Why do people belong to a party? Negative views of the opposing party are a major factor

For both Republicans and Democrats, the top reason to belong to a party is a belief that its policies will benefit the country. But sizable majorities in both parties cite the other party’s harmful policies as a major factor, according to a new national survey.

And for independents who lean toward a party, negative motivations are mentioned most often – by far – as a major reason for their partisan leaning.

About three-quarters of Republicans (76%) and 72% of Democrats say a major reason for belonging to their party is that its policies are good for the country, according to the survey of 4,656 U.S. adults conducted Jan. 29-Feb. 13. Republicans (71%) are more likely than Democrats (63%) to cite the harm from the opposing party’s policies as a major reason to affiliate with their party.

Fewer cite other considerations as major reasons why they identify with their party. About half of Democrats (51%) and 45% of Republicans cite having a lot in common with other members of their party as a major reason.

Roughly a third of Democrats (36%) say a major reason for their affiliation is loyalty – that is, they have been a Democrat for as long as they can remember. Just a quarter of Republicans say the same.



And just about four-in-ten Republicans and Democrats alike (37%) say a major reason they identify with their own party is that they have little in common with members of the other party.

The major reasons for identifying or leaning toward the parties have shifted only modestly since May 2016. (See “Partisanship and Political Animosity.”)
Why do people ‘lean’ toward a party?

For independents who lean toward a party, the belief that the other party’s policies are harmful is the most frequently cited reason for their partisan leaning. Nearly six-in-ten Republican-leaning independents (58%) and Democratic leaners (57%) say a major reason for leaning to the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, is a feeling that the other party’s policies are harmful for the country.

Smaller shares (42% of Republican leaners, 34% of Democratic leaners) cite the positive impact of the policies of the party to which they lean.

Republican and Democratic leaners also were asked to consider the reasons they do not identify with the party they lean toward. Currently, Republican leaners are more likely than Democratic leaners to say they are frustrated with their party’s leadership (44% vs. 38%).

Still, the share of Republican leaners who cite frustration with GOP leaders as a major reason for not identifying as a Republican has ticked down since 2016 (from 52% to 44%). By contrast, more Democratic-leaning independents cite frustrations with Democratic leaders as a major reason they do not identify as Democrats than did so two years ago, when the party held the White House (38% now, 28% then).

Rubén Weinsteiner

Nation branding vs. tourism marketing: A model for country reputation management

Rubén Weinsteiner

The core objective of tourism marketing is to increase arrivals to the destination and drive high occupancy which will eventually result in getting higher foreign exchange earnings. In that context tourism marketing is more to do with selling than branding. However the power of tourism in driving destination awareness and image should not be underestimated

Place branding, and associated areas such as destination branding, location branding, and place image development, are receiving increasing attention by governments, people, investors and business community.

There is a case for arguing that place branding has its foundation in the tourism marketing field, but increasingly, places need to consider branding in a wide range of contexts and in respect to the management of brand image and the brand experience for a wide range of stakeholders. As such, interest in place image and branding is no longer restricted to those towns, cities, regions, and countries that are viewed as tourist destinations.

With fierce global competition fuelled by improvements of public transport and free movement of goods and people, places are facing increased substitutability and competition and must provide an environment that not only effectively competes for new resources, foreign investment, residents, and visitors but also provides an environment that sustains and satisfies exiting economic, commercial, and residential activity.

Some commentators suggest that as the economic base of many places is eroded, places are in competition with each other for survival (Kerr, 2006; Olins, 2002). It seems that the question facing place is not whether to brand but how to brand. There is a growing body of practice and research around place branding.





Place branding concepts and models

Place branding is defined as the practice of applying brand strategy and other marketing techniques to the economic and sociopolitical developments of towns, cities, regions, and countries (Anholt, 2004). More specifically, Lodge (2006) suggests that holistic place branding ‘encompasses everything a place wishes to sell’ and that the ‘understandings and experiences of places are mediated by a range of everyday texts through which landscapes are presented affirming that place brands have transcended into a composite construct.

Hankinson (2009) emphasises the need for place branding to extend beyond a focus on the creation of images to an understanding of the execution of the promised experience. Whilst a number of authors comment on the process of place brand management, often in the context of a specific case study, most previous research does not attempt to offer a holistic model of brand management that can inform practice and theory development in this field.

Questions: What are we now? What are our options? What do we want to be? What do we need to do? The Strategic Place Branding Model(SPBM) by Hanna and Rowly postulates that the beginning lies in conducting a situational analysis of the tangible and intangible elements and the strengths and weaknesses of the components place, people, processes, and partners, and concludes by asserting the development of action plans for the aforementioned components.

SPBM model offers a more all-embracing and integrative perspective on place brand management. The SPBM model is shown in Figures 1. The key components of the model are: brand evaluation, stakeholder engagement (management), infrastructure (regeneration), brand identity, brand architecture, brand articulation, marketing communications, brand experience, and word of mouth. Figure 2 shows the sub-components of infrastructure (regeneration).

Within each component a number of processes and activities take place. Depending on the specific components, these processes and activities may involve marketing professionals, citizens, visitors, and a range of other stakeholders. It is important to acknowledge that the processes in these components occur, whether or not any agency takes an active and strategic approach to brand management. However, without such proactive interventions, the outworking of the process may be a disappointing brand experience, negative word of mouth, and ineffective marketing communications.

A clear view of the components in the place brand-management process is a firm platform for achieving a coherent brand identity, creating satisfying brand experiences, and driving positive word of mouth. The arrows on the model indicate influence relationships between components. For example, the model shows that the ‘brand communications’ component influences and is influenced by the ‘brand experience’ component.







