A Look at Each Candidates Campaign Slogans

Putting political opinions and view points aside, one campaign slogan from this recent election season seemed to perform better than the other. Ray Hennessey makes this claim in his recent article titled “Why 'Make America Great Again' Beat 'Stronger Together'”, which was published on Entrepreneur.com this past week. Here, Hennessey discusses the five reasons why Donald Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ and its #MAGA hashtag out performed the marketing efforts of Hillary Clinton’s ‘Stronger Together’.

The first reason that Hennessey discusses is the call to action that #MAGA produced. Comparing it to Nike’s ‘Just Do It’ slogan, Hennessey links the two and describes how the slogan almost comes off as an order and is the voter’s responsibility. Contrasting it with ‘Stronger Together’, which Hennessey describes as an attempt at being all-inclusive, yet lacking the call to order that is important with marketing messages. While I do not support the campaign style and platform that Trump ran on, I do agree with Hennessey here who suggests that the ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan seemed to motivate people more so than ‘Stronger Together’.

The second factor that attributes to Trump’s marketing success is that the slogan is so simple with its execution. There was no real design team or image with hidden messages or symbols to take into consideration. Trump’s slogan was infamously seen as plain font on a red or white baseball hat or simply on a bumper sticker. There was nothing to be unsure about or confused about with this slogan. Simply, if you wanted to make America great again, you knew which slogan to look for. With ‘Stronger Together’, Hennessey explains how the slogan was inherently more ambiguous. The ambiguity comes from the idea that they need strength, as if to criticize the previous administration but not to go all the way since she was a part of it. This more passive approach apparently did not resonate with all voters and came off as another message trying to be politically correct, which contrasts the type of rhetoric that was common with Trump. In the end, it appears that the Clinton slogan was less blunt and more passive than the in your face strategy by Trump.

The third factor that Hennessey describes is that Clinton’s slogan campaign was not nearly as definitive as Trump’s. There was no question with Trump on what his slogan message was. Everyone knew it was all about ‘Make America Great Again’. Clinton used multiple different “sub-slogans” like, “I’m With Her”, “Fighting for Us”, and “Breaking Down Barriers.” By having all these messages at once, it can muddy the waters and make your overall campaign seem less grounded and more all over the place. We have all seen marketing campaigns where there was too much going on and thus lost part of its impact. This ties in with the next factor, which Hennessey states was social media.

With social media, Clinton was not able to make her main slogan ‘Stronger Together’ a massive hit. While she had a lot of success on social media, it was with her ‘I’m with Her’ slogan. By not capitalizing off her main slogan, it added ambiguity to the marketing campaign, which was not helped by the success of #MAGA with Trump supporters. Interestingly enough, ‘Make America Great Again’ is not as social media friendly on paper as something like ‘Stronger Together’, yet Trump supporters organically abbreviated it to #MAGA. Clinton’s supporters were using a hashtag of a slogan that their campaign essentially abandoned as its branding. Should Clinton have been able to better use her slogans on social media, who knows if the outcome would have changed.

The last and fifth factor that Hennessey discusses is the idea of leadership. He felt that the ‘Stronger Together’ slogan attempted to be too inclusive and did not give off the definitive leader feel that Clinton should have been going for. He also argues that ‘Stronger Together’ was a direct response to ‘Make America Great Again’ and seemed almost defensive, rather than direct and inspiring. Trump’s campaign seemed to be going off the premise that he, as an individual was going to ‘Make America Great Again’, compared to Clinton’s campaign, which was centered on a group effort. Personally, I like the idea of being “Stronger Together’ and working as a team, although apparently that was not the same sentiment with the way the Electoral College votes panned out. How do you feel about the slogans from this campaign? Do you agree with the claims made by Hennessey, or do you think the Clinton’s marketing was stronger. Let me know what you think in the comments section below.

Doctor Pepper Invests in Sugar-Free Drink Company Admist New Soda Taxes

There was more than just the future president to vote on earlier this week. A tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (namely soda) was voted through in the Californian cities San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, as well as in Boulder, Colorado and Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago. Boulder had the highest tax with 2-cents-per-ounce, while the other cities passed a tax of 1-cent-per-ounce. The idea behind these new taxes is to generate revenue for the city and is deterrence towards consuming these sugary and unhealthy beverages. These are not new trends either, since 2009 there have been more than 40 attempted soda tax efforts in cities across the United States. Before this new wave of cities that voted through these “anti-soda” taxes, Berkeley, California, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania were the only cities to have such a law.

