The new Edsels? The hard selling of Clinton and Trump

How do you sell the product no one likes?

Think of the Edsel. New Coke. Windows 8. And now, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

The likely major-party presidential nominees are the most unpopular White House candidates of the 21st century and arguably the 20th, and somehow their ad and marketing gurus need to find a way to sell ’em like a smooth-gliding Lexus or freshness that lasts. They’ve got to make people want a product that many don’t want.

The key to success: “You’re dealing in the world of desires,” said Mark Ramsey, a San Diego-based corporate branding consultant.

Applying advertising strategies to campaigns dates to the “Mad Men” era of the 1960s. And using them to sell a damaged or flawed product has been a staple of campaigns since 1968, when Richard Nixon employed ad agencies to rebrand a toxic image.

Nixon lost the 1960 election after appearing pale and wan during his first televised debate with John F. Kennedy, was deeply unpopular with many voters for his relentless Communist-hunting and after losing the California governor’s race in 1962 said, “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.”

Among the new strategies: ads that didn’t show or barely showed Nixon. Instead, they showed hopeful Americans or suggested foreign threats, and ended with a promise of better times with Nixon.

The way to brand this year’s candidates is to “find a point of difference, make an emotional connection, promise a benefit to the end user,” Jaime Prieto, president, global brand management, at Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide, an advertising and marketing firm, wrote in Forbes magazine.

First, that means an effective slogan. America runs on Dunkin’. Things go better with Coke. Nike: Just do it.

Clinton? She’s suggesting, “We are stronger together.” Trump’s got “Make America great again.”

Not good enough, said Kenn Venit, a Hamden, Connecticut, media consultant. Trump’s line suggests restoring the nation to an earlier time, rather than promising to meet the future’s challenges.

“You don’t say you’re going to do things better. You say you’re going to do things even better,” Venit said. Clinton suggests that, but her slogan has a defensive ring.

The candidates, he said, need a visionary tag similar to President Barack Obama’s 2008 “Hope and change,” John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier or Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America.” All looked ahead with optimism.

But be careful. The branding world is littered with good ideas that, uh, weren’t so good. The XFL football league and its promise of “smashmouth” competition. Pepsi A.M., which alas, may have had caffeine but wasn’t coffee. Remember Harley-Davidson perfume? The smokeless cigarette? And of course the United States Football League,. whose New Jersey Generals were owned by Donald Trump. The league folded in 1985 after three seasons.

Here are the proven steps, and the daunting challenges, to making Trump and Clinton effective brands.

Make the consumer want the product

Those incessant beer commercials during basketball playoffs make people want more beer. The smooth ride of a Lexus or an Acura – plus Great Terms on a Lease! – motivate people to have a look.

Campaign promises aren’t enough; simply laying out a plan is as old as American politics itself. But branding them in a quick, clever way that people will remember – thus making the product irresistible – works.

Clinton promises to build on the Affordable Care Act, which is popular among Democrats. Trump vows to build a wall separating the United States from Mexico, a big talking point with Republicans.

Somehow a brand is needed that will woo the swing voters, whose top priority is seeing their economic situation improve. That doesn’t lend itself to easy branding.

“They don’t believe the economic deck is stacked against them,” said Will Marshall, the president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic-leaning research group. “But they reject the Trumpian view that the economy is broken.”

Connect emotionally

You look at Volvos because they claim to keep your family safer. The teasers for the late news suggest something happened in your city that you care about. You want pizza stuffed with cheese because you’ve worked hard and deserve it.

The emotion that needs to be tapped this time is fear: fear of economic collapse, fear for one’s safety. The candidate needs to show an ability to address those concerns as both a leader and as someone with their own deep emotional ties.

Trump markets himself as an astute, tough-talking businessman, unshackled by political correctness and beloved by his big family. Clinton’s brand is less clear.

Is she the mother and grandmother fighting for women’s rights? The steely diplomat? The legislator and witness to White House history who understands compromise? What could boost Clinton is to take all these résumé points and add a dose of genuine compassion, the experts said.

She needs to show some humanity, they said. “We don’t know the person,” said Stephen Hahn-Griffiths, vice president at the Reputation Institute, a research group that studies public images.

Emphasize differences

Look at Coke and Pepsi, said Tom Asacker, a branding expert based in Manchester, New Hampshire. They don’t disparage each other, because they don’t want to damage the category. They don’t want people to see soda so unfavorably that they stop buying altogether.

Similarly, in politics, “you want to build the category,” Asacker said, and the political category has enough problems without candidates weakening it further.

The effective way to brand an opponent is to put them on the defensive, said Bruce Newman said. Clinton is forcing Trump to defend his corporate record. Trump’s calling her “crooked Hillary.”

The danger here is going too far. As President Jimmy Carter learned in 1980, demonizing your opponent can backfire if the target, in that case Ronald Reagan, doesn’t seem as odious as painted.

There’s a wild card in this search for the correct brand: the events no one can control. A disaster movie that’s due to be released the day after a terrorist attack (the distributor usually pulls the film). The Edsel, whose already-numerous problems were exacerbated as its launch coincided with a recession.

Would a terrorist incident give Clinton – the experienced, serious diplomat –a boost? Or would it help Trump, who does well among voters looking for leadership? Suppose there’s an economic slump?

“If the economy dives, Trump’s brand is there with the notion he’s a successful businessperson,” said Bruce Newman, a professor of marketing at DePaul University in Chicago. Trump’s brand is an experienced executive who knows how to make things work.

If the economy remains stable, though, it’s advantage Clinton, who can talk about ways to make it even better by maintaining Obama administration policies and finding new ways to help those struggling to find work or get out of debt.

A decent economy, Newman said, “eats away at Trump’s brand.”

There’s no way to know precisely what will work, because the candidates’ images are unlike any in recent times. About all that’s certain, said Asacker, is “this is going to be a tough one to figure out.”

This story was originally published June 6, 2016 at 6:00 AM with the headline "The new Edsels? The hard selling of Clinton and Trump."