5 brand takeaways from Trump’s win – or how I called it already in January
While Michael Moore called the election five months ago, I did so in January, months before the parties nominated their candidates and when even Bloomberg was still in the cards. And no, I was not a Trump supporter, but do wish he succeeds in his presidency, for it is also the world’s success.
Then, as well as all up until election night, I was brushed off by very intelligent and smart friends and acquaintances, explaining why Trump can not, and will not, possibly win. After the election night, we’ve read many pieces of analysis on why this did indeed happen, on the economy, the society and the involvement of both domestic and foreign forces. As these serious issues are already widely debated, and as I’m a marketer by trade, I want to add to the discussion a few quite evident, but still overlooked things that helped me see the result so far ahead, and that brands and companies can also take heed of:
1. Momentum beats Statistics
Everyone and their mother was using statistics to explain why Trump, although in a relatively strong upswing until that date, could never win: he was too disliked across too many demographics that were too large for him to overcome. But they overlooked the fact that Clinton was historically disliked too, and also that she came from a strong favorite position where the only way she could go was down. Meanwhile, the forces Mr Trump was betting on were getting stronger by the day, and also aligned exactly with the trends that were already vigorously shaking the EU, including my home country Finland. When you looked at the big picture of what was happening across the western world, and realized that those were the same forces Trump was harnessing to their maximum potential, it was clear that he was on a trajectory to be an amazingly strong contender. But most experts didn’t see this for, as a wise man once said, we spend so much looking at our statistics that we’ve forgotten that we can create new ones.
2. Passion beats Perfection
During the whole election cycle, the media and experts were laughing at Trump’s bad ground game, erratic tweeting and spending money on baseball caps instead of analytics and ads. Clinton, meanwhile had the perfect campaign machine at her disposal, cash to boot, and would very likely be the endorsed candidate by most newspapers and power brokers. Trump on the other hand had something that Clinton didn’t: the passion of supporters who craved for dramatic change. While Clinton was struggling to inspire passion outside her absolute core, and wouldn’t be able to count on that from Bernie supporters, a typical Trump supporter was ready to drag their family, and their neighbor’s family too, to the booths with them. Also, as Mr. Michael Moore also mentioned, the baseball cap is not just a hat, it’s a core part of identity for many Americans; it’s who they are. And it proved to be a powerful symbol for what these people wanted.
3. Consistency beats Compromise
Everyone, including myself, were dumbstruck by the Republican candidate-to-be’s constant flip-flopping on key issues, disregard of facts, and lack of basic decency when dealing with his critics and opponents. However, although the mix grew more extreme during the campaign, this was all in line with his long-held brand, and he also repeatedly said that a businessman needs to be able to change his views when new information comes along; he’s gotta be flexible. So while Trump was keeping with his flexible brand and being consistent in his inconsistency, Clinton’s changing of views was always perceived as compromising her real views to get more votes, and her admitting to having both ‘private’ and ‘public’ views did not do favors to her challenging trustworthiness ratings. We can argue that both candidates had trustworthiness issues, and Trump even more so. But for human beings, perception is reality; for quantum physicists actually the only form of reality, even scientifically speaking.
4. Memorability beats Elaboration
Trump has had relatively little by way of actual plans and policy, but his campaign tagline was repeated daily by both his supporters and detractors, not just in America, but around the world. Clinton was infinitely more qualified on paper and had a set of detailed policies on many areas to chart her route through the next four years. But when I was asking my friends if they remembered what her core promise or tagline was, none remembered it. Ironically Bill Clinton, during his successful 1992 campaign, reportedly wanted to broaden and balance the discourse across topics, but his advisors told him to stick to repeating ‘The Economy, Stupid’, that they saw resonating better than other campaign lines on e.g. healthcare and change. Although detractors mocked Trump’s lack of sophistication, his supporters were ready to give him the benefit of the doubt. As The Economist wrote this week, while critics took Trump literally but not seriously, his supporters took him seriously but not literally.
5. PR & Social beat Paid Ads
Finally, Clinton beat Trump handsomely on paid advertising. But Trump decimated all other candidates in social media and PR. Remember that people don’t voluntarily spend their time watching advertising. But they willingly give up hours daily watching news and lifestyle clips, reading news and lifestyle articles, and talking to other people on social platforms such as Facebook. Trump dominated the media where people are active and engaged rather than passive and waiting for the actual content they want to see. Commanding active discussions rather than captive eyeballs wins in today’s digital marketplace, although doing great in both will naturally be the best possible alternative. Notably, Twitter, which was Trump’s weapon of choice, gained in market value after the election results came in.
All in all, this was according to most the ugliest election year in American history, and much of the attention and buzz was negative. But maybe exactly because of that, many enough were convinced that Washington is in need of change, and there was ultimately going to be only one change name on the ballot, even if it was one with considerable risks and unknowns involved.
Disclaimer:
I can’t vote in the USA, and so am merely an observer of the phenomenon that we saw come to a head on November 8th. As many people have already done, I offer my take on making sense of it all. I personally condemn all forms of hatred against other people based on who they are, where they come from, what they do in their bedrooms or where they go to worship, and wish the US government will continue to uphold human rights and protect all of its inhabitants.
