What's in a name?
An interesting point was made by Mark O'Brien in the post below which once again raises the issues of What's in a name?
When you come across people who say "I like you - but you're not really a typical Tory - and I don't like the Tories" and all the persuasion in the world can't convince someone to vote for you - then along with policy there needs to be a wholsesale examination of what people feel when they hear the word "Tory" or "Conservative" an idea I suspect Andrew Lansley who has advocated the possibility of a name change could well support.
I've worked for two of the most trusted brands in the country (One has lots of little red vans with letters in, and the other is where you will probably go to get your prescription from)- and while working for the first one the "powers that be" decided in their wisdom to change their name.
You wouldn't believe the media outcry and indeed the outcry from MPs of all sides - with the upshot being the new name was dumped little over a year after it was introduced. Yes we need policy - and a leadership election will help focus the party's minds as to where it thinks it should head.
We all know that Coca Cola will not let its adverts appear in magazines if the editorial on the page next to their ad isn't seen as complimentary to their brand. Brands these days are worth millions and are very persuasive in convincing people to buy something, or to give people a feeling of trust.
Little things can have big impacts. I advocated a change in the name of Central Office a couple of years ago - and was so pleased that (if reports are true) Lynton Crosby changed the name to Campaign Headquarters - because that's what it is.
I am the first to admit that political parties are not the same as companies - but brand values do play a part in politics. Now are we actually a "conservative" party - or are we reforming, progressive and forward thinking - words that actually are sometimes very much in conflict with the "Tory" label which in Northern parts of the country is used to beat us about the head.
If we were starting from scratch post the 2005 election I wonder what name the branding experts would chose to call our party. A name that would fit in with the policies and ideas we
espouse.
The question is - does the party need a new name?
When you come across people who say "I like you - but you're not really a typical Tory - and I don't like the Tories" and all the persuasion in the world can't convince someone to vote for you - then along with policy there needs to be a wholsesale examination of what people feel when they hear the word "Tory" or "Conservative" an idea I suspect Andrew Lansley who has advocated the possibility of a name change could well support.
I've worked for two of the most trusted brands in the country (One has lots of little red vans with letters in, and the other is where you will probably go to get your prescription from)- and while working for the first one the "powers that be" decided in their wisdom to change their name.
You wouldn't believe the media outcry and indeed the outcry from MPs of all sides - with the upshot being the new name was dumped little over a year after it was introduced. Yes we need policy - and a leadership election will help focus the party's minds as to where it thinks it should head.
We all know that Coca Cola will not let its adverts appear in magazines if the editorial on the page next to their ad isn't seen as complimentary to their brand. Brands these days are worth millions and are very persuasive in convincing people to buy something, or to give people a feeling of trust.
Little things can have big impacts. I advocated a change in the name of Central Office a couple of years ago - and was so pleased that (if reports are true) Lynton Crosby changed the name to Campaign Headquarters - because that's what it is.
I am the first to admit that political parties are not the same as companies - but brand values do play a part in politics. Now are we actually a "conservative" party - or are we reforming, progressive and forward thinking - words that actually are sometimes very much in conflict with the "Tory" label which in Northern parts of the country is used to beat us about the head.
If we were starting from scratch post the 2005 election I wonder what name the branding experts would chose to call our party. A name that would fit in with the policies and ideas we
espouse.
The question is - does the party need a new name?
posted by Jonathan Sheppard @ 6:11 pm
8 Comments:
At Sunday, June 12, 2005 10:52:00 pm,
Jonathan Sheppard said…
The party does need younger people. The party also needs different people too. That goes right down to Councillor level where representatives have historically (from all parties) been made up of retired people - or those with enouh money to do it as a bit of a hobby.
I have been a member of the party for 15 years (half my lifetime) I have been a parliamentary candidate twice, an Association Chairman and an adviser to an MP - yet am probably still half the age of the average member.
After three consecutive election defeats I'm not sure the party will find it easy to ever have a false sense of security so it shouldn't as political parties should never takes voters for granted.
What it does need is a sense of urgency to do exactly what you say - get out there and explain to people why Labour has let them down and in areas where it hasn't traditionally been prepared to go and campaign.
At Monday, June 13, 2005 12:39:00 pm,
Serf said…
We need to repeat something similar to Kieth Joseph's evangelising prior to the Thatcher government. It needs to be done using people that typical anti Tories can relate to and we have to keep at it until the image changes.
Imagine the impact of picking up a few previously totally safe Labour seats in the North of England. That would in itself help recast the Conservative image.
It would also make Labour fight for every seat.
At Monday, June 13, 2005 2:25:00 pm,
Jonathan Sheppard said…
Opponents will always choose to sling dirt in election camopaigns. there will inevitably be posters saying new leader same old policies too come the next election.
On the point about not going into certain areas - I think it is the Lib Dems who are most guilty of this. Their strategy of only working in select target seats means that they failed to put any literature at all out in some seats (which will be highlighted when their candidates lodge their election expenses) yet they attempt to claim to be a real alternative.
At Monday, June 13, 2005 4:21:00 pm,
Anonymous said…
Jonathan,
That goes right down to Councillor level where representatives have historically (from all parties) been made up of retired people - or those with enouh money to do it as a bit of a hobby.
Quite. At 22 and still (I think) the youngest Conservative Councillor in the country, there are members on the Labour benches opposite who must be nearly four tiems my age. It's all very well me saying that Council meetings and hours need to be more worker- and family-friendly (if I didn't work for the Party - and I don't wish to long-term), but if we want a sea-change the Party needs to take the hard decision to make those changes in areas where the elected members who aren't up to it (and it's not always about age, by any stretch) are our councillors.
Mark,
They were debating what word to use instead of vouchers, but Giuliani simply said, "Our opponents are going to call them 'vouchers' so we should too." And that's the truth.
I agree with your sentiment, but not with your example. A name change would be a distraction, but you can get away with "renaming" a policy set-piece. Witness Brown's "tax credits" (ie, benefits) or the old University grant system - a voucher system by any other name, but don't mention that to the Socialist Campaign Group! ;)
At Monday, June 13, 2005 4:22:00 pm,
Anonymous said…
You need to turn trackbacks on, or move to a system that supports them. Here's my take:
http://iconoplex.com/node/43
At Monday, June 13, 2005 6:26:00 pm,
Anonymous said…
Crikey. I put up a post, and then some anonymous coward from here comes along, tries to do a Conservative PEB and implies I'm trolling. If that person had read the rest of the site, they might have realised that I oppose *all* political parties, not just the Tories. So, calm down. At least leave your real name next time. Or is this the New Tory Way?
At Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:56:00 am,
Anonymous said…
I am unconvinced that changing a name does much good - especially not in politics where old names like Tory stick (even after the party called itself conservative back under Peel and tried to change it to Unionist in the early 20th century). It's not like being in a business manufacturing widgets where people foregt about you - there are umpteen different models on offer and those preferring Tony's widgets don't loathe you in the same way that they tend to in politics.
Labour failed to lose the election and we failed to do anything sufficiently different to give people a strong enough reason to vote for us. I fail to see how a facile name change relates. Do we really wish to copy Labour's obsession with style over content?
Mark from Croydon
At Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:03:00 am,
Anonymous said…
Let's be bold - Can't we improve both style and content at the same time.
Post a Comment
<< Home