I can’t recall when branding became a cultural cutting tool. In the halcyon days of advertising [my window being the late sixties to the early 1980s], the marketing message focused more on benefits versus negatives. Today, there’s more when-compared-to-a-leading brand tactic in positioning an advertiser’s advantage or benefit to the consumer. Comparative advertising is not novel, however I sense a stronger delineation between two similar products or services vying for the same consumer’s attention. Negative advertising might be viewed as a type of comparative advertising. The first is more about having a superior product or service, while the latter is more about the inferior nature of the product or service.
My arrival at this junction of brand and polarization is the result of the frequent bombardment of political ads across the media spectrum: digital, print and broadcast. Political ads have never been pretty or pleasant as most I’d say are highly negative if not banal by nature. The few “wholesome” spots are done to show the humanity of a candidate. Strategists however,think delivering a negative message is the most effective way to discourage a voter from choosing an opponent. Make the other person look bad to make my candidate appear better is the thought process there.
As a result of this, I see more polarization across our diverse culture. It doesn’t matter if you’re a card-carrying democrat or republican or libertarian. Polticial divisions are no longer bordered with temperance or a reciprocal respect for one view over another. At the base of these divisions is a my way or no way kind of thinking.
But…now that mid-term elections in the USA are done, perhaps we can see something new from our federal and state governments, something that can provide some semblance of balance without taking advantage of one group over another, something that allows us to move forward instead of remaining entangled in ideological gridlock: compromise.
Carlo Centeno 