Place brand-management components

Prior to discussing the individual components of the model, however, it may be useful to explain the central significance of the space denoted in Figure 1 by the term ‘brand infrastructure relationships and leadership’. This arena is where the brand identity is created, and the complex dynamics between stakeholders, their engagement, and interests and infrastructure are worked through. Developing brand identity is dependent on the effectiveness of brand leadership in engaging and managing stakeholders on the basis of shared objectives.

It is the responsibility of management to engage all levels of stakeholders in capital development (Rainisto, 2003). The multifaceted nature of places requires leadership to permeate; the process of place brand management requires cooperation negating any form of coercion. Infrastructure strategies must consider the diversity of stakeholder needs and the limitations of the place brand with regard to its infrastructure and environment (Balakrishnan, 2008; Gaggiotti et al., 2008).

The role of leadership should be supporting the establishment of partnerships and networks by providing focus and fostering commitment. As Figure 2 shows, the infrastructure component is concerned with both the tangible and intangible attributes of the brand. Physical and environmental infrastructure strategies such as those associated with regeneration are important in driving the functional attributes of the place brand. On the other hand, there is also a need to establish the symbolic traits of place in order to deliver on the experiential attributes of the brand. Implicit in this model then are: (a) the importance of conceptualising the place brand as being about both image and experience; (b) the central significance of the physical environment on the brand experience; and (c) the complex but pivotal role of stakeholders in the brand- building process.







Brand evaluation

Brand evaluation refers to the processes that are undertaken in order to gather feedback on brand image and experience. Monitoring expectations and satisfaction requires close collaboration with stakeholders to ensure brand infrastructure meets and exceeds expectations. Brand evaluation is central to the evolution of the brand and its experience.

Stakeholder engagement (management)/stakeholder engagement (management) is the component that embraces the processes whereby stakeholders are identified, their interests surfaced, and interactions managed. Stakeholder engagement is important in place branding, and arguably, the central significance of multiple stakeholders, some with their own brands, in the branding process has been recognised to be one of the distinguishing features of place branding as compared with mainstream banding.

Place brand attributes are not only created and influenced by brand managers and their organisations, but are the product of stakeholder networks and partnerships (Parkerson & Saunders, 2005). The significance of each network or partnership is influenced by evolving dynamics (Murphy et al., 2005; Zineldin, 2004). Where the relationship between stakeholders lacks coordination, the dynamic is mirrored in the response relationships between the consumer and the brand (Hankinson, 2004a).





Infrastructure

Brand infrastructure (regeneration) is the component that represents the existence, accessibility, and sufficiency of the functional (tangible) and experiential (intangible) place attributes, and the possible need for their renovation and regeneration. The ability of the place brand to support the positioning of its experiential attributes is dependent on stakeholder impact, negative environmental consequences, and the changing nature of the place in terms of external influences (Foley & Fahy, 2004). Delivery of the brand experience requires investment in facilities and services to create or improve the various characteristics utilised by the place.

Functional attributes are achieved through infrastructure strategies and landscape strategies. These embrace the built environment, public spaces considering urban design, green spaces, and architecture. Experiential attributes are achieved through a combination of symbolic traits and the functional attributes. Symbolic traits include the provision of cultural entertainment and services.

Brand identity is the component associated with the creation of the essence of the brand. Key elements in brand identity are the functional and experiential attributes of the brand. Brand identity is the active part of the image-building process (Rainisto, 2003) involving the creation and maintenance of a unique set of associations (Aaker, 1996, p. 68) projected through brand elements (Keller, 1998, p. 166). Image is the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that people have of the place (Harmaakorpi et al., 2008).

Brand identity development takes place through the analysis of the strengths and weaknesses embedded in the tangible and intangible attributes of the place Brand architecture Brand architecture is the component that focuses on the process of designing and managing brand portfolios. Although places may seek to support a central place brand, places are composed of sub-brands associated with or owned by communities within. Such brands may be owned by local authorities, tourists, organisations, businesses (of all sizes), and community services (such as schools) and groups.

Brand architecture then not only describes the relationship between these brands, in terms of image and experience, but also negotiates conflicts and contradictions between the brands in the place and the stakeholder interests aligned behind those brands. Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) propose the brand relationship spectrum as a tool for managing architecture, consisting of four strategies: house-of-brands, endorsed brands, sub-brand, and branded-house.





Brand articulation

Brand articulation is the component that focuses on the processes associated with the expression of the brand through its verbal and visual identity through the choice and design of it place name, logo, colour palettes, and photographs.





Brand communications

Brand communications is the component that focuses on the activities associated with the communication of the brand identity. As such, it builds on and is tightly coupled with the brand articulation component, and has a direct influence on the perceptions and reality of the brand experience. All of the discussed models consider brand communications to be an integral component of the place brand-management process.

Kavaratzis (2004) discusses secondary communications as the promotional component and the one variable of the marketing mix that has been so far adopted by places with great ease. Similarly, Cai. (2002) and Hankinson (2004a) discuss marketing and media communications respectively. Baker (2007) goes a step further and raises the issue of integrated brand communications. He argues that the challenge is to embed messages into as many concurrent marketing applications as possible (Baker, 2007), and offers a range of practical actions for achieving this. Foley and Fahy (2004) also put the case that sustainability of the brand is related not only to the messages delivered but also to the degree of shared meanings that is contained in the message.





