A Question of Branding. Nearly died when I saw this .... lol

Meh. She's a 5 at best. It looks more like a poorly put together amateur model page than anything else. All I know about her political ideals is that she thinks she'll be able to pull off a pink suit in front of the capital building :rolleyes:.

When these are the kind of people that think they have a shot, it kind of makes you think about where our country is going. This sucks.

I'd vote too, hehe

I wonder if this is going to work for her. She's getting a lot of attention, but a lot of tweets and blog articles are ridiculing the website. People are laughing ... not sure she is being taken very seriously.

That's precisely the point Alexa: she's probably not running for a "serious" race to the Senate. She's leveraging on her age and on her "kewl" looks trying to target the young crown (or the crowd who votes for the fun of it).

Therefore, age and her looks are not against her. They're precisely her USP (unique selling proposition), to put in marketing terms.

Controversy sells, and she's exploiting that.

SHE does? Huh - that's interesting.:p

I don't know if you know the difference between a fictional movie and reality, but that stuff doesn't happen in real life :rolleyes:.

That site hits a new low even for a politician!


Yeah, but 16 year old's can't vote lol

Looks like something Jane would do on the television show "Drop Dead Diva".

Haha, so are you sure this isn't personal Suzanne, ie. 'Diva of the District vs Domaining Diva'? J/K

Anyway, regarding your OP, I usually agree with most of your opinions but, in this case, I think it is actually clever marketing. Especially since it sounds as though she has the smarts to back it up. (Sell the sizzle, then give them what they need.)

I must admit that the first thing I thought of when I saw the site though, was legally blonde, lol. (And, yes, I've watched the movie. )

I'm not really familiar with voter demographics in the US, but if it is true that the majority of young people don't vote then, who knows, perhaps she will be able to tap into that market. If traditional methods (ie. playing it safe) used by other politicians aren't appealing to that crowd, then maybe it is time to try something new?

Re: Her attractiveness.. I don't think that she is unattractive but, as with most women, would certainly look heaps better if she lost [most of] the makeup, and the fake tan.

Well, I've always said that pink is not just a color, it's an attitude.

I'm thinking that the message that she's sending or the branding she's going after is that she is thinking outside of the box, that she's going against the grain of politics as usual. That she will bring something fresh and unconventional to an otherwise conventional non-working system

Considering the complaints and dissatisfaction of government in recent days, that could work.

As for being laughed at, she's being laughed at by the very ones she's pointing out as not bringing change and their staunch supporters who obviously aren't her target. Perhaps she's thinking that by them talking about her, or I should say ridiculing her, they're falling right into her plan. If she weren't considered a viable opponent or a threat, she wouldn't even be given a mention or a passing thought. Maybe that's why she didn't just go against the tide, but blatantly, wildly and loudly went against the tide.

Will it work? Who knows? What I'd like to know is if she's getting a significant amount of donations through her website donate page. That would be an indicator if her campaign and branding is successful or not.

Terra

Presumably she's more "putting her marker/branding down for the future" than seriously hoping to win? (I do think she may actually be right about "taking pink all the way to Harvard" - though whether she's necessarily going to want that sort of branding - in politics - when she's a little older may be a different question? ).

Love this branding discussion! What a great example.

Several people have made interesting points. I totally agree that her "branding" and "positioning" as a candidate are a complete joke. Given her education, I'm surprised she actually went with it.

Her explanation for the site (as quoted by Coast2Coast) actually made some sense. But the resulting site is still all wrong.

Does she stand out? Yes. Will people remember her? Probably.

But for all the wrong reasons. The site and her branding/positioning are HIDEOUS.

Yes, I understand that she's targeting the younger demographic. It's a poor choice (since that demographic doesn't vote in large enough numbers to make a difference), but even for the younger crowd that DOES vote, it's insulting.

She could still stand out by using pink, yet do it in a way that conveys credibility and trust. (A color scheme of pink/black/gray comes to mind.) Her current site screams "amateur" and "immature."

Also, no one has mentioned that all-important secondary sphere of supporters and influencers.

Just like a business, you're not just speaking to voters (i.e. potential customers). You're also speaking to that secondary sphere of people who help make your campaign successful: donors, endorsers, etc. (In business, this is the equivalent of potential JV partners, endorsers, bankers and other sources of credit and capital, etc.)

While secondary, these people can make or break her campaign. While they might be amused, I highly doubt any donor, organization, politician or other backer of any real substance will be willing to get behind her in a serious way. None of them wants her "branding" associated with them and reflected back to THEIR constituents.

Political candidates need these "secondary sphere" supporters and influencers even more than entrepreneurs do.

