Branding – not ourselves, but the enemy

Branding the art of conditioning an audience to associate a given product, person or idea with a desired cognitive or emotional response can be an important part of developing messages. The State Department public diplomacy shop attempted to “brand” the U.S. after 9/11, but after some innovative attempts with negligible results, quietly abandoned the effort.

The idea, however, is sound.  In the commercial marketplace of ideas, branding is a proven path to success, and the failure to brand can put one out of business.  It is time to try branding again, but this time the U.S. should start with a message that its audiences are most likely to accept readily: the evil nature of the enemy.  Reinforcement of that negative “brand” can put the competitor out of business, and sets the stage for greater audience receptivity to positive follow-on messages about the United States itself.

[More]

In some types of commercial and political branding, an effective approach is not the collection of endorsements, but denunciations.  Vilification from one’s opponents can be just as valuable, if not more valuable, as a supporter’s praise. In these types of campaigns the negative is a strong, emotional, energizing, and unifying factor in building support where a positive message is insufficient.  

Political experts say that the systematic telling of unpleasant truths about the opponent, what some call negative campaigning, can be crucial if you can’t win, at least you can make your opponent lose.  Here is where third-party voices are important, because others can create and sustain powerful negative messages against the opponent while keeping the candidate and his persona (or in the war effort, the United States or the president and top leaders) above the unseemliness of it all.

Here are a few basic guidelines for branding opponents:

• When branding the enemy avoid inflicting harm upon oneself.  Accordingly, the U.S. has made clear that terrorists and their friends are the enemies of mankind, and that we are leading a war of the world’s civilized people against them.




• A good brand should make clear who the good guys and band guys are.   It should inspire confidence on our side and demoralization on the enemy’s side.  It should also have a cross-cultural appeal to mobilize foreign publics against the threat in their midst.




• Do not legitimize the enemy by branding him as the personal rival of the President or the United States.  Doing so gives the foe undeserved credibility and power.  This rule applies just as much in domestic affairs as it does in international politics.




• Brand the enemy as depraved by clearly illustrating that their violence destroys the lives of innocent men, women, and children.  One way to do this is to show the grief of those families split apart by terrorist bombers.




• Do not adopt the enemy’s terms.  Calling our foes jihadists holy warriors legitimizes them in the eyes of many Muslims and encourages the misperception that the U.S. is at war with Islam.

Good leaders all know that branding and opponent is crucial to victory in battle.   When done well, it frames the debate and puts the enemy irreversibly in the wrong, and casts a good light on one’s own actions.   Over the long term, it can shape the ideas of the political battlespace to such a degree so as to make victory almost impossible for the adversary.   U.S. politicians, strategists, and warfighters who neglect this tool do so at their own peril.