Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with such a theory is twofold: one, a person may be wise in one area (here, real estate development), yet foolish in other areas. We have seen that Donald John Trump, while successful in his original field, has struggled to transfer his success to other fields. Indeed, it appears that, save for real estate, his biggest success is 'branding' his name, or allowing his name to be used on projects for a fee. If I recall, when Mr. Trump spoke of his wealth, he cited a good portion of his 10 billion, some 3.5 billion, as being his estimate of the value of his 'brand'.
Which brings up the second point: I think he has definitely hurt his 'branding' power.
Of course, when one enters politics, one must expect to have one's positions opposed by the opposition party. Such opposition may not, in and of itself, significantly damage the value of one's brand. Reasonable people may disagree with the person's position, yet still appreciate their honesty, values, etc.
I feel that Mr. Trump has failed in this respect (i.e., to protect his brand with the general public). He has, by his various statements, not only alienated those that identify themselves with the Democratic party, but many within the Republican party, as well as those that consider themselves 'independents'. Many question his basic values. Being a selfish, narcissistic person is not an attractive 'brand'.
True, he polls very well with the 'less educated' Americans. However, the less educated also tend to be (not always of course) less wealthy, and Mr. Trump's brand is targeted to the wealthy.
One example: Mr. Trump has been admirable, when he purchases or opens a golf course, to mandate that his property will not reject any applicant for membership based on race, religion, etc. However, the fees are expensive to join. When once asked about his high membership fees, and whether they prevent the less wealthy from joining, Mr. Trump said something like "To gain membership in my golf course one must have money". Nothing wrong with that.
Except, he has alienated many of the wealthy that have the means to join his golf courses, stay in his hotels, purchase condominiums, etc. His 'base' lack the means to support Mr. Trump financially.
Thus, if Mr. Trump decided to run for president (which he had hinted at doing for years and years) to satisfy his ego, he may have been successful in the short term, but I fear the damage to his 'brand' has been very much damaged.
Les' see. Mr and Mrs Clinton have used their higher offices to enrich their brand via tens of millions of dollars in fluff speaking fees and a dubious foundation. Hmmm.
Someone is stretching to come up with this negative. Kind of a, Really?, op.
Yep, I come to C-D in the morning and if first page of "Elections" is trashing Trump, I know he is alive, doing well and scaring the horse poopy out of the competition!
The desperation has been embarrassing to watch, since they have no shame. The thing with the "Play Doh" yesterday was a new low and showed how they grab just anything and attempt to twist and turn it.
The stench of desperation is in the air!
You are soooo right on that! How on earth could trump's campaign have allowed him to be filmed handing out play-doh? The optics alone!
The problem with such a theory is twofold: one, a person may be wise in one area (here, real estate development), yet foolish in other areas. We have seen that Donald John Trump, while successful in his original field, has struggled to transfer his success to other fields. Indeed, it appears that, save for real estate, his biggest success is 'branding' his name, or allowing his name to be used on projects for a fee. If I recall, when Mr. Trump spoke of his wealth, he cited a good portion of his 10 billion, some 3.5 billion, as being his estimate of the value of his 'brand'.
Which brings up the second point: I think he has definitely hurt his 'branding' power.
Of course, when one enters politics, one must expect to have one's positions opposed by the opposition party. Such opposition may not, in and of itself, significantly damage the value of one's brand. Reasonable people may disagree with the person's position, yet still appreciate their honesty, values, etc.
I feel that Mr. Trump has failed in this respect (i.e., to protect his brand with the general public). He has, by his various statements, not only alienated those that identify themselves with the Democratic party, but many within the Republican party, as well as those that consider themselves 'independents'. Many question his basic values. Being a selfish, narcissistic person is not an attractive 'brand'.
True, he polls very well with the 'less educated' Americans. However, the less educated also tend to be (not always of course) less wealthy, and Mr. Trump's brand is targeted to the wealthy.
One example: Mr. Trump has been admirable, when he purchases or opens a golf course, to mandate that his property will not reject any applicant for membership based on race, religion, etc. However, the fees are expensive to join. When once asked about his high membership fees, and whether they prevent the less wealthy from joining, Mr. Trump said something like "To gain membership in my golf course one must have money". Nothing wrong with that.
Except, he has alienated many of the wealthy that have the means to join his golf courses, stay in his hotels, purchase condominiums, etc. His 'base' lack the means to support Mr. Trump financially.
Thus, if Mr. Trump decided to run for president (which he had hinted at doing for years and years) to satisfy his ego, he may have been successful in the short term, but I fear the damage to his 'brand' has been very much damaged.
I don't have the link, it was a couple of weeks ago... but, I read that his resorts etc., have started to suffer from a decline in attendance. Perhaps you are right, by seeking the lowest common denominator, he is alienating the more wealthy people who were impressed by his 'brand'. They are a fickle bunch, and will flee at the slightest whiff of the less rarefied air of the proletariat. Not to mention, they abhor a scandal. If his goal is to resume his 'reality show' lifestyle, he may have a winner, but if his goal is to attract the truly wealthy to his brand, he as probably suffered a fatal blow in that arena. No amount of gold plating will bring them back once his brand is damaged goods.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
