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