logo
    • Magazine
    • Membership
    • Donate
  • Racial Justice
  • Economic Justice
    • Collections
    • Glossary
  • Climate Justice
  • Health Justice
  • Leadership
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Subscribe
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Complimentary Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Membership
  • Submissions

Political Branding? There’s No Outside

Cyndi Suarez
October 17, 2018
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
“Brand,” Travis Isaacs

October 16, 2018, Paste; October 9, 2018, City Lab; October 2, 2018, Inc.

While our sector may not focus much on branding, the government and private sectors are both very much experimenting with it. At a recent event in Washington, DC, brand designers met to talk about a growing trend—political branding.

City Lab’s Sarah Holder quotes Ben Ostrower, CEO and Creative Director of Wide Eye: “The biggest demographic in the country is not white men. It’s people who don’t vote.” She adds, “Design can play a big role in increasing turnout, simply by reminding people why voting matters, and how to get involved.”

Holder reminds us that in the 2016 presidential election, “a little more than a third of eligible voters across the country voted,” especially among people of color and Millennials.

According to Holder, the most “politically potent image of 2016” was Trump’s MAGA hat, which she says “initiate[d] strangers across state lines into a club governed by a shared (albeit amorphous) dream.” She notes, “As the country prepares for a midterm election, Republican and Democratic candidates running for positions up and down the ballot are trying to find their own Red Hat—a symbol and a style that sets them apart and sells their message.”

The designers Holder interviews have noticed a shift in the palette of colors, which until now, like politics itself, was limited. Red, white, and blue is being replaced with colors that reflect the rainbow flag. Similarly, stars and stripes are generally absent.

Holder writes, “For new candidates, especially, to run and win, logos need personality, authenticity, and punch.” She credits our newfound symbolic sophistication to our obsession with screens and visual content.

                 

And luckily, we are evolving. Holder notes, “If the iconic image of 2016 was a hat, 2018’s answer so far has been an exclamation point.” She is referring, of course, to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ad campaign. She writes,

Designed by the New York-based firm Tandem, Ocasio-Cortez’ design uses splashes of bright yellow and deep blue, and a slanted font that leaps across posters and almost off the walls. Dual exclamation points with starts for dots frame “Ocasio”; words are contained in speech bubbles, as if made to be shouted.

Beto O’Rourke’s “design team sucked out all the color from his stark black-and-white BETO FOR SENATE posters.” Stacey Abrams’ team chose “a dark, distinguished navy-blue background color with the candidate’s name in chunky, all-caps font. Splashes of brighter colors (an orange called Bittersweet, a green called Puerto Rico, and a light Cornflower blue) form an inclusive palette.” There are many others.

Behind this new branding are new branders. Holder writes, “To market new candidates, you need new blood in the design room.” Anjelica Triola, co-founder of Creative Caucus, says the design team must include “political outsiders.”

But, Holder warns, “there’s a fine line between paying too little attention to design, and too much.” She reminds us that Hilary Clinton suffered from too much design. Her “polished, well-oiled campaign literature was cohesive, and on-message, and fastidiously crafted,” but “its professionalism may have also fueled the perception that Clinton was an aloof, overly-managed candidate.”

On the other hand, Shane Ryan of Paste calls Elizabeth Warren’s attempt to prove Native ancestry through her recent public announcement of her DNA test in response to a challenge by President Trump “the worst political gambit of the 2020 presidential election cycle”—so far, at least. He notes that, in doing so, she didn’t just make a big mistake in “engaging with the party of bad faith,” letting them frame the narrative. (In this case, it’s one the Republicans launched in 2012, when she ran for the Massachusetts Senate and they revealed that she claimed Native ancestry while working at Harvard. Trump extended it when he began referring to her as “Pocahontas.”) She also alienated many in the Cherokee nation by claiming to be Cherokee—something that is not, apparently, determined through DNA testing. (To be fair, she is relying on personal family history.)

Sign up for our free newsletters

Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Ryan points out that Warren “should have checked in with the Cherokee Nation beforehand to see how the move would be received.” He continues, “That seems like pretty standard political operating procedure, right? Making sure your allies are actually, well, your allies?”

Ryan goes deeper: “Implying minority [sic] ‘heritage’ on the basis of some DNA test, when you’ve lived an entire life as a white person and all the privilege it entails, is a terrible look.”

Ryan sees Warren’s video explaining her side of the story as “pathetic” and “the worst kind of political pandering…pandering to a group of people who are not even her base.” He sees this as an outmoded strategy of wooing the middle.

