"A Better Deal" -- that's it? C'mon!

I am a brander.  For twenty years at General Mills, the last seven of which as it's chief advertising officer and (with my mentor, Bob Blake) protector of GMI's brand equities; then as another twenty-four years as Sr. VP Marketing and Sales at Marriott, Exec VP at Westin; and finally as principal consultant of FCW Consulting, an international branding and marketing management consultancy -- I have some time-tested beliefs about brands which I've successfully applied to employers, clients and not-for-profit enterprises.  I've learned something, from the likes of Blake, Dwight Jewson, Keith Reinhard -- and from my mistakes -- about how brands work and don't work.  A Better Deal ain't going to work.

Brands matter.  Is politics exempt from the core idea that a brand is a distinctive identity that carries meaning not only to its intended, prospective buyer, but also to the community of on-lookers who ask why should I care?  A brand is a story in a nutshell -- who are we; what do we do for our 'customer'; what it means, i.e., what the emotional pay-out is for them; and why should society give a damn?  This is especially important for not-for-profits and political parties which need societal respect and support if they hope to do their work, accomplish things and sustain themselves.

When I was a kid, during WWII, my Mom shopped for us at Montgomery Wards.  They marketed under a Good, Better, Best three-option pricing and branding scheme.  It usually drew my frugal mother up to the Better level.  (After the War, coincidentally, Dad briefly joined Montgomery Ward as Dir. of Personnel, suffering under Sewell Avery before joining David Lilienthal to form the Atomic Energy Commission.)  The G-B-B scheme can hardly be blamed for Ward's demise, but it certainly didn't help as the branding became an outdated cliche'.  Operations as disparate as SeaWorld and Southwest Air are still using a G-B-B pricing scheme, though under different names, to stimulate up-grading and to generate incremental revenues.  But they no longer use the cliche's "Good, Better, Best."

Brands always resonate, sometimes with positive and desirable resonances, sometimes inadvertent, harmful ones.  With what does "a better deal" resonate?  First, it can't help but bring to mind The Art of The Deal, the Manchild-In-The-White-House's brand; why drive an audience to think of the supposedly most skillful -- read "best" -- dealmaker?  At least that is the claim.  Is your deal, Schumer, merely better than his?  Is that all you promise?

The second resonance is the used car dealer and local ads for "Larry, at Stuff-'me Chevrolet" shouting about deals, deals, deals.  Buyers know any damn fool can offer a better deal, and will.  Resonance?: Cheap.

The third, for me, is Let's Make a Deal, with screaming, overweight fans comin' on down to be  exploited by TV Producers as they grovel and scramble for unneeded stuff.  Consumerist excess on parade: a better deal, indeed.

No.  Schumer and Pelosi have blown it.  Do they really think their mission is merely to make a better deal than can McConnell and Ryan?  Is that all there is? 

Or better than the New Deal?  Doubtful.  Better than the Fair Deal or the Square Deal?  C'mon!

The Democrats deserve a brand that promises new energy, new imagination, a new determination to change course for middle America.  One such was touched on by Hilary back in April of 2016, but then she inexplicably dropped it.  She had said her party's task was "to remove barriers."  Now there's a brand.  It can umbrella a wide variety of programs -- access to health care or quality education, job discrimination and voting rights, working wages, immigration, affordable child care, on and on.  It promises to address the major complaint of middle Americans as I understand it: no one listens to me and cares about the system's impediments to equity, justice and opportunity for me and my kids.

It actually was Bill Clinton who coined "removing barriers" back in 1994.  Of course, back then he was up against a consummate brand: "Contract With America."  (No one said scoundrels also don't know how to brand; witness Trump and Gingrich.)  Contract With America was distinctive and memorable. 

Distinctive and memorable: I recall wrestling with Bill Marriott over naming hotels.  He was perfectly happy with the Newark Marriott, the Tulsa Marriott, the Palm Desert Marriott -- despite the fact that the Palm Desert hotel was to be a flossy resort, not just another cat-box by the highway. It was only when the owner of another Palm Desert hotel sued that I was able to prevail and name it, and subsequently all of our resorts, each with a distinctive name of its own sub-tagged "by Marriott."  Thus: Desert Springs, by Marriott. 

Distinctiveness: what sets you apart from your competitors, whether competing for sales or donations or personnel or votes.  So -- rank in order of distinctiveness: "Contract with America", "Removing Barriers", "A Better Deal." 

Personally, I love "removing barriers."  But that's not the point.  The point is that Pelosi and Schumer have got to DO better.  They have to win back the respect of their opponents with whom they must collaborate, the confidence of their supporters, and the votes of the public.  Just to be seen as offering a better deal ain't going to cut it.