Word of mouth

Word of mouth (WOM) is the component that encompasses the processes associated with the informal communication between ‘consumers’ of the brand experience. WOM remains a powerful form of communication (Baker, 2007; Mazzarol, Sweeney, & Soutar, 2007). WOM provides highly credible means of persuasion, since the communicator is not seen as having a vested interest.

The literature depicts three basic personal motives for engaging in WOM activity: the obligation to share information through a sense of community duty, pleasure derived from sharing information, and the desire to help others (Walsh, Gwinner, & Swanson, 2004). Attention to WOM is a reminder that the brand is not what the marketer depicts but that it is dependent on the stakeholders’ experience (Baker, 2007, p. 152).

WOM is represented in the model as interacting with brand communication and brand experience. In relation to the first of these, it is suggested that WOM can triple the effectiveness of advertising and also that brand communications can act as a WOM trigger (Hogan, Lemon, & Libai, 2004). Further, it is suggested that as a two-way influencing process, the relationship between WOM and brand communications may be used to monitor the content of communications to establish whether the brand experience accords with brand communications.

The most important influencer of WOM is brand experience. The desire to act as an advocate on the basis of positive place experience is highlighted (Balakrishnan, 2008; Mazzarol et al., 2007). However, satisfied customers are not always loyal and may not always engage in WOM activity (Reicheld, 1994), and dissatisfied customers may also generate negative WOM. The relationship between brand experience and WOM is therefore complex. Additionally, the reciprocated relationship between brand communications and WOM depicts the latter as not controllable by marketers.





Brand experience

Brand experience is the component in which the consumer engages with the brand. Through this engagement, consumers formulate perceptions of the brand experience and interpret the brand identity to create their own notion of brand image. In other words, the brand experience component subsumes brand image.

Whilst brand perceptions may be influenced by brand articulation and marketing communications, there is a need to consider consumers’ overall experiences with the brand, as they are delivered through various channels and through embracing the service experience and sensory delights, based on sights, sounds, smells, and tastes (Balakrishnan, 2008). Brand infrastructure relationships have a direct and significant impact on brand experience.





Conclusions and recommendations

Place brands are complex constructs, and it is therefore not easy to construct a model of place-branding processes. First, the SPBM model represents the process of place branding and its key components. Second, branding is an interactive and evolutionary process. In other words, it is not a ‘once and for all project’. Third, stakeholder engagement and place brand infrastructure are pivotal to place branding, and this is the aspect of place brand management that distinguishes place branding from product and corporate branding models





Tourism marketing

The core objective of tourism marketing is to increase arrivals to the destination and drive high occupancy which will eventually result in getting higher foreign exchange earnings. In that context tourism marketing is more to do with selling than branding. However the power of tourism in driving destination awareness and image should not be underestimated.

In a recent study of the Cuban tourism marketing campaign of Cuba in USA showed that it is not only helping to increase the number of American tourist in Cuba but also increased the overall perception of Cuba among those who were exposed to the campaign. This phenomena is now called “spillover effect” of tourism marketing. Hence tourism marketing should now go beyond showing beautiful “me too” kind of images to moments which reflects the reality of the destination with sense of place and experience. Authentic experiences coupled with discoveries will make a powerful statement for a country to market as a tourist destination. Further tourism marketing should take the actual experience on ground before you make a promotional campaign.

Finally, the key outcome of the branding process is not brand image but rather brand experience. Brand initiatives must be based upon the ‘brand reality’ and not only on the communication of the image.

Most Poles accept Jews as fellow citizens and neighbors, but a minority do not

By David Masci
 

Poland recently enacted a libel law aimed at punishing those who publicly accuse Poles of complicity in the Holocaust or other crimes against humanity. The new law has raised concerns that the country’s history of anti-Semitism and xenophobia in Poland could be obscured.

In today’s Poland, most adults say they are willing to accept Jews as fellow citizens, neighbors and family members, according to a Pew Research Center survey of Poland and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe conducted in 2015 and 2016. For instance, about seven-in-ten or more Poles say they would accept Jews as neighbors or fellow citizens.

At the same time, however, a sizable minority of Polish adults take the opposite position. Almost one-in-five Poles (18%) say they would not be willing to accept Jews as citizens of their country, and a similar share (20%) say they would not want Jewish neighbors. Nearly a third of Polish adults (30%) say they would not accept a Jewish person as a member of their family.

Polish views are more negative when it comes to two other minority groups in Europe: Muslims and Roma (sometimes called Romani or Gypsies, a term some consider pejorative). Roughly four-in-ten or more Polish adults say they would not want Muslims to be citizens of their country (41%), their neighbors (43%) or members of their family (55%). Likewise, at least three-in-ten Poles would not accept Roma as fellow citizens (30%), neighbors (38%) or family members (49%).



Polish attitudes toward Jews are typical of the public’s views in many of the 17 other countries Pew Research Center surveyed in Central and Eastern Europe. For example, nearly as many Russians as Poles (14% vs. 18%) say they are unwilling to accept Jews as citizens of their country, while a higher share of Russians than Poles (40% vs. 30%) say they are unwilling to accept Jews as family members.

There are no major differences when looking at attitudes toward Jews through the lens of the region’s predominant religious groups – Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics. While there is considerable variation across countries, the attitudes of the region’s Orthodox Christians are, for the most part, similar to those of Catholics. For example, similar shares of Orthodox Christians and Catholics across the region (medians of 17% and 16%, respectively) say they would not want Jews as neighbors. The same holds true for opinions about Jews as citizens and family members.

