It's Not About the Sales

The Presidents' Day brand is actually about a lot more than retail sales in the third week of February. Americans first acknowledged a President's Day at the time of the founding father, George Washington's Birthday on February 22. Yet Americans didn't observe this holiday until 1832, exactly 100 years after his birth.

The next President to gain reverence was Abraham Lincoln, who was born on February 12. His birthday was first celebrated in 1865, the year after he was assassinated. In 1968, legislation was enacted that affected several federal holidays. One of these was Washington's Birthday, the observation of which was shifted to the third Monday in February each year whether or not it fell on the 22nd. This act, which took effect in 1971, was designed to simplify the yearly calendar of holidays and give federal employees some standard three-day weekends in the process.

My education in US history was greatly enhanced as I read up for my Citizenship exam. I used this high school textbook that had a picture of the Statue of Liberty on the cover, and it was just perfect to get into the details from a US perspective -- you do realize that we study history as we look at geography from different perspectives in different parts of the world.

As I think about the significance of this day I cannot help but see the influence the global media had on each President and his brand -- yes, in this case, it's a definite "he". Washington was the first President and he could be memorable for that reason alone: he co-founded the United States of America. Abraham Lincoln is known for the emancipation proclamation. Those are the most enduring tales connected with their brands.

If we take a look at other Presidents: Watergate will forever be linked to Richard Nixon; Camelot and the fairy tale story of a 43-year old man guide the image of JFK, and Ronald Reagan will forever be known as "The Great Communicator". These are all taglines and attributes by and large given to these men by the press and the mass communication. The fact that Nixon's Presidency opened diplomatic relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China, JFK handled the Cuban missile crisis, and Ronald Reagan was an advocate of free markets are known yet somehow not as readily associated with each President's brand.

It was Reagan's administration foreign policy of boldness against communism and, most importantly, skillful diplomacy in embracing the reformer Gorbachev, that made the President popular in Europe. Presidential biographer Richard Reeves said that Reagan understood "how to be President, who knows that the job is not to manage the government but to lead a nation."

There are many more Presidents I could talk about here. My point was to give you a sampling of branding as associated with something as important as the leadership of a nation. As a European I've lived the Presidency from afar for many years; yet I consider myself forever changed on 9/11 when those airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center changed everything. I've read reports (there was an excellent in-depth description in Foreign Policy magazine this past 5-year anniversary) that explained why nothing really changed that day.

From an "old country" perspective, which is what I bring to this conversation, the change was enormous. The nation that stood for freedom and the pursuit of happiness stood there alone. Things have indeed changed since the times of The Great Communicator, yet the idea of leadership Reagan put forth is still a valid one to pursue. To paraphrase something the former President said: "The lessons of leadership are the same: hard work, a knowledge of the facts, a willingness to listen and be understanding, a strong sense of duty and direction, and a determination to do your best on behalf of the people you serve."

Comments

[steveroesler]

Valeria,

Thanks for taking time to inject some thoughtful background on President't Day from your unique perspective.

What strikes me from the brand perspective is the ability that we have to mentally delete substantive issues. (Nixon/China, JFK/Cuba, Reagan/economy).

Now I'm thinking about the challenge of brand and legacy. Does that end up being something that could be intentional, or is pretty clear that the marketplace will write the definition?

[Valeria Maltoni]

Historians would disagree with that; I do not think we mentally delete the substantive issues. From an emotional standpoint, the brand that resonates most is often the one that receives more repetition in sound bytes and in shared conversation.

[Lewis Green]

Valeria,

I agree: In a consumer-driven culture such as that in the US, we often equate taglines with greatness (e.g., The Great Communicator). But when national leaders are the face of the brand, external factors have as much power as internal decision making, so brand legacies rest with the people.

Nixon going to China opened some doors but does not define an administration, whereas, Watergate did. JFK and Cuba resulted in both a good and a bad: Standing down the Russians good; a failed assault on the beaches bad. Neither defined his presidency. And some believe the economy was fine under Reagan, others only see the huge deficit. A split constituency cannot define a presidency.

My point: Brand is more art than science, and is always determined by its face. The external factors may be devastating to a brand or may push the brand to the forefront. At the end of the day, however, legacy is about the character of the president and the people's perception of that character. That's pretty much true of most brands. Perception carries the day.

[Dawud Miracle]

hard work, a knowledge of the facts, a willingness to listen and be understanding, a strong sense of duty and direction, and a determination to do your best on behalf of the people you serve."

I've found that these qualities make good leaders. The best and strongest leaders really are servants. And they don't shrink from responsibility or finger-point.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Lewis -- yes, brand is a promise and perception makes up a big part of that promise. The art is in being deliberate about knowing how to communicate the character (of a person or brand) and listen to the feedback the marketplace is providing on how it perceives the person and brand.

Dawud -- I've had the good fortune of working with such a leader and it really does make a tremendous difference. Accountability exists whether someone shrinks from it or embraces it.

[Cam Beck]

Nice, relevant post, Valeria. Kudos.

[Stephen Denny]

Valeria: good to see a thoughtful post on Presidents Day ('when EVERYTHING is HALF OFF!') that illuminates a few of the most influential people in our history. Not many of us give Washington and Lincoln their due; no one gives Adams his, and Jefferson gets more than his fair share at Adams' expense. Talk about a branding problem.

With the rise of the primacy of media over substance, "leadership" is often replaced by "messaging". You very correctly recognize Reagan as a tremendous leader -- he's certainly the most important president in terms of his positive effect on the world in my lifetime, and I'm in my 40's -- primarily because he was such a good communicator. No one ever called him smart. But he was as shrewd as Johnson and didn't have the rough edges.

We remember Reagan simply: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." We remember Nixon by "I am not a crook", not from China. We remember Kennedy as Camelot, define Carter by Iran, Clinton by the word, 'cigar'.

Interestingly, I'll bet few of us can put a label on Bush senior. And I'd wager that Bush junior would have been remembered as a truly great leader if he weren't so bloody terrible in front of a camera. Media training (or the lack thereof) killed W. If he had Reagan's (or Clinton's) effortlessness in front of the media, he'd have approval ratings in the 70's right now and be remembered as a Teddy Roosevelt-like figure. Alas. He's not slick and his legacy will suffer for it.

I could go on -- wonderful post! Thanks!

[Valeria Maltoni]

Cam -- thank you for stopping by.

Stephen -- probably the most forgotten will be James Madison who made a major contribution to the ratification of the Constitution by co-writing the Federalist Essays and helped frame the Bill of Rights and enact the first revenue generation in Congress. All indications are that he continued to be a team player after he was elected President in 1809.