Bruce Haynes of National Media and some colleagues from the leading marketing firm of EuroRSCG agree with a pet theory, namely that the failure of the $700b economic bailout bill failed in part because the White House so poorly branded; had Americans had a sense of ownership, had they perceieved a role for themselves in the rescue, they might not have reacted as violently as they did when Congress began its public debate. Accounting for the gaps between representation, content and policy, one can intuit how a more concerted effort to sell the plan might have helped its proponents.
But the bailout? A bailout makes us all smaller for having participated in it. "Bailout" connotates
failure and Americans hate failure - unless there is the promise of a second act where the hero finds redemption.
There is nothing redemptive about a bailout, no thanks for the one providing it. Only mutual embarrassment for having arrived at the scornful eventuality.
What if this had been called a "rescue" from the beginning? Or the "Save our Homes Act"? Supporting a "rescue" is a bear of an entirely different species. It is not only a redemptive act, restoring things to their rightful order - it is heroic.
Americans will eagerly stay glued to the screens of their televisions to witness an act of heroism, such as a firefighter lifting a fallen young girl up from a deep hole, or pilot safely landing a disabled airplane on a runway.
Americans feel as though they are a part of these acts, sharing in their glory. They will applaud and honor those who perform the act of heroism.
There is no such thanks for those who provide a bailout. The curtain tends to fall swiftly on a drama with no heroes.
Today consumers choose brands that share their values. Supporting a rescue says something
important about our values and our personal character to those around us.
It says I care. It says I am a good person. It says I am a hero too.
Disclosure: I learned this morning that EuroRSCG is responsible for the Atlantic's rebranding, too .
| 
