Big brand Bill Clinton - Column

Brandweek, April 13, 1998 by Alice Uniman

Over the last several weeks, the American public has been engulfed in a litany of "who dunnit's" connected to Bill Clinton. And there have been a multitude of variations on that theme: Who dunnit? Did they like it dun? If they didn't like it dun, then why didn't they complain about it being dun when it was dun? Or, perhaps, they even dun it to him. Quite a mystery Potentially as interesting as the dun deeds themselves is understanding the poll results of what the public thinks of Brand Clinton.

Why do respondents to these surveys continue to rate a president's professional performance so highly, while, at the same time, they believe the same president has engaged in sexual misconduct and tied about it? How do we explain this seeming dichotomy in public opinion?

Theories abound:

* The American public thinks sexual behavior, no matter how allegedly crude, is a president's private business and has no bearing on his fitness to hold office.

* The American public holds the jaded view that past presidents and other world leaders have engaged in less than upstanding sexual behavior, so, what else is new?

* The American public is actually sympathetic. After all, who wouldn't lie about adultery to shield his family from embarrassment.

* The American public thinks all politicians have had ethical lobotomies, so the standards of ethics to which they are held are lowered accordingly.

There is probably some truth to each of these theories. Yet, none of these explanations really addresses the fundamental, underlying thought structure that may permit the public to hold such a seemingly contradictory view. Seemingly is the operative word. The American public consistently makes quite rational choices as consumers of products and services everyday. Its current overall approval rating of President Clinton, despite the maelstrom of controversy, is equally rational. How so?

Bill Clinton is not viewed so much as a president, but as a brand of president. And brands of products are not synonymous with the category in which they compete, unless it is a monopoly. So, a brand of president is not necessarily synonymous with his category--The Office of the President--because Clinton, in fact, is competing with the images of other presidents. Making the important distinction between individual/brand versus office/category permits the public to eschew the ethics of a specific brand of president, as long as those ethics do not undermine the essential "tablestakes" ethics that define the very category of "president." Adultery is acceptable. Committing perjury is not. Hitting on 21-year-olds is acceptable. Obstructing justice is not. Therefore, criticism of Clinton's personal ethics, reflected by one recent poll in which only 30% of the respondents believe this brand of president is "honest and trustworthy," does not contradict the high 63% performance approval rating.

But, as with brands, distrust breeds suspicion and suspicion erodes a brand's likability. Brand likability corresponds to brand loyalty. Brand loyalty, in turn, links to repeat purchase interest. If subjected to a brand analysis, the current level of disapproval of Clinton's personal ethics of this brand of president should send up some serious red flags. The "repeat purchase" power, or, in his case, the staying power of a positive image after he has left office, is in jeopardy. Brand likability is a very valuable equity and buys an awful lot of forgiveness for possible shortcomings on product performance.

The power of likability has saved brands. Tylenol survived product tampering in large part because the brand had engendered such trust and loyalty with its franchise. And so it is with a brand of president. Performance shortcomings may be forgiven if the brand is liked and trusted. And brand trust violations are weatherable as long as product performance, his job as president, is exemplary. A difficult tightrope to walk, but one that is much easier with a Dow Jones Average around 9000.

The public exhibits another rational habit. It makes choices in the context of alternative, competitive choices. People may give a particular brand a good rating, but it doesn't mean they will buy that brand. It depends on how they rank it against other brands. Achieving a good rating on product performance, or on brand character features, is important. But surpassing competition is critical. Ratings are interesting, but rank is everything. With brands and with presidents.

Alice Uniman is president and founder of Phoenix Brand Strategies, New York, She can be reached at ideas2fly@aol.com.