For him, there was only one response: “You ignore it. It’s not satisfying, and it may feel like conceding, but anything more than a scoff and a condescending smile for these ghouls is too much.” Ryan concludes that Warren’s politically unsophisticated move discredits her as a presidential candidate, something many believe she is aiming for in 2020. (Ouch.) The fact that the article appears in an entertainment magazine speaks volumes.

But that’s how critical these symbols are. They tell the world who you are. And in these times, who you are is political.

Even Nike knows this. Inc.’s Geoffrey James writes, “Nike’s embrace of Colin Kaepernick has been wildly successful for the company, even though it runs afoul of standard branding practice,” which generally “shie[s] away from political affiliation.”

James argues that there are three reasons brands “may be forced to ‘take sides’” now.

  • First, brands target emotions and, at this point in history, the strongest emotions are around politics and social change.
  • Second, thanks to the Internet, corporate donations are more transparent, subject to scrutiny, and incite strong feelings.
  • Third, the cost of being on “the wrong side” is higher. It includes boycotts and reputation harm.

Unlike Warren, Nike knows who its constituency is and who it is not any more. James writes,

By associating its brand with Kaepernick and the Black Lives Matter movement, Nike increased its brand’s attractiveness to a rapidly-growing, young, urban, hip, ethnically diverse demographic—the very people most likely to buy expensive athletic footgear.

At the same time, Nike also intentionally cut loose a declining, older, rural, squarer, and whiter demographic that was never a big part of their target customer base anyway. A different brand might find the opposite smarter (think Hobby Lobby).

James notes that what Nike did makes sense for who it is.

Nike, of course, has always been an innovator in brand development, so it’s not surprising that it would figure out that it would be in its best interests to drive the process of “taking sides” rather than simply react to our society’s increased divisiveness.

But what about nonprofits? Here at NPQ, as our coverage of these issues increases, we receive letters from our readers that tell us we are getting political. They may not be aware that politics actually drives our work. As we say on our website, “NPQ’s guiding philosophy is that an active, engaged, and sometimes disruptive civil sector is critical to a healthy democracy in the same way that a free and independent press is…Nonprofits make thriving communities, a responsive government, and a vibrant democracy possible, and NPQ’s mission is to provide quality information to help them perform at a better level.”

So now that you know, does your nonprofit know who its constituency is and how to talk to it? Political theorist Chantal Mouffe reminds us that the concept of neutral ground hides conflict and is always a hegemonic construction.—Cyndi Suarez

Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
About the author
Cyndi Suarez

Cyndi Suarez is president and editor-in-chief of NPQ (Nonprofit Quarterly). She is author of The Power Manual: How to Master Complex Power Dynamics, in which she outlines a new theory and practice of liberatory power. Suarez has worked as a strategy and innovation consultant with a focus on networks and platforms for social movements. She has 20 years of experience in the nonprofit sector—in community-based, advocacy, organizing, consulting, infrastructure, and philanthropic organizations. She is passionate about elegant design and designing for power. Her studies were in feminist theory and organizational development for social change.

More about: BrandingManagement and LeadershipNonprofit NewsPolitics

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

Join Today
logo logo logo logo logo
See comments

summer_sidebar_subscribe
You might also like
In Rejecting Ballot Measure, Ohioans Stood Up for Citizen Power
Isaiah Thompson
Incoherent Policy Threatens Overdose Prevention Sites
Isaiah Thompson
Capitalism, the Insecurity Machine: A Conversation with Astra Taylor
Astra Taylor and Rithika Ramamurthy
Barbie and the Problem of Corporate Power
Rithika Ramamurthy
Education Week Is Tracking “Anti-CRT” Legislation Across the US
Isaiah Thompson
Warnings of an “Unparalleled” Assault on Higher Education
Isaiah Thompson

NPQ Webinars

Oct 5th and 6th, 2:00 PM ET

Mastering QuickBooks 2023

Advanced QuickBooks for Nonprofits for Online Users

Register Now
Oct 26th, 2:00 PM ET

Becoming A Great Manager

How to Conspire and Align with the People You Lead

Register Now
You might also like
A statue of a blindfolded woman, wearing a bodice of armor and holding a sword.
In Rejecting Ballot Measure, Ohioans Stood Up for Citizen...
Isaiah Thompson
An exterior of a brick, nondescript building on a dimly lit street.
Incoherent Policy Threatens Overdose Prevention Sites
Isaiah Thompson
A desaturated image of a man standing in front of a bench over looking a body of water. His back is to the camera.
Capitalism, the Insecurity Machine: A Conversation with...
Astra Taylor and Rithika Ramamurthy

Like what you see?

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

See our newsletters

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Summer 2023 issue

Independent & in your mailbox.

Subscribe today and get a full year of NPQ for just $59.

subscribe
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright
  • Funders
  • Magazine Art

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.