This relates to the current trend in the soft-drink industry, where per capita soda consumption was the lowest in 2015 that it had been in 30-years. While Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, the two biggest players in this market, are not stopping their sugary drinks, there has been a shift towards starting to implement smaller sizes of these drinks. This puts the marketers of these brands in a tricky situation. How do you continue to sell products at the same or greater rate when consumer tastes are starting to change? To me, this is the perfect situation to do what Doctor Pepper just announced. They invested in a beverage startup company called Bai Brands, which offers sugar free and naturally sweetened sodas that are a true fraction of the calories of the household usual’s. They are offering new takes on classic flavors like cola, root beer, and citrus. One thing that really struck me, was a quote from their CEO, Ben Weiss, who said, “We're under the belief that people aren't running from soda -- they're running from sugar…If you can create a beverage that's reminiscent of all those great flavors we grew up on, but doesn't have the suspicious ingredients, I think the consumer will go there”. Here, Bai Brands recognized an issue with the current state of the market and is making, what they consider, a better and healthier alternative that still has those classic tastes.

I think it will be really interesting to see what types of decisions and moves competing soda companies will make. I think this is great PR for Doctor Pepper as well as a potential successful investment. Being able to pivot and adapt marketing campaigns is a vital responsibility that these beverage marketers will have to undertake. What do you think of this new soda tax that is starting to pop up in a slew of cities? Leave a comment below about how you think marketers can use this setback to reach even newer heights.

Marijuana Advertising Laws Differ on a State-by-State Basis

As a society, we can almost unanimously agree that recreational marijuana legalization or at least medical legalization is an eventual reality across the board. Knowing this, as future marketers, we need to be able to be aware of certain regulations that may be in place. These emerging brands and companies cannot simply advertise in every state like say a toy company might do. There are certain guidelines set in place in the relevant states where there is either medicinal or recreational marijuana legalization. The spectrum of rules varies on a state-by-state basis and ranges from little to no regulation, to states that have adopted similar guidelines as with alcohol and cigarettes. Let’s look at a few different states that have restrictions in place:

Colorado:

Having adopted a legalization of marijuana for adults over the age of 21, Colorado is most certainly a pioneer state with marijuana. The general requirement in Colorado for advertising is that there are no deceptive, false, or misleading statements. This is a normal requirement for advertising, which holds true almost universally with all industries. Further, Colorado has put in place a restriction on television advertising, which states, “A Retail Marijuana Establishment shall not utilize television Advertising unless the Retail Marijuana Establishment has reliable evidence that no more than 30 percent of the audience for the program on which the Advertising is to air is reasonably expected to be under the age of 21”. This is pretty interesting because it limits the informed audience to people over the age of 21, which is the youngest you can be to legally purchase marijuana in Colorado. In reality, advertisers are often focusing on reaching their target audience, so I personally do not feel that this is too restrictive on their business efforts. This same rule of no more than 30% under the age of 21 also holds true for radio, print, and Internet advertising. While it may be difficult to be certain of the amount of viewers are under the age of 21, it does put in place a guideline to be adhered to. In Colorado, you are also not permitted to advertise marijuana specifically to out of state persons or advertise with content that targets minors or is publically visible outdoors.

Delaware:

Marijuana is decriminalized in Delaware, which means that while you cannot go into a store and purchase it, you will not be criminally charged if found possessing the plant. Medical marijuana exists, although for smaller list of ‘approved’ medical conditions than say a state like Rhode Island. Here, the law states that, “no person may advertise medical marijuana sales in print, broadcast, or by paid in-person solicitation of customers. This shall not prevent appropriate signs on the property of the registered compassion center, listings in business directories including phone books, listings in trade or medical publications, or the sponsorship of health or not-for-profit charity or advocacy events”. This is much more severe than with Colorado. While there are guidelines with advertising on say print media in Colorado, the entire act is prohibited in Delaware. This makes sense though; Delaware’s marijuana legislation is not nearly as encompassing as a state like Colorado.

Nevada:

In Nevada, marijuana is decriminalized for adults over the age of 21 and still considered a misdemeanor for persons under the age of 21. In addition, medical marijuana exists in Nevada and was put in place back in 2000. Here, “a medical marijuana establishment shall not use: (1) A name or logo unless the name or logo has been approved by the Administrator of the Division; or (2) Any sign or advertisement unless the sign or advertisement has been approved by the Administrator of the Division”. I would consider these advertising laws to be somewhere in the middle of Delaware and Colorado. There are not necessarily laws prohibiting the advertising from these companies like in Delaware, but are not as loose as in Colorado. The amount of grey area here can be scary for an advertiser. Not only do the advertisements have to be approved by the Administrator of the Division, but also so do the names and logo of the business. This essentially places the branding and advertising efforts in the hands of the state department, which obviously hinders the flow of creative and unique marketing campaigns.

It is important to keep these regulations in mind as well as realize that these are prone to change. While a state like Delaware has certain regulations in effect now, does not mean that these will be the same advertising laws in effect 10 years from now. It is safe to assume that the more marijuana is normalized and legalized in the United States, the less restrictive the marketing restrictions will be. Laws will always be the strictest following a prohibition, but will start to loosen as time passes and society adapts. This applies to other industries than just marijuana too. Certain states have alcohol or cigarettes regulations with advertising and these are vital to be aware of when configuring a new campaign for your brand or company.