November 24, 2004
Why simply rebranding won't work
By Jim Dallas
I like Oliver Willis, but it sure didn't take long for the twits* to turn the tables on us.
* by which I mean, those Republican apologists who are so smug as to be completely intolerable and worthless to us, politically speaking (as in, when you add up the people who are persuadable, they ain't them). I'm sure there are probably a few loyal readers of the conservative bent who think the same about me, for what its worth. Why resort to name-calling then? Because sometimes it's just inevitable, and I'd like to get the first shot in.
* Is anyone else disturbed by the cognitive dissonance that said twits employ, when, for example, they remind us (correctly) that some Democrats were right-wing crazies (e.g. segregationists), but then accuse us of all being left-wing crazies (e.g. Stalinists)?
Posted by Jim Dallas at November 24, 2004 10:05 PM
| TrackBack
Ignore them. Leading brands emphasize their own strengths. Secondary brands attack the leading brand. When Coke responded to Pepsi with "New Coke," and when McDonald's started responding to Burger King in its ads, it was all over - they've never been clear #1 brands since.
Let them parody it. Ignore them. Oliver's right.
Leading brands emphasize their own strengths. Secondary brands attack the leading brand.
Leading brands usually... lead. Democrats are sorely in need of some sort of revitalization. Preferably one that isn't hate-oriented like in the past. Oliver has some good ideas, and some really bad ones. "We're Right" is about the worst thing you can say to an undecided voter. It needs to be about inclusion, not condescension.
Folks need to point out that the segregationist Democrats rebranded themselves as Republicans. I nearly threw up during Condoleeza Rice's address to the 2000 GOP Convention when she explained that the racial prejudice in the Democratic Party was what motivated her family to become Republicans. Those southern Democrats included Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, among others.
Come on Joe. Those people are almost all passed by now. Remember, this is 2004. Our President attracted 16% of the black vote in Ohio, up from 9 in 2000. Thats about 50,000 votes that Kerry lost, the gap in Ohio would have been just 36,000 votes without this black vote change. Our President pulled 13% of this segment in Florida, up from 7. The President polled 56% amongst Latinos, up from 49. These two groups accounted for 240,000 votes of that 381,000 vote gap. And next door in New Mexico, the Latino change generated an additional 23,000 votes For our President in a state that had a gap of 8,000 votes. The same story in Colorado and Nevada, President Bush increased his share by 5 and 6 points.
This isn't segregationist fault. If y'all continue to cry about this old message, you'll not get back to a majority party any time soon.
While those t-shirts have a funny message to some, i'm not using their messages. Joe, take some seltzer water for your upset stomach and get over it. People change, John F. Kerry's changed, George W. Bush has definately changed. Even Senator Byrd's changed.
As always, looking back at ya.
