enThrall Promotions

Brands are updated all the time. Logos, taglines and visual identities are tweaked almost every time there is a new head honcho in the marketing department. Follow the McDonald's evolution over a few decades, or even Michael Jackson's. (Too soon?)

However, a complete renovation - a rebranding - happens only in the direst of days. When the associations of the current brand are so plagued with baggage or bereft of support, a rebranding is sometimes the only way to reboot the franchise. Everything that had gone on before is eliminated, and in its place is something completely new. It's the "same great product with a new name" concept. And it works.

In Canada, a tainted blood scandal hit the Red Cross so hard that a new organization had to be formed. Since then, Canadian Blood Services has played a similar role without the negative associations. You can reform an old brand - cancer merchant Philip Morris becomes the blandly inoffensive Altria - or you can renew interest. Kentucky Fried Chicken was facing falling sales in the health-conscious masses when they rebranded as KFC. Heck, even Batman had to reboot after the ridiculous excesses of Clooney vs. Schwarzenegger.

Does the same apply to political parties? I'm of two minds on the subject.

The federal NDP (New Democratic Party) is making some noise about dropping the "N" from their name to become the Democratic Party. Most of the reasons I have heard suggested have been to ride the coat tails of Obama's Change Revolution. This is an absurd reason to change the brand and spend the time, money and effort it would take to sway both old supporters and new potential voters.

I haven't heard about platform changes or formal revisoning that would mean that the Dippers had something new to offer: leader Jack Layton earned over 80% support to stay in place. A rebranding without change, just to mimic a (temporarily) successful party south of the border, strikes me as foolish at best. If the Democrats landed a terrible leader next time out of the blocks, would the Dippers change again? Would Layton feel as good about close ties to Dukakis or Kerry? I doubt it.

However, there are times when rebranding a political party is the only real solution. The Alberta Liberal Party fights for its very existence in every election, and can hold caucus meetings in a booth at Moxie's this time through. This party needs a new look, new policies and a new way to engage voters. There is talk about alienating the rank and file, but if there are fewer each time, where is the risk? A socially liberal party with a conservative economic platform would be exactly what this province needs, and could reinvigorate the political interest among the 80% of Albertans who either a) didn't vote PC or b) didn't vote at all.

The upcoming electoral boundaries issue is going to be (yet another) tempest, and could present some real mileage to a stable and engaged political party active in both urban and rural ridings. It may take longer to sway rural voters, but the urban ridings are interested in some change. Unfortunately, the grassroots growth of the Wildrose Alliance is getting far more attention than the increasingly-irrelevant ALP. Shuck the trappings and baggage of the old name, put all of your push into a new brand, and try to engage what could be the most powerful demographic in the province: people pissed off at the Tories.

After all, the ALP probably couldn't do much worse.