Attitudes toward Jews are closely related to questions about cultural diversity and national identity. Nearly six-in-ten Poles (57%) say it is better if a society is composed of people with the same ethnic, religious and cultural background than if the society contains people of differing nationalities, religions and cultures. Roughly two-thirds of Polish adults (64%) also link their religion to national identity, saying it is important to be Catholic to be “truly Polish.” And 55% of Poles agree with the statement, “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others.” In general, in Poland and many countries throughout the region, people who take these kinds of nationalistic positions are more likely to express negative views of Jews and other minorities.

Poland’s association with the Holocaust stems in part from the fact that some of the most notorious Nazi extermination camps, including Auschwitz-Birkenau and Treblinka, were located on its territory. It is estimated that during World War II the Germans murdered 3 million or more Jewish citizens of Poland.

The new libel law, which contains exemptions for academic and artistic expression, allows prosecutors to seek fines or prison sentences for anyone who publicly accuses Poles of helping to perpetrate the Holocaust or other crimes against humanity. The Polish government says the new law is intended to stop the use of misleading language, such as “Polish death camps,” noting that the whole nation suffered during the Nazi occupation and that an estimated 3 million Polish gentiles also perished during the war. But the governments of the United States, Israel and other countries say that the new statute will stifle free expression.

Americans’ complicated feelings about social media in an era of privacy concerns

By Lee Rainie


Amid public concerns over Cambridge Analytica’s use of Facebook data and a subsequent movement to encourage users to abandon Facebook, there is a renewed focus on how social media companies collect personal information and make it available to marketers.

Pew Research Center has studied the spread and impact of social media since 2005, when just 5% of American adults used the platforms. The trends tracked by our data tell a complex story that is full of conflicting pressures. On one hand, the rapid growth of the platforms is testimony to their appeal to online Americans. On the other, this widespread use has been accompanied by rising user concerns about privacy and social media firms’ capacity to protect their data.

All this adds up to a mixed picture about how Americans feel about social media. Here are some of the dynamics.



People like and use social media for several reasons

About seven-in-ten American adults (69%) now report they use some kind of social media platform (not including YouTube) – a nearly fourteenfold increase since Pew Research Center first started asking about the phenomenon. The growth has come across all demographic groups and includes 37% of those ages 65 and older.

The Center’s polls have found over the years that people use social media for important social interactions like staying in touch with friends and family and reconnecting with old acquaintances. Teenagers are especially likely to report that social media are important to their friendships and, at times, their romantic relationships.

Beyond that, we have documented how social media play a role in the way people participate in civic and political activities, launch and sustain protests, get and share health information, gather scientific information, engage in family matters, perform job-related activities and get news. Indeed, social media is now just as common a pathway to news for people as going directly to a news organization website or app.

Our research has not established a causal relationship between people’s use of social media and their well-being. But in a 2011 report, we noted modest associations between people’s social media use and higher levels of trust, larger numbers of close friends, greater amounts of social support and higher levels of civic participation.

People worry about privacy and the use of their personal information

While there is evidence that social media works in some important ways for people, Pew Research Center studies have shown that people are anxious about all the personal information that is collected and shared and the security of their data.

Overall, a 2014 survey found that 91% of Americans “agree” or “strongly agree” that people have lost control over how personal information is collected and used by all kinds of entities. Some 80% of social media users said they were concerned about advertisers and businesses accessing the data they share on social media platforms, and 64% said the government should do more to regulate advertisers.

Another survey last year found that just 9% of social media users were “very confident” that social media companies would protect their data. About half of users were not at all or not too confident their data were in safe hands.

Moreover, people struggle to understand the nature and scope of the data collected about them. Just 9% believe they have “a lot of control” over the information that is collected about them, even as the vast majority (74%) say it is very important to them to be in control of who can get information about them.

Six-in-ten Americans (61%) have said they would like to do more to protect their privacy. Additionally, two-thirds have said current laws are not good enough in protecting people’s privacy, and 64% support more regulation of advertisers.

Some hope that the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, which goes into effect on May 25, will give users – even Americans – greater protections about what data tech firms can collect, how the data can be used, and how consumers can be given more opportunities to see what is happening with their information.

People’s issues with the social media experience go beyond privacy

In addition to the concerns about privacy and social media platforms uncovered in our surveys, related research shows that just 5% of social media users trust the information that comes to them via the platforms “a lot.”

Moreover, social media users can be turned off by what happens on social media. For instance, social media sites are frequently cited as places where people are harassed. Near the end of the 2016 election campaign, 37% of social media users said they were worn out by the political content they encountered, and large shares said social media interactions with those opposed to their views were stressful and frustrating. Large shares also said that social media interactions related to politics were less respectful, less conclusive, less civil and less informative than offline interactions.

A considerable number of social media users said they simply ignored political arguments when they broke out in their feeds. Others went steps further by blocking or unfriending those who offended or bugged them.

Why do people leave or stay on social media platforms?

The paradox is that people use social media platforms even as they express great concern about the privacy implications of doing so – and the social woes they encounter. The Center’s most recent survey about social media found that 59% of users said it would not be difficult to give up these sites, yet the share saying these sites would be hard to give up grew 12 percentage points from early 2014.

Some of the answers about why people stay on social media could tie to our findings about how people adjust their behavior on the sites and online, depending on personal and political circumstances. For instance, in a 2012 report we found that 61% of Facebook users said they had taken a break from using the platform. Among the reasons people cited were that they were too busy to use the platform, they lost interest, they thought it was a waste of time and that it was filled with too much drama, gossip or conflict.

