The influence of political candidate brands during the 2012 and 2016 US presidential elections

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether voters consider a candidate’s brand image when evaluating election alternatives. That is, how prominent a role does the candidate brand image have in the decision-making process? As election outcomes are behavior-driven, the goal is to examine the potential relationship between the candidate brand image, the self-brand image and voting intention. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected for the third week of October 2012 and again for the same time in 2016 – three weeks prior to the US presidential election each year. An online-based nationwide survey was leveraged, followed by correlation, regression and mediation analysis. Findings Candidate brand image has a role in US presidential elections. In addition, candidate brand image and self-brand image are significantly related to voting intention. In both elections, the losing candidate’s brand image was more of a factor when it came to voting intention, as both candidates’ brand image mediated the relationships between self-brand image and voting intention for all voters. Research limitations/implications A link between candidate brand image and voting intention was demonstrated for perhaps the first time. With results showing candidate brand image does relate to the voter’s self-brand image and voting intention, future research should investigate what other brand elements are a factor. There are undoubtedly other factors – some branding-related, others not branding-related – that go into voter decision-making. Because results were stronger for a losing candidate than a winning one, research should also examine whether this occurrence was coincidence or consistent voter behavior. Practical implications When voters considered who might best represent themselves, the brand image of the candidate enhanced the likelihood of voting for, or against, the candidate. Therefore, it is highly recommended that campaign managers understand not only the importance of their candidate’s brand image to develop and maintain a positive image among their supporters but also how to highlight what their supporters view as the negative aspects of the opposing candidates’ brand image to increase the lack of affinity for competitors. Originality/value This research demonstrates, for the first time, that candidates’ brand image is considered by voters in a US presidential election. In addition, it discovers the role candidate brand image plays in voting intention. Finally, it provides direction for campaign managers to conduct research into candidates as brands to build brand relationships with the electorate.

Voting decision‐making of low‐income consumers: Literature review and research agenda

“…Branding theory This theory shows that brand image plays a crucial role in voter choice, and alignment between the voter's self-brand and the candidate's brand image determines the voter's voting intention (Pich et al, 2019;Van Steenburg & Guzmán, 2019) Downsian theory/ Rochester model It suggests that voters vote to get clientelistic benefits from a party a candidate is linked with (Chapman & Palda, 1983;Downs, 1957;Moral & Zhirnov, 2018) Racial threat theory It suggests that the significant race has higher levels of social control than the minor race (Enos, 2016) Theory of Planned Behaviour…”

The role of affinity for prosumption experiences and values

“…For example, pro‐environmentalist affinity is loving nature to the point of actively wanting to protect it both privately, for example, by recycling, installing solar panels, using turtle friendly outdoor lights, and so forth, or publicly, for example, through commitments to and support of local conservation groups (Kals et al, 1999). Affinity also has been applied in other contexts such as foreign country culture (Oberecker & Diamantopoulos, 2011; Swift, 1999), technology or social media use (Fleming & Artis, 2010; Gerlich et al, 2010), political party brand (Van Steenburg & Guzman, 2019), early adoption of the newest trends in products (Möhlmann, 2015), and grocery store or retail marketing (Bezawada et al, 2009).…”

What draws voters to brandidates and why? – Political orientation, personal satisfaction, and societal values on presidential candidates’ brand personality

“…It is a known fact that candidate personalities are indeed brands (Barrett, 2018;Guzm an and Sierra, 2009), and voters will select candidates based on their liking for the brand or brand loyalty (Van Steenburg and Guzm an, 2019). Voters may also have anti-brand feelings, which can affect voter decisions (Newman, 2007).…”

“…Political candidate brand personalities are developed over the long-term (Ridder and Dabbs, 2016) and are best developed using a brand relationship approach (Van Steenburg and Guzmán, 2019). The “purchase” of a candidate is spread out over years and time; thus, developing and maintaining a relationship is important on all the points leading up to the election (Egan, 1999; Needham, 2006).…”

“…Voters assess the candidate’s brand image by means of how close the candidates are perceived to relate to the voters (Guzmán et al , 2015). As a result, voters use cognitive shortcuts to make voting decisions, and voter self-image impacts candidate brand image (Van Steenburg and Guzmán, 2019). For example, Trump’s candidacy came about from using a social media branding strategy to brand himself as a “political outsider,” which became an enduring characteristic that he personally cultivated (Webber, 2017).…”