US Insights

How Hillary Clinton is like the mail

Chris Murphy

Chief Client Officer, North America

Politics 08.24.2016 / 15:40

US election fight

Study: Clinton brand akin to American Airlines, USPS; Sanders brand to Instagram; Trump brand unlike any in 100,000-brand database

A new study exploring the brands behind the two major-party presidential nominees finds the brand of Hillary Clinton aligned with profiles of proficient but undifferentiated brands, including American Airlines and the US Postal Service, while the brand of Donald Trump is unlike any of the 100,000-plus brands found in the company’s BrandZ™ database.

Conducted by Kantar Millward Brown, the study assessed each candidate’s brand using the company's Meaningfully Different framework, a method used to evaluate a commercial brand’s power via its Meaning, Difference and Salience. The framework has been validated against sales outcomes and correlates with brand success and market share.  

Meaningfully different brands are much more likely to be selected, to command greater premiums and to grow in the future. And while Kantar Millward Brown's typical study might evaluate the strength of a consumer packaged goods, financial services or automotive brand, for example, political candidates can be evaluated through a brand lens, too. Does the candidate meaningfully connect – either functionally or emotionally? Is the candidate seen as different or capable of driving positive change? And, is the candidate top of mind, or salient?

Examining the salience of the Clinton, Trump and Sanders brands. In comparing the candidates’ scores to the database, Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders also was assessed and found to align with brands including JetBlue, Instagram and Ghirardelli Chocolate. When the primary season was in full swing, the Sanders brand showed a stronger combination of Meaning and Difference when compared with the Clinton and Trump brands, but had much lower Salience.

The Clinton brand profile aligns with brands in our database that are accessible and reliable, but not particularly innovative or disruptive. That is to say, Clinton's brand is Salient and Meaningful to many, but it has little differentiation. Trump, on the other hand, seems to have employed a true category disassociation strategy; he is the "un-candidate" and has created a brand like no other.

When comparing the Clinton and Trump brands, both index highly on Salience (149 and 159 respectively, where an average index is 100), but show dissimilar profiles for Meaning and Difference. Clinton leads on Meaning (108 compared with Trump’s 76), with Trump well ahead on Difference (157 compared with Clinton’s 70). But while Trump’s unique combination of extreme Difference and Salience helped his brand stand apart from 16 relatively undifferentiated Republican candidates during the primary season, his low Meaning score now poses a significant hurdle in a narrowed general election field.

In contrast, while Sanders was the least Salient of the three with an index of 78, he had the strongest Meaning score in the group, measured at 130, and a markedly higher Difference score, 121, compared with Brand Clinton. While the primary schedule did not work in Sanders’ favor – his Salience was still building but substantially lagged Clinton’s – his brand’s Meaning and Difference would be the envy of many marketers.

Twice as many voters will hate our next president as love him or her. The study also explored the lack of brand love for both Trump and Clinton, and concludes that twice as many voters will hate our next president than will love him or her, and that the majority will not trust our next president. The hatred and brand rejection expressed towards Trump among some groups was significant, with 64% of women and 90% of African Americans rejecting the brand.

Compared with Trump, Clinton has much stronger Brand Power (a combination of Meaning, Difference and Salience and expressed as share of preference) among key demographic groups, including women, African-Americans, Hispanics, younger and religiously unaffiliated voters. With Christians essentially split between Trump and Clinton, those who practice other religions and the estimated quarter of the population that is religiously unaffiliated are firmly aligned with Brand Clinton with a Power score of 74, compared to Trump’s score of 26.  

There might not be many campaign bumper stickers in the months ahead, but relative Meaning matters most in a two-way battle where both brands are so well known. Brand Clinton may struggle with trust and differentiation, but if the election were held today, she would win because of meaningfully connecting with a greater array of demographic groups and the estimated quarter of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated.

Source: Kantar Millward Brown, Kantar TNS

Editor's Notes

To conduct the study, Kantar Millward Brown measured the Brand Power of the US presidential candidates as they do any brand – on the basis of their Meaning, Difference and Salience – and compared performance with 100,000 commercial brands in its BrandZ brand equity database. Brands were measured twice: first in April among 1,001 likely voters, and then in July among 500 likely voters. Kantar Millward Brown and Kantar Vermeer collaborated on the quantitative research, which was complemented by qualitative work from Kantar TNS.

Download the full survey here. Journalists, for more information or to speak with the brand experts, contact us. Follow @Kantar and sign up for our insight alerts.

Latest Stories

Local TV stations were big winners in the special election

Here's what Amazon and Whole Foods gain by joining forces.

Amazon is showing how serious it is about pushing into fresh food.

Lidl's first 10 stores in the US have opened their doors.

iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus sales continue to show strength

Related Content