In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination right now we're witnessing a battle between two powerful brands. And if you look at the head-to-head clash between the brands of Clinton and Obama, you can see a very apt analogy in the long (and ongoing) battle between two of the most successful brands in U.S. history: Microsoft and Apple.
Hillary Clinton, of course, is like Microsoft. Her campaign is a disciplined corporate behemoth that is based almost entirely around a rational offer (in this case, experience) but has very limited emotional appeal. She does not excite the kind of emotions in voters that make her a compelling choice.
Even Clinton's strategy is based on a model similar to the one that fueled Microsoft's rise: Gobble up enough money, talent and endorsements (i.e., market share) to squeeze out smaller competitors and become the ''inevitable'' choice.
Microsoft achieved dominance not because people felt any joy in buying its products but because, thanks to ruthless tactics and execution, it became impractical for most people to choose anything else. Clinton hopes to achieve the same.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is like Apple.
His brand is driven primarily by its emotional appeal: He is exciting and fresh to some, hip and cool to others. Most important, his brand inspires hope and optimism, two exceedingly powerful emotions that allow people to make a statement about themselves by casting a vote for him. For many people, buying a Mac has been as much about making a statement about who they are as it has been about buying a piece of electronics.
Muy gracioso no? cropped text via RealClearPolitics, + blogger artwork + el mítico aviso de Apple de 1984: xa q el mundo no sea 1984.