Political branding in Australia: a conceptual model

In 2007, Australian voters elected a Labor Government and installed Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister. Rudd became Australia’s most popular leader, however, by mid-2010 he had been abandoned by voters and cut down by his party. His successor, Julia Gillard, suffered a swifter reversal of fortune. Following a surge in support, Gillard raced to the polls only to emerge with a minority Government. Commentators see the rise and fall of Rudd as the creation and destruction of a political brand, and the switch to Gillard as a failed attempt at rebranding to stave off electoral defeat. Since Rudd’s election, commentators and practitioners increasingly have spoken of politicians and parties as brands. So, too, have researchers who offer valuable studies to support their arguments. There are, however, no tools for conceptualising the practice of political branding. To fill this gap and build understanding of the practice, I offer a conceptualisation of the brand oriented party and a model of political branding in Australia. The conceptualisation builds on the idea of political brand orientation (O’Cass and Voola 2011) and the market-oriented party model (Lees-Marshment 2001). The brand oriented party consciously chooses branding as a long-term strategy to create and sustain voter attachment and support. This conceptualisation takes account of a party’s ideology, organisation and normative responsibilities. The model builds on the conceptualisation above, as well as a strategic commercial branding process (Keller 2008) and an argument that branding is the new version of the permanent political campaign (Scammell 2007). The model takes account of the Australian electoral system, as it intersects with the dual tasks of governing and electioneering in the permanent campaign. Together, these new tools may assist in more rigorous analysis of political branding in Australia and similar systems