In other words, participation on the sites for many people is not an all-or-nothing proposition.

People pursue strategies to try to avoid problems on social media and the internet overall. Fully 86% of internet users said in 2012 they had taken steps to try to be anonymous online. “Hiding from advertisers” was relatively high on the list of those they wanted to avoid.

Many social media users fine-tune their behavior to try to make things less challenging or unsettling on the sites, including changing their privacy settings and restricting access to their profiles. Still, 48% of social media users reported in a 2012 survey they have difficulty managing their privacy controls.

After National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden disclosed details about government surveillance programs starting in 2013, 30% of adults said they took steps to hide or shield their information and 22% reported they had changed their online behavior in order to minimize detection. One other argument that some experts make in Pew Research Center canvassings about the future is that people often find it hard to disconnect because so much of modern life takes place on social media. These experts believe that unplugging is hard because social media and other technology affordances make life convenient and because the platforms offer a very efficient, compelling way for users to stay connected to the people and organizations that matter to them.

U.S. tariffs vary a lot, but the highest duties tend to be on imported clothing

By Drew DeSilver

Women work at a garment factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh. (Mehedi Hasan/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

While U.S. tariffs as a whole continue to be at or near their lowest levels ever, the duties imposed on specific imported goods vary widely depending on what they are and where they’re coming from. In general, the stiffest tariffs are levied on apparel and clothing.

Last year, according to data from the U.S. International Trade Commission, import duties totaled $33.1 billion – equal to 1.4% of the total value of all imported goods, and 4.7% of the value of all imports subject to duty. (Most imported goods carry no duty at all. Only 30.4% of the $2.33 trillion in total imported goods, or about $708.6 billion, were subject to duty; the rest entered the U.S. freely.)

But those overall figures conceal a vast and complex array of individual tariff rates, on thousands of precisely defined import categories. These are spelled out in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, the latest edition of which runs to 3,713 pages – almost as long as the Internal Revenue Code. The HTS, as it’s known, gets very specific: It will tell you, for instance, how the duty on “artificial flowers, foliage and fruit” differs depending on whether the objects in question are made from plastic (8.4%), feathers (4.7%) or man-made fibers (9%).

Broadly speaking, the largest categories of U.S. imports tend to carry relatively low tariff rates, while the highest rates usually are found in relatively small categories. Clothing is the main exception: The two main classifications of “apparel and clothing accessories” together accounted for $80.6 billion in imports last year (3.5% of the total); nearly $64 billion of those imports, or 79%, were “dutiable” – that is, subject to duty. The average tariffs on the dutiable portions were 18.7% for knitted or crocheted clothing, and 15.8% for non-knitted or crocheted items – the two highest average rates out of 98 broad import categories. Footwear was close behind: Nearly all of the $25.5 billion in imported footwear is subject to duty, at an average rate of 11.9%.

By contrast, average duties were far lower on “electrical machinery and equipment,” the single largest category of imported goods. This category includes telecommunications gear, computer chips, TVs and broadcasting equipment, electrical transformers, and related products. The U.S. imported nearly $347 billion worth of such goods last year, but only 21.3% of them carried a duty; the average duty on that portion was just 2.7%.



Computer equipment and industrial machinery is the next-biggest import category ($339.4 billion), but only $57 billion of those imports are taxed, at an average rate of 3%. “Vehicles and parts” accounted for $292.6 billion in imports but generated less than $3.4 billion in tariff revenue (2.7% of the dutiable value).

The imported steel products singled out for 25% tariffs by President Donald Trump’s administration totaled $29.3 billion last year, according to our analysis of ITC data; all of them had been duty-free before. The categories of aluminum imports specified for an additional 10% tariff in Trump’s order amounted to just under $17 billion; about a fifth of those imports already were subject to duties, averaging 3.5% of the assessed value. (Steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico, however, were excluded from the new tariffs, pending the outcome of ongoing talks to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.)

Minerals and metals, as it happens, are one of the classes of imports on which the U.S. has had particularly low tariffs, according to data from the latest “World Tariff Profiles” report, produced jointly by the World Trade Organization, International Trade Centre and UN Conference on Trade and Development. The “average most-favored-nation applied duty” on minerals and metals was 1.7%, or 125th out of 138 countries and other economic units. (The “most favored nation,” or MFN, part of that metric refers to the tariffs each WTO member country promises to apply to all other WTO members, unless they’re part of a free trade area, customs union or other “preferential trade agreement.” Also, the report treats the 28-member European Union as a single entity, and it covers Hong Kong and Macao separately from the rest of China.)

The highest U.S. import taxes relative to the rest of the world are on petroleum: The average MFN applied rate of 6.5% is tied for 47th place, with Costa Rica. (The Cook Islands, an autonomous part of New Zealand, has the highest average petroleum tariffs: a whopping 168%.) Also relatively high are U.S. tariffs on imported sugars and confectionery: The 16.4% average MFN tariff ranks 50th out of 138, though it’s nowhere near the 93.4% imposed by Turkey.

In general, countries tend to place their highest import duties on beverages (read: alcohol) and tobacco, which helps explain why that’s most of what you’ll find on the shelves at “duty-free shops” at international airports. The average MFN applied tariff on the “beverages and tobacco” category, according to the WTO data, is 35.8%. (The U.S. average rate, by contrast, is 19.1%.) Egypt takes the prize here, with an 803% average applied tariff on beverages and tobacco.

