or is the brand personality warm and connecting?

Looking at the exit polls and the initial results of the senatorial contest, we see a trend where candidates who harnessed the potency of branding – whether consciously or not – are up in the tally sheet. Mar Roxas’ Mr. Palengke moniker and adaptation of Mr. Suave, the danceable Parokya ni Edgar song, as his jingle connected with the electorate very effectively. Some though would quickly add that his romantic relationship with ace broadcaster Korina Sanchez did a lot of good, too.

Pia Cayetano was not figuring out in the pre-election surveys, but if the flow continues, we could very well experience an infusion of new blood in the Senate. Pia’s surprise showing was not a surprise at all if we are to analyze her own branding. She used what we call the "halo effect." Her TV ads played up her father’s (the late Compañero) positive attributes, and how these positive qualities can very well be her own, as if they were part of Senator Rene Cayetano’s will. The process apparently rubbed off, and look where she is right now. And we shouldn’t discount the way her Pia-Pia-Pia Cayetano jingle hooked people. Even small kids can sing it with gusto and accompanying hand movements.

It cannot be disputed that Jamby Madrigal borrowed interest from popular movie actress Judy Ann Santos. In Jamby’s case, the power of association worked, and how! When you see Judy Ann, you see Jamby. When you think of Judy Ann, you think of "Ja-Ja-Jamby," as her jingle goes. Visibility was the trademark of her campaign, manifested quite well in the merchandising tools used – kikay stuff like bracelets included. Without a doubt, that’s branding at its best. It’s Jamby’s second attempt at a Senate seat, and it looks like she’ll get it this time. Thanks too to her belief in the magic of advertising and sustained media presence.

The counting is also positively pointing to a Dick Gordon victory. If this continues, Gordon will enjoy the fruits of his own branding, which was focused on tourism and job creation. Very single-minded propositions that resonated well with targeted publics. The WOW presence also did lots of wonders.

Movie star candidates Bong Revilla, Lito Lapid and Jinggoy Estrada have their individual trademarks. Each of their branding emanated from a combination of their respective celluloid career and executive local governance experiences. Revilla is Idol Ko Si Kap and a champion of intellectual property rights. Lapid is the horseback-riding Leon Guerrero out to protect his people. Jinggoy Estrada is Erap’s son who wishes to continue what his father was not able to finish. Very clear positioning projected in well-placed TV ads, although Lapid didn’t spend as much in advertising as the two others. As of this writing, Revilla and Estrada are in the top 12, while Lapid is still in the dangerous 13 to 15 slot.

Nene Pimentel, Miriam Santiago, Pong Biazon, Johnny Ponce Enrile, Fred Lim, John Osmeña, Ernie Maceda, Orly Mercado, Bobby Jaworski and Robert Barbers are seasoned political candidates and definitely have been able to accumulate attributes that people can easily attach to them. They all have the advantages of name recall, familiarity and experience – brand equities that help build their distinct branding packages. Some of them will finally make it, and some will be left behind. The battle of the brand raged on, and the better brands win.

David D’Allessandro, CEO of John Hancock Financial Services, once said, "Good branding does three things for the frazzled consumer. They save time, project the right message and provide an identity." We saw the interplay of these factors in the way branding was done for the winning senatorial bets.

Some branding lessons can be learned from the way communication was used by the senatorial bets, and these could prove helpful to would be candidates.

First is never forgetting that we are our own brand. It’s our name. We should guard and protect it. We should make it part of all our decisions. Second, is that we should know how easy it is to destroy a brand. It takes time and care to build a brand, but it can be collapsed in an instant when scandal hits. If trouble strikes, we must deal with it quick.

Obscurity is not smart branding. This is the third lesson. We must create awareness, and from there, build a distinct personality that people can identify with. That the best brand doesn’t remove the need for a good product is the fourth lesson. If we manage to create a winning brand, the last thing we should do is to relax. At this stage, the pressure to sell ourselves for consideration has only begun. The worst thing that can happen is that we become arrogant and removed from our constituents.

Branding is all about our brand name and how we build, protect and nurture it. What’s in a brand name? There’s a lot and it starts with awareness down to recall. As a TV talk show host exclaims, "You’re not famous until my mother has heard of you."

* * *

E-mail bongo@vasia.com or bongo@campaignsandgrey.net for comments, questions and suggestions. Thank you for all your reactions.