• by J. Walker Smith , Op-Ed Contributor, July 22, 2024

The day after the assassination attempt on former president and current Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Vermont Democratic senator Bernie Sanders said to Kristen Welker on NBC’s "Meet the Press," “Politics should be kind of boring, you know?” Which is to say, all about boring wonky stuff, not “radical rhetoric.” Certainly not violence. Politics should be boring.

Sound familiar?

Boring is my current take on the marketplace. It was the subject of my May 3rd "Against the Grain" newsletter (issue #22), and it was the topic of my April 25 FutureView.

Volatility is the defining experience of this century, and at long last, people are worn out with it. People want a break from the anxiety, uncertainty, instability and chaos. People want relief, respite, even sanctuary. As evidenced in the “selfward” turn reported by U.S. MONITOR. Which is why boring is now the best vocabulary for engaging with consumers.

Like PNC Bank, which touts itself as Brilliantly Boring -- not unstable or risky like the other banks that went belly-up not too long ago. Or Heineken, with a recent promotion in which it gave away the Boring Phone -- a dumb flip phone, not a smartphone with the attendant risks and controversy about mental health and misinformation. SeatGeek ran an ad in which a cheeky interviewer promises to "bore" you with interviews about a ticketing app that “just does what it's supposed to do” and for which consumers can "expect the expected" -- thus none of the controversy and disruption that occurred with Ticketmaster and the Taylor Swift tour.

Boring resonates worldwide. As in the new ad for Visit Oslo that sells the city as a destination by emphasizing how mundane and unexciting it is, i.e., boring. Or the Brother printers ad campaign in New Zealand that highlights all the things its printers will not do—save lives, save the environment, change the world, solve climate change, inspire a better tomorrow, set trends or get you in first class. Instead, its tagline reads, “It just works.”

Boring doesn’t mean dull. People want excitement, but big fun rooted in ordinary, boring stuff. Not in extremes. Like Scottie Scheffler, the No. 1 golfer in the world, whose “boring, unexciting and ho-hum” style, as one profile put it, attracts a Tiger Woods-like following. Plus unglamorous stuff that’s trending -- bookshop dating, ugly fashions, normcore wear.

Boring is finding its way into politics. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and CNN all described the landslide Labour Party victory of new U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer as a triumph of boring -- that’s the very adjective used. As the Journal put it, “boring competence.” It’s why he’s known as "No-Drama Starmer."

Even amid the acrimony of U.S. politics, boring has made inroads. Ohio Republican Senator J.D. Vance was more measured than political rhetoric of late in his acceptance speech for nomination as his party’s vice presidential candidate, including a call for a “big tent” of ideologies and demographics.

Trump’s acceptance speech was noteworthy for including less of his typical bombast and choler and for balancing that at the outset with a well-spoken, emotionally tinged entreaty for “discord and division” to be “healed” because “[a]s Americans…[w]e rise together. Or we fall apart.”

Of course, it goes without saying that such nods toward boring as the way forward -- if not in whole at least in part -- may be short-lived or insubstantial. Even the staunchly conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journalchastised Trump for undercutting the “calmer and less partisan” tone with which he began his speech with “a discursive tour of his greatest first-term hits” in the back half of his speech.

Ironically, Trump’s longwinded litany of gripes was, as pundit Nate Silver tweeted in real-time, “boring AF.” Meaning that the effect, though certainly unintended, was to make divisiveness boring. At least for that moment.

Acrimony and invective haven’t gone away. No sooner was Trump back on the campaign trail than The New York Timesreported him “leav[ing] behind his call for national unity.” And Trump’s tweet immediately after President Joe Biden dropped out was panned as “small-minded and divisive” by The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Indeed, the unprecedented upheaval in the Democratic party triggered by Biden’s withdrawal, not to mention the drawn-out drama leading up to it, is anything but boring. If there is a ray of sunshine for Democrats in this moment of self-inflicted pandemonium, it is that the party has a highly visible opportunity to show off some ‘boring competence’ in getting back on track.

Maybe politics is headed toward boring. Maybe not. Either way, brands beware.

In the June 7 issue of "Against the Grain," I took an in-depth look at the intersection of brands and politics (#24: "Right Angle -- Where Brands and Politics Meet"). Weighing the evidence, my recommendation was for brands to take a step back from activist politics and causes. Not to abandon important values and principles. Rather, to embrace them as a way of operating rather than as the crux of positioning or communicating. The recent turn of events adds more weight to this counsel.

If fiery rhetoric and pointed provocations continue to poison the atmosphere for politics, then there is no place for brands in politics. The millstone of so much divisiveness for so long has left people exhausted and fatigued. Boring is what people want.

As I have written numerous times, brands are not built for politics. Brands win by selling to as many people as possible. That’s how brands grow. Controversy works against this. Politicians win with one more vote, so divide-and-conquer makes sense. This is not the proper strategy for brands. Brands must be in the business of delivering a meaningful difference to more people. To grow, brands must embrace, not ostracize.

On the other hand, if politicians are softening their politics by rethinking combativeness and confrontation as their modus operandi, then this is certainly not the moment for brands to lean in harder.

In short, there is no scenario of contemporary politics conducive for brands. Even before the events of late, but especially in light of them, brands and politics are a poor fit.

Consumers want brands to be better at just being brands, for everyone.