I recently had a group member ask me a question about how we as strategist make connections with people. His question was quite simple, what do you think of when you think about something being raw? What immediately pops into your head? What does that look like? What does it feel like? How do you uncover it and use it to connect with people?

At first glance I didn’t think much about the concept. I mean, raw is essentially that which you deem to be authentic, right. Simply the absolute basic, stripped down, purely organic content that makes up something. Not really much to it! But as I began to contemplate on this idea of understanding the nature of raw, I wonder if something intrinsically powerful resides behind the simple concept.

Last weekend I was fortunate enough to witness N.E.R.D. perform live here in Richmond for the first time. The show was simply incredible. The energy, the love, the anticipation, and the camaraderie among avid fans was breathtaking. The whole experience had the making of an urban myth centered around the best hip hop concert of our time. Like it had somehow been pulled directly from a Spike Lee Joint or something. Without a doubt, the strongest aspect of the show was Pharrell’s energy, his sincerity when spiting his lyrics, and his natural ability to intimately engage the audience. I walked away that night knowing that somewhere in the venue, there were some young cats who would remember this show for the rest of their lives. That it would somehow shape the way they looked at life and how they viewed their futures.

And so it’s this phenomenon that I found so intriguing. I’m not even really a fan of Pharrell or N.E.R.D. I had followed some of their earlier music from like four years back, and had appreciated the fact that they were creating a new style and sound within the game. But truth be told, I never really rocked with them beyond what little songs they managed to get on the radio. But for those three hours while I was in the thick of the concert you would think I had been apart of the camp from day one. Like I had been somehow involved with the creation of the group and now I was just there number one fan. So…Why is that? How is that even possible?

I didn’t realize it at the time but now as I reflect on it, it becomes quite obvious. They did a phenomenal job with telling the story of the N.E.R.D brand and engaged the audience the whole way through. They embodied the very characteristics of this absolute raw concept. There wasn’t any tracks being played over the speakers or any studio produces sound effects. Just simply a blend of the band, their lyrics and the raw passion they brought to the stage. It was this encounter with the absolute rawness of what N.E.R.D. was and what they stood for that was so powerful not the notoriety of the group. And this is the god honest truth, if they would have been selling any of the bands merchandise at the end of the show, I very well might of, bought every Billionaire Boys Club and Ice Cream t-shirt they had available. The connection was that strong!

So I wonder what might happen if strategist could reproduce that same kind of encounter with consumers and other brands? What if we could harness those fillings people get when they encounter the raw nature of a brand and use it to help grow a company? Is it even possible? I wonder is there even any substance to this idea of encountering the raw nature of a product, or was I just overtaken by a sense of heightened emotions stimulated by rhythmic beat?

The last couples of weeks have been entertaining, as I have watched America debate and analyze over the controversial black liberation comments of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And even more so, how they have become linked and essentially a representation of Obama himself. The Barack backers will tell you that it’s wrong to link the man to the views of his supporters while, the conservatives will argue, you are who you represent.

Truthfully, I think both points are valid but the one thing that we must take into consideration is the simple fact that Barack Obama in himself has become a brand. He has worked tirelessly to make himself marketable among the American youth and in all honesty he has succeeded. People have followed him, they have supported him, and they have worn their shirts proudly to proclaim his cause. Along with his charismatic charm he has been able transform him self from an articulate politician into a beloved brand. So the real question I think we should be asking ourselves is simply this, Are brands responsible for the actions of their supporters?

We’re living in a world now where advertising has outgrown its simple past. It’s all about building strong brands and allowing your consumers to experience your brand at all touch points. It’s about building communities around your brand and transforming your customers into brand ambassadors. But what happens when those beloved ambassadors step out side the core believes of the brand. Should the brand itself be forced to address the situation? Do they have a responsibility to publicly decline the endorsements of these people?

I don’t think that there is an easy answer to this question but it is my opinion that brands on their own merit shouldn’t be linked to the philosophies and believes of its ambassadors. I would like to reference one of America’s most beloved brands, Harley Davidson, and look at how they have addressed the situation. In a time when Harley Davidson was in serious financial trouble they found themselves being endorsed by an unlikely tribe of social outcast by the name of The Hell’s Angels. There’s no doubt that society wasn’t pleased with the groups menacing personality and vigilante form of justice but, that didn’t mean that people could looked to Harley as being an advocate for their cause. They were simply a brand that stood for quality American made motorcycles. Their values and core believes hadn’t changed even if they had become the unofficial brand of choice for a group of outcast.

Now, I’m not saying that companies shouldn’t address situations in which their ambassadors cause negative perceptions of the brand but I do think that people should look beyond the supporters and look into the heart of the brand. In terms of the political arena I would think all four candidates have some kind of link to controversial supporters. Just look at the Clintons and their dealings with anti-gay pastoral supporters or Mcain and his dealing with Jack Kemp (A former vice president nominee who supported the views of Louis Farrakhan).

But, I think Barack-O-Brand presents a unique situation. Because he has worked so hard to establish himself as this brand of change, I think he must work twice as hard to protect and ensure that his brand doesn’t become damaged. Like a brand his campaign has become a living-breathing creature. So to answer the question should he be held accountable for the actions of his supporters...No…but if he wants any a chance at wining the nomination, I think he must.

-LTS