Further ™

Parties breaking the rules of Branding

The main political parties are breaking the basic rules of branding with their current campaign materials – practice that would be unacceptable in the corporate world.

In an analysis of the main political parties' printed and online campaign communications for the 2010 General Election, brand and design consultancy Further has uncovered some questionable branding practices. A key tactic is to publish materials that appear at first glance to be local free-sheet newspapers but are actually party propaganda pieces. There is even evidence of parties adopting another's branding - presumably with the aim of confusing voters – for example the Liberal Democrats have adopted Labour’s distinctive red colour for their news sheets in Hackney and Islington.

The Conservative Party has taken this technique one stage further by producing a campaign newsletter in Watford entitled ‘ NHS Matters’ and using NHS branding. The newsletter is actually a Conservative note defending its position on hospital cuts.

Adrian Day, Managing Partner at Further said: "Imagine leading commercial brands passing themselves off as the competition – say, Shell adopting BP's green and yellow colours, or Vodafone adopting the Orange colour? This copying can only cause confusion amongst the electorate. At a time when the behaviour of politicians is under scrutiny as never before it’s frankly staggering that this sort of practice is happening."

The study uncovers some other insights on how the parties are approaching branding and communications during the 2010 election

- 'Change' to what?  ‘A future fair for all’ is the Labour strapline whilst the Tories talk simply of ‘Change’. The Liberal Democrats are positioning themselves as the best of both worlds with ‘Change that works for you – building a fairer Britain’. It was a prescient strapline perhaps, now that we know there’s a good chance of a hung Parliament with the LibDems holding the balance of power, and in a position to partner with either Labour or the Tories! 

And the Tories’ 'Change' strapline begs the question change 'to what'? At a time when David Cameron has been much criticised for style over substance, why not paint a picture of the positive results of the change? Of course a similar campaign line worked for Barack Obama, but perhaps the nature of the change (from the Bush administration) then was more self-evident then - and even that campaign used the line 'Change  We Can Believe In'.

- Hidden symbols. Whilst all three parties have symbols (the Conservative Tree, the Labour Red Rose and the Liberal Democrat’s Dove) these tend to be used sparingly. Perhaps this is because none of symbols have the authority or strength of some other organisational symbols. Indeed in this campaign the Conservatives are using a new graphic mark - the Union Jack overlaid with the 'Change' line - as their most visible symbol on posters, banners and placards.

The Labour party has also introduced a graphic for the 2010 manifesto, an idealised picture of a family watching the sun rise over a rural idyll in a style redolent of the 1930s. It seems a slightly removed image from today’s society, though perhaps the sunrise is a borrowed idea from the Obama campaign logo?

- A colourful campaign. All three parties use colour (rather than symbols) as their main branding device – red for Labour, blue for the Conservatives and yellow for the Liberal Democrats. With the exception of the colour hijacking mentioned above, each party association is diligent at harnessing this basic branding tool, even through to the colour of the leaders’ ties in the televised debates. Whilst one or two other fringe socialist parties also use red, the strength of the Labour red and Tory blue associations means the smaller parties avoid these hues (with the exception of the BNP of course, who employ the national colours of red, white and blue) so UKIP uses purple, Plaid Cymru and SNP are both yellow and the Green party uses, well, green!

- The leader - asset or liability? The parties use their leaders in online and offline communications in different ways. David Cameron and Nick Clegg are much more visible on Tory and LibDem materials than Gordon Brown is on Labour propaganda. Evidence that even the Labour party don't see Gordon as an asset? In fact Gordon Brown seems to appear more on rival parties' pieces than in his own party's materials - alongside plenty of knocking copy of course. A good example is the Tory 48 sheet poster campaign showing a smiling Gordon alongside a line describing the downside of another term with him in power.

- A consistent face. The Conservative Party's deeper pockets are reflected in a slicker, more coherent and consistent brand identity with much material appearing to be centrally produced. However even the Conservative’s communications look fragmented and disparate compared with those of many commercial organisations and indeed those of most public sector and third sector bodies. The LibDems' materials are particularly inconsistent and fragmented.

Commercial organisations manage their brand carefully to maximise their share of voice, and to present a coherent and professional image so it’s surprising that given the amount of external advice that the political parties receive these days that they haven’t done more on this front. The major parties have distributed templates to constituencies but they are not always used.

- Use of social media is growing but the poster isn't dead yet. The online revolution has started, but old fashioned methods are still much in evidence. All the major parties are keeping their websites fresh and content-rich, and all are making use of video and social networking sites such as facebook, twitter, Youtube and flickr. But the old tools are still visible - from giant hoardings in fields, to window posters and handbills through the letterbox. However there does seem to be fewer posters in the windows than in the last election - is this a reflection of the growing power of the online world or simply a general disenchantment with politics?

- Obama is still in front. Finally none of the parties has come close to the slickness, impact, professionalism and attention to detail of the successful Obama campaign. Two Chicago-based firms Sender and MODE created the Obama logo when he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination – the mark represents the 'O' of his name and evokes a rising sun and a new day. The toolkit included a collection of targeted logos aimed at different segments from 'Women for Obama' through to 'Africa Americans for Obama', each with a customised O symbol.

Adrian Day said: ' Of course the difference between Obama's campaign and the UK election is that whilst the UK electorate has become much more focussed on the leaders, people here still vote for parties (a recent Electoral Commission study showed that only 9% stated ‘the leader I prefer’ as their reason for choice of vote as against 40% because the party ‘represented the interests of people like me’). In the US the leader's personality is much more important - hence the impact of brand Obama. And of course budgets are much more substantive in the US!