How Netflix defined a brand that helped it to build a great product, and vice-versa

How Netflix defined a brand that helped it to build a great product, and vice-versa
Today, Netflix is recognized by the simple letter “N.”

Twenty years ago, no one recognized the Netflix logo. But today, with more than 100 million members, customers instantly identify the logo and trust Netflix in a way that counts — with their credit cards. But it wasn’t always that way. Remember when Netflix announced its plan to split its streaming and DVD service with the launch of “Qwikster” in 2011? 800,000 customers cancelled Netflix that quarter.

I grew up in marketing, switched over to product, and became interested in branding after success building Sesame Street, Schoolhouse Rock, and Madeline software. I signed well-established brands to long-term relationships, then brought the brands to life within children’s educational software.

When I joined Netflix as VP of Product in 2005, I wanted to do more. My goal was to help a young company establish a world-class product and brand. As a product leader, my job was to delight customers in hard-to-copy, margin-enhancing ways. Based on experience, I viewed building a brand as one of the most important of these “hard-to-copy” tactics.

By the time I joined Netflix, I had a somewhat nuanced view of how marketing and product should work together: marketing defines the brand and product brings the brand to life by building a great product. Together, the two teams hope to create a world-class brand and product.

Here’s my definition of a brand:


Below, I outline two models to apply to your product or company, then show how these models provided direction for the Netflix marketing and product teams as the brand and product evolved:

1.) The positioning model describes the first three components of the brand definition: positioning, customer benefit, and personality.

2.) The brand pyramid adds the two remaining elements: aspiration and emotion.

3.) The evolution of Netflix shows how the non-member homepage — the “store window” of the site— evolved in tandem with the brand over twenty years.


You’re already an expert in positioning and don’t know it yet. Want proof? What’s the first word that pops into your head when I mention the car brand, “Volvo?” For most, the response is “safety.” This example demonstrates Volvo’s ability to place an idea in your head, relative to competitors, and that’s the definition of positioning.


To apply the first model, ask yourself three questions:

1.) In simple terms, how do you describe your product or company?

2.) How does it benefit customers?

3.) How do you define its personality? (The question behind the question: how do you want your product to relate to customers?)

Here’s the model applied to Netflix:
Netflix Positioning Model

If you try this positioning model on your own, here are some tips:
Use clear, precise sixth-grade language. Consumers are busy and don’t have time to parse complicated ideas.
Be brief. Most teams begin with lots of complicated ideas. The key is to simplify and focus on a few, easy-to-communicate ideas.
In answering the “personality” question, ask yourself, “If someone met my company or product at a cocktail party, how would I like folks to describe him or her?” Defining the personality of your product describes how you want your brand to relate to customers.

Volvo is a ninety-year-old company. They have spent billions of dollars on advertising and have consistently invented new safety features to own the word “safety.” Netflix is only twenty-years-old, but my guess is decades from now the one word they will own is “entertainment.”

In the long-term, what’s the one word you’d like to own for your product or company?


This framework builds on the positioning model and “ladders up” to define emotional benefits for customers as well as the “something bigger” that inspires your team. For this exercise, think long-term.

Why does the brand model incorporate emotion? The simple answer: it makes things memorable. Think for a moment about your childhood memories. My guess is they all have emotional elements. The joy of a surprise birthday party? The sorrow of losing a grandparent? Maya Angelou describes this phenomenon best:


Acknowledging emotion in the brand framework helps make products memorable.

The brand pyramid has four levels, and the intent is to read it from bottom to top. The base contains product attributes or features and the other elements ladder up from this foundation.
The Brand Pyramid

Below, I explain each level of the pyramid along with advice on how to approach the exercise on your own. Again, start at the bottom, with the product attributes as the foundation.

Product attributes:

What are the product features that deliver benefits to customers?

Product benefits:

As in the previous positioning model, how does your product improve customers’ lives? (You can cut and paste your description of customer benefits from the first positioning model.)

Emotional benefits:

How does your product make customers feel?

Something bigger:

In the long-term, if you fully deliver the product and its emotional benefits to your customers, how might your product dent the universe? Think twenty years into the future.

Headline:

The headline provides an executive summary of the model. In cases where you develop an advertising campaign, it is the title of an ad campaign.

I’ll illustrate the model first using Apple as I think it’s helpful to see the pyramid in the context of a well-established brand:
Apple Brand Pyramid

For Apple today, the product attributes — the “bits and bytes” of what they deliver to us— are mobile hardware devices, along with the digital products and services they provide on these devices.

The benefits to customers are the ease of use of Apple’s human-centered design that makes customers more productive and creative.

How does Apple make customers feel? We feel imaginative. We feel free.
Freedom and creative expression brought to life in Apple’s iPod ad

The “something bigger” of Apple products? Think for a moment about the Apple “Think Different” ad campaign, featuring Martin Luther King Jr, John Lennon, Steve Jobs, and Albert Einstein. All four are revolutionaries of their time. What is Apple’s “something bigger?”

It’s “Revolutionary Innovation.”
The Apple “Think Different” campaign, featuring four revolutionary leaders.

Consider the power of the Apple brand. Would you pay a few hundred dollars more for an electronic device that promises “revolutionary innovation?” Each year, hundreds of millions of customers do. This premium illustrates the economic power of a brand.

Here is the brand pyramid applied to Netflix:
Netflix Brand Pyramid

At Netflix, Neve Savage was one of my marketing partners. I joke that he tattooed, “Movie Enjoyment Made Easy” to my forearm so I wouldn’t forget the phrase.

If you think back to the early days of Netflix, we were a startup competing with Blockbuster, a retailer with 8,000 stores and $8 billion in revenue.

