FastCo: The Brand Called Obama

» Fast Company: The Brand Called Obama (Ellen McGirt)

There's a handful of ways to read this article. And since I'm not doing any work for a Presidential campaign, I try and read this with a curiosity for what it might mean for candidates at lower levels. Typically, that's made difficult by virtue of the disparity in the nature of the effect a campaign will have. In short, running for President isn't like running for Senate or Congress or State Rep and so on. Down-ballot tends to be territory fraught with less attention and fewer details.

Still, it's hard to come away completely empty-handed from reading McGirt's article. From the key selling point of the article:

The fact that Obama has taken what we thought we knew about politics and turned it into a different game for a different generation is no longer news. What has hardly been examined is the degree to which his success indicates a seismic shift on the business horizon as well. Politics, after all, is about marketing -- about projecting and selling an image, stoking aspirations, moving people to identify, evangelize, and consume. The promotion of the brand called Obama is a case study of where the American marketplace -- and, potentially, the global one -- is moving. His openness to the way consumers today communicate with one another, his recognition of their desire for authentic "products," and his understanding of the need for a new global image -- all are valuable signals for marketers everywhere.

"Barack Obama is three things you want in a brand," says Keith Reinhard, chairman emeritus of DDB Worldwide. "New, different, and attractive. That's as good as it gets." Obama has his greatest strength among the young, roughly 18 to 29 years old, that advertisers covet, the cohort known as millennials -- who will outnumber the baby boomers by 2010. They are black, white, yellow, and various shades of brown, but what they share -- new media, online social networks, a distaste for top-down sales pitches -- connects them more than traditional barriers, such as ethnicity, divide them.

Obama has risen above what he calls a "funny" name, an unusual life story, and -- contrary to the now popular (and mistaken) notion that nobody sees race anymore -- a persistent racial divide to become a reflection of what America will be: a postboomer society. He has moved beyond traditional identity politics. And whether it's now or a decade from now, the new reality he reflects will eventually win out. Any forward-thinking business would be wise to examine the implications of his ascent, from marketing strategies and leadership styles to the future of the American workplace.

McGirt highlights an article in Australian Journal of Public Administration by Harvard's Stephen Bouwhuis that outlines the "adaptive" style of leadership. Since the full article is behind a pricey paid firewall, here's McGirt's explanation of it:

Craig Newmark, the founder of Craigslist, has long considered himself a political independent. An Obama encounter at a campaign event inspired him to take up arms for the Democratic candidate. But he can't quite explain why. "I'm still struggling to articulate what it is about him beyond the issues that I care about," he says. Newmark then fumbles his way to this realization: "I see him as a leader rather than a boss." A leader, he notes, gets people to do things on their own, through inspiration, respect, and trust. "A boss can order you to do things, sure, but you do them because it's part of the contract."

What Newmark is describing is more complicated -- and more modern -- than it might appear. There have long been leaders who are bosses, and bosses who are leaders. Having a vision and inspiring or instructing others to follow that vision have long been hallmarks of business and politics. But Obama epitomizes a new way of thinking called "adaptive leadership," which is now being taught at Harvard's Kennedy School, among other places. This approach, as Stephen Bouwhuis recently wrote in The Australian Journal of Public Administration, is effective in handling problems that necessitate "a shift ... in ways of thinking across a community." While a visionary puts forth a specific plan to be implemented, an adaptive leader works with constituents to devise one together.

Obama has tapped into this adaptive-leadership vein by inviting voters in with his "Yes we can" slogan, then reinforcing it with attacks on the complacency and withdrawal from politics of many Americans, particularly the young. "Change will not come if we wait for some other person," he said on Super Tuesday, "or if we wait for some other time... We are the hope of the future." Marty Linsky, professor at the Kennedy School and cofounder of Cambridge Leadership Associates, is among those who've taken note of Obama's adaptive style. "Obama often proposes process plans that involve a trust in the community at large," Linsky says. The potential ramifications for business leadership are enormous. The cult of the imperial chief executive officer still reigns in most C-suites and boardrooms. But winning tomorrow's talent -- and tomorrow's consumer -- may require a dramatically different approach.

Here's where it gets tricky. It's real easy to see some implications for Presidential leadership in this context. However, the nature of leadership seen and practiced in down-ballot contests is still there ... it just means there are different applications for it. Instead of resolving world conflicts, you might instead find a candidate needing to meet with groups of volunteers about how to engage different constituent groups.

There's still a practical benefit from watching this trend unfold even though it's not quite big enough to warrant a Rose Garden signing ceremony. And it's still one that campaign struggle with - how to cede control while still maintaining some semblance of control. That's an area where Obama's campaign has, I think, succeeded over the Howard Dean experiment from four years ago.

Even in non-political episodes, there's been a tug of war between what might otherwise be called fads like "User-Generated Content" and "Expert Content." And the struggle has always been to see how many brands really have an audience that works with them on adding to the brand. Those that don't sometimes learn a harsh lesson when they try to have customers create ads for them.

Beyond the Presidential level, seeking out territory where this is feasible for political candidates is tough. At the end of the day, you're competing with the mindset that suggests "Why not just do it ourselves?" And sometimes - maybe even most of the time, I'd argue - that default is worthwhile. But if you've done things right in any campaign, by the end of it, you'll find situations where the opportunities for creativity go beyond the campaign team. The challenge then - and the ultimate challenge in incorporating several of the lessons for how politics has changed since 2000 - is to do both.

There will always be a set of decisions that the campaign does itself and operates in a top-down manner. TV & Radio ads, both the production and the buy; political mail; stump speeches; etc .... These aren't the sorts of things you just open up to everyone right on day one. But what about field organization? ... house parties? ... neighbor-to-neighber phone/mail? Those are areas where there's room for more creativity and overlap is not exactly a bad thing.

McGint also makes the now-obvious corporate comparison to the current campaign:

"Obama and Clinton make an interesting contrast in brands," says Professor John Quelch, senior associate dean at Harvard Business School and coauthor of Greater Good: How Good Marketing Makes for Better Democracy. "Obama communicates that he loves people, and Clinton communicates that she loves policy." Consider Starbucks, Quelch says. "People love it for the experience, not for the specifications of the coffee." Obama, through his inclusive Web site and, yes, his lofty rhetoric, reinforces the notion that everyone is included and that this movement is actually a conversation to which everyone is invited.

I'm not so sure about this. Watch a busy Starbucks as the barrista juggles the easy orders (those where some of us don't impede with too many tweaks to our drink) ... and those who pretty much walk them through the making of the drink from start to finish. In short - both approaches are on display at Starbucks. And both a "top-down," authoritative approach is on display at the same time an "adaptive" approach is on display.

To my reading, that's the key ... the ability to do both. To walk and chew gum at the same time.