Several here have given her kudos for trying and standing out. Unfortunately, the saying that any publicity is good publicity is dead wrong -- especially in politics. (Bad publicity can sink a political career in no time flat.) Yes, you want attention, to stand out. Yes, she might be getting a lot of buzz now. But as others mentioned, I think most people are laughing AT her and not taking her seriously. In politics, that's bad.

The shade of pink, sparkles and leopard print are all bad, bad, bad choices. Horrendous! But it's not just that. The site layout is also very basic and bad. And look at the e-mail. She has her own domain but is using a GMail e-mail?

Yes, she's slim and "attractive." But she has an umm... "escort" quality about her. NOT good. She needs to lose the heavy makeup and fake tan.

I'm not sure I could trust her to watch my cats, much less be my senator!

If she's serious, I think the whole thing is a train wreck.

But as someone else mentioned, she might be smarter than we give her credit for. She might be able to parlay this into a successful campaign the next time around. Maybe she just wants to get on the map now and get known. (I seriously doubt she's going to win this time around!)

If so, kudos to her. But I still wouldn't approach it this way this time around. The entire thing is a farce.

As for the Warrior who said she didn't need "conversions"... What planet are you from??? Votes ARE conversions, the equivalent of a sale in the business world. Just like enough sales make a successful business, enough votes make a successful campaign.

EVERY candidate is looking for conversions (i.e. votes).

Michelle

I don't honestly recall making that comparison in the first place. I was merely saying the reason that movie was good, was Reeses personality and ability to humor people.

They could have easily picked a less competent blonde for the role, like Paris Hilton lol, and not a single person would have remembered the name "Elle Woods".

You say these comparisons can't be made, yet movie directors get paid millions to do precisely that. In fact its the first thing thats done before any movie is made. The screening phase and what not. Take for instance Val Kilmer in playing Jimmy Morrison, or Joaquin Phoenix playing Johhny Cash or Russell Crowe playing John Nash. I mean do they just spin a wheel to decide who will play the role? I don't think so. In fact, I'm pretty sure these directors hire body language experts who do nothing but compare the actor to the person he's portraying.. in order to perfect the role that is.

Maybe I'm missing your point? Idk, not trying to argue but I'm also not sure that statement was 100% true. Most movies are made by comparing actors to the roles they play.. no?

LOL

As someone else said earlier, when a group of men gather to talk about a woman, it is always about sex!!



I might do her -- IF she looks halfway decent after she scrapes all that crap off of her face!! But, I am afraid they don't make snow shovels stout enough to get all of that crap off of her face!!

:p

lol ... now that's branding :p

I'd forgotten about Willyam so I googled redneck marketer and guess who came up #1 in Google - tpw

... but I'm not running for Senate and my gaudy website wouldn't be what I would use for a campaign site.

I know how conservative politicians are in the area of fashion, hair color, websites, etc. (having worked for a lobbyist).

I'll never forget the time I dyed my hair and I wanted to go a bit red while I was working for the head founding lobbyist at this firm. The dye job went horribly wrong and it had a sort of purplish cast to it rather than the red I was going for. I went to work ... was promptly sent home and told not to come back until it was fixed. I sat outside of the head lobbyists office and politicians came in and out of there all day long, and he did not want them to see someone out there with "purplish" hair .... lol.

It's a discussion about branding and branding has a lot to do with making money. The sex is just a sidenote ... boys will be boys.

lol ... I have to admit that this was one of my favorites. Made me laugh all over again.

Ooooh, I see. I'd misread that completely.

Never having been to America and being unfamilar with such niceties, I didn't actually know there was such a thing as the "New York Senate", and just took it as meaning that she's running to be a US Senator (I'd heard of that one).

Ooh, well - that's different, isn't it? Local government? Well, you want a bit of pink in local government, for a change, don't you? :p

I stand corrected... Thank you, sir!

For those offended on Senator Hopeful Mindy's behalf, this is what the thread is about - not to bash the lady or trash her reputation without knowing her, it's simply a critique on an admittedly horrid attempt at branding - which is absolutely germane to what we should be discussing here - it's part of our business. And yes, it is fun to poke fun at a bad attempt at presenting one's self to the public, same as comedians do every night on TV.

No need for anyone to be offended about poking fun at a total stranger's website. :rolleyes:

Perfectly acceptable when your forum username is "Time Travel Agent."

Well, bless my leopard skin & spank my sparkles! Thanks for sharing! I really needed a laugh today and this does the trick.:rolleyes:

True. What I was trying to say is that this particular demographics isn't concerned about what people look like. It's no tan issue. They are more moved by sincerity and message and tend to trust people closer to their age group. And if you think about it, hasn't that always been the case with every generation?