But the Blockbuster experience sucked.

I can remember walking to our neighborhood Blockbuster, wandering the aisles, waiting in line to pay, then bringing a movie home to discover that none of my family wanted to watch the movie. Even worse, I had to pay late fees when I forgot to return the film.

Netflix’s early DVD-by-mail service had an unlimited monthly subscription. The goal was to delight our customers with lots of great movie choices, which arrived the next day in the mail, and later, instantly via streaming.

The “something bigger” was to deliver an entertainment experience that transported you to the magical place movies can take you — to escape reality. The intent was that the service would be so simple that the technology and interface would fade into the background so customers could immerse themselves in the movie.

Here are the tips I give to product and marketing teams as they apply the brand pyramid model:
Product attributes. What are the features or components of your product that consumers buy or use to enjoy the benefit of your product? In the early days of Netflix, it was 100,000 movies on DVD, with one-day delivery, no late fees, and a website where you built your queue. Today, it’s tens of thousands of streaming movies & TV shows and, increasingly, original content. Product attributes can and will change over time — that’s where the innovation happens. The other levels of the pyramid, however, stay relatively constant.
Product benefits. These are the same benefits from the first positioning model. Just make sure that the product attributes enable the product benefits.
Emotional benefits. If you built a world-class product that delivers the benefits you describe, but ultimately exceeds customers’ expectations, how would customers feel? Make sure the words describe feelings.
Something bigger. Many teams struggle with this part of the exercise. My coaching: Think Big. Apple delivers revolutionary innovation, Nike enables customers to fulfill their full human potential, and SpaceX is working to save the human race by colonizing Mars. The “something bigger” is meant to inspire your team to build a great product and company over fifty years.
The headline. It took Apple tens of millions of dollars to create their “Think Different” campaign. So don’t expect a few hours of work to be as impactful. In the case of Netflix, “Movie Enjoyment Made Easy” was not intended to be seen by customers, but the headline summarized the brand pyramid in a way that I can still remember.

The important thing is to take your best shot at defining the model, then explore the various ideas with consumers via focus groups, surveys, but most importantly, A/B tests.


For years, Netflix marketing and product teams experimented with various product features and how to best present them. As much as I have described the positioning and branding models as static, this was not the case. The positioning model was updated continuously. The upper levels of the brand pyramid stayed more constant, however, providing consistent direction for the product team.

Netflix steadily evolved the product — from DVDs by mail, to streaming, to original content — and also tested the best ways to present the service to customers. In some cases, we evaluated new ideas through exploration of mock-ups and concept summaries. In other instances, we experimented with how to present new features we had already developed. The product and marketing teams worked together to continually innovate on both the product and its presentation.
The Netflix non-member page today. Its job is to convert non-members who visit the site into a free trial.

While many regard brand as amorphous and hard to measure, Netflix did its best to measure its impact. We continually A/B tested different positioning and branding approaches on the non-member homepage. We focused on two key metrics:
1.) Trials/Visitors. Historically, 2% of visitors to the non-member site started a free trial.
2.) Conversion from free to paid membership. At the end of a free trial, about 90% of customers converted to paid membership.

A/B testing enabled us to measure the efficacy of both our positioning and brand. We tested new approaches every two weeks, and almost everything you see on the non-member homepage is a proven winner.

Looking back on my time at Netflix, I consider the work in this area to be the result of a dance between marketing and product, judged by customers via ongoing qualitative and quantitative research. Below I share nearly twenty years of non-member page iteration. I think you’ll be surprised by how much the positioning, brand, and product evolved.
Netflix in 1999

In 1999, Netflix was an e-commerce site, focused on selling DVDs — only 1% of its transactions were rentals. There were just 2,600 titles, and the DVDs arrived 3–5 days after you ordered them. I like this page as it reminds me that all startups suck in the beginning. It’s fun to look back to see how far you’ve come.

At this point, Netflix made a “bet the company” pivot to focus exclusively on DVD rental. The team added the Queue and eliminated both due dates and late fees for their fledgling DVD-by-mail rental program. They made this decision based on a few focus groups and the correct assumption that Amazon would eventually dominate DVD sales.
2004

In 2004, Netflix was an “all you can eat” DVD-by-mail subscription service. With no due dates or late fees, the service was well-positioned against Blockbuster, and the DVD library had grown to 35,000 titles. The couple on the couch hint at the emotional benefit of “movie enjoyment made easy.”
2008

By 2008, there’s constant testing on the non-member page as Netflix explores how to combine its growing DVD-by-mail library with its nascent streaming service.

The Roku launch in 2008 was the first step in Netflix’s long-term strategy to create a hard-to-copy network effect by giving all TV manufacturers the tools they needed to make their TVs “Netflix Ready.” But in 2008, Roku was the only device that enabled Netflix members to watch movies on their TV.
2009

In 2009, there was a clear, family-friendly positioning and the non-member site is now simpler. But the homepage still positions streaming as a minor “bonus” to its DVD-by-mail service.
2010

By 2010, Netflix commits itself more fully to streaming, recognizing that its huge DVD-by-mail library will have a diminishing competitive advantage as the industry shifts from DVD to streaming. Netflix is now “streaming first.”
2011

By 2011, Netflix presents its DVD-by-mail service as an “add-on” to its streaming service — it has come full circle since 2007. The company is now aggressive about promoting the ability to watch on TV, given the service is now on all three major tv-based gaming platforms.

