With the election in the rear view mirror now, it’s a good time to reflect on just what happened. To most, the election might have been all about politics, but for me, it was a lesson in what happens when the brand fragments.

For anyone who understands brand theory, there’s a lot of similarity between the way politics and branding work. The same principles apply.

Any brand, just like a political party, has to stay consistent, authentic and aligned. One little crack, one move out of place or a piece of communication off-kilter and the impact can ripple.

So – how did this fragmentation happen from a brand perspective?

And more so, why? Let’s break it down:

You can’t be all things to all people

Sometimes, as brands and in politics, we get caught up in an outdated need for loyalty and cast messaging wide to ensure we get it. I think brand loyalty in the past has been assumed and as contentious as it sounds, it’s not something that can be assumed anymore. We live in a time where there has been a greying between what’s in fact the brand versus what is, effectively on offer.

To meet the widest needs, and just like any big brand, the major parties not only sent out a series of different messages, they had to fight it out across so many different levels. On the other hand, the independents – without the clutter, could keep their communication on track and focused. This in turn allowed them to address the apathy in the room.  It kept them relatable, credible, and believable – things the major political parties understandably struggled with.

Your brand should do what it says it’s going to

I might get into hot water saying this, but I think the results of the election showed what happens when the incumbent runs out of brand equity. Think of brand equity like a bank account of experiences made up of all the positive (and negative experiences) people have with your brand. The more positive experiences the more deposits into your brand equity account, the more negative experiences the more withdrawals. And so when the negative outweighs the positive your brand equity goes into overdraft. This, as we saw with the election is when you can find your audience starts to look around and the brand fragments.

Fragmentation starts when relevance dies

What I believe exists now is a period where people no longer blindly follow a brand because of the connection they have with it. I even question the concept of loyalty. Now, we are more situation agnostic. Sure, we may still aspire to purchase from certain brands, but if they are not accessible at the point of purchase, we quickly shift and replace and there’s the point – it’s because we no longer have the inclination to really care.

What happened during the election was interesting on that level. What we saw was an audience shifting away from major players and investing in smaller, new challenger brands. It’s because these parties spoke to the relevance, recency, convenience, and accessibility we demand.

It’s an interesting time ahead – as we move into a period where the audience starts to exercise their right for choice and engage with smaller brands (think unbundling) that can more effectively laser point their messaging straight to the heart of an issue or agenda.

And so, as marketers we need to ask ourselves – how do we identify fragmentation before it begins and stop those cracks from forming?

Dan Ratner is a marketing consultant at Uberbrand.