In 2011, Netflix was also experimenting with Facebook Connect as a means to sign-up and get movie recommendations from friends. This social approach eventually failed — twice. Customers weren’t interested in sharing their movie tastes with friends, and when they did, their friends thought they had terrible taste!
2012

Finally, in 2012, the site gets simpler. Netflix now has more than 30M members, and the brand now communicates real meaning to consumers. The site no longer commits as much space to describing what it is and how it works. The DVD-by-mail service still exists as an add-on, but there’s no reference to it on the non-member homepage. Netflix is now a streaming service.
2013

The non-member site is now substantially simpler. Simpler versions of the site had been A/B tested for years, but more complicated versions consistently won. It’s counterintuitive that the earlier, simpler designs failed — simple typically trumps complete. But more “stuff” on the screen was an efficient way to communicate value at the time. In 2013, the Netflix brand finally provided this value instead.

A last note: 2013 is the year that Netflix launched its first original series, “House of Cards,” so original content is now an attribute of the company’s offering. At this point, Netflix began to invest its marketing dollars in its original content — something they didn’t do when they were an aggregator of other studios’ content.
2013

By late 2013, there’s increasing focus on the ability to “watch anywhere” as you can now watch on tablets, mobile devices, and hundreds of “Netflix-Ready” TV-connected devices. There’s also a continued trend towards a simpler, non-member experience.
2014

What says “Movie Enjoyment Made Easy” more than a happy family on a couch? Note that there’s no hardware or interface on the page. Netflix now lets you fade into your couch with no technology or complexity to distract you from your movie-watching experience.
2016

She looks delighted, right? Netflix is both well-known and trusted, so there’s no real estate required to explain what the product is and the free trial continues to be the best way to enable folks to enjoy the experience. And for the reluctant “fence-sitters,” the ability to “cancel anytime” reduces their perceived risk.
2017

Today, the site focuses on movies with a hint of Netflix’s growing original content library. (Note Season Two of “Stranger Things” at the center of the screen.)

What will Netflix experiment with next? I’m sure there are lots of hypotheses being tested right now. As in the past, Netflix will continually experiment on its non-member site, both to identify which potential ideas resonate with customers and to determine how to position new features they have already built.
Conclusion

Over the last twenty years, Netflix has evolved from a DVD e-commerce site to a worldwide Internet TV company. The dance between product, marketing and consumers continues as teams work to define and deliver both a brand and a product that delight customers in hard-to-copy, margin-enhancing ways. Today, Netflix is a world-class company with a distinct advantage in its hard-to-copy brand.

I’ll leave you with one final thought, highlighting the importance of teamwork between marketing and product to enable product and brand innovation:
“Today, brands are not the preserve of a marketing department. Brands are too important to be left to the marketing department — or any other ‘department,’ come to that. Organizational ghettoes do not create vibrant world-changing brands.” — Thomas Gad

Rubén Weinsteiner

Positive Views of Economy Surge, Driven by Major Shifts Among Republicans

Few say stock market movements have big impact on finances

Americans’ views of national economic conditions continue to improve, with the share saying the economy is in good or excellent condition now at its highest point in nearly two decades.

The overall rise in positive assessments seen over the last year is driven by the shifting views of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Nearly three-quarters of Republicans (74%) now view the economy in positive terms. That is a marked improvement from last October (57%). In December 2016, shortly after the presidential election, just 14% of Republicans rated the economy as excellent or good.

By contrast, just 37% of Democrats say the economy is in excellent or good shape. This is modestly higher than last fall (when 30% said this), but lower than the 46% who said this in December 2016.

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted March 7-14 among 1,466 adults, also finds a wider partisan difference in personal economic assessments than in recent years. Today, 62% of Republicans say their personal financial situation is in excellent or good shape, compared with 44% of Democrats who say the same. GOP views have improved substantially since Donald Trump’s election. Democratic views have changed little following the shift in administration.

Democrats are somewhat less positive about their future personal financial situation than they were during Barack Obama’s presidency, while Republicans have become more bullish. Today Republicans are 19 percentage points more likely to say they expect their personal finances to improve over the next year (82% vs. 63%). Throughout much of Obama’s tenure, the expectations gap was the reverse.

The survey finds that Americans’ views of factors affecting their personal financial pressures have changed somewhat in recent years.

In particular, far fewer Americans (37%) say the price of gas affects their personal finances “a lot” than did so in 2013 or 2011, during periods of higher gas prices. In those years, majorities said the price of gas affected their household finances a lot (64% in 2013, 69% in 2011).

About half each say health care costs (53%) and the price of food and consumer goods (48%) have a major impact. By contrast, just 22% say the federal budget deficit affects their finances a lot and 21% say the same about “how the stock market is doing.”

Unlike overall opinions about the economy and personal financial evaluations, views of financial pressures are not all that partisan. However, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say that health care costs and real estate values affect their household finances a lot.

Among members of both parties, particularly Republicans, the shares saying the federal budget deficit has a major effect on their finances is much lower today than it was in 2011. The share of Republicans who say the deficit affects their finances a lot has declined by about half since 2011, from 48% to 23%. About one-in-five Democrats (22%) also say the deficit has a big financial impact, down from 38% seven years ago.

This is the latest indication of diminished public concern over the budget deficit. In Pew Research Center’s annual policy priorities survey in January, 48% of Americans said that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority for the president and Congress, down from 72% in 2013. The decline came among members of both parties, though the shift among Republicans was more pronounced.
Public’s views of the economy 2008-2018

The current survey comes 10 years after the collapse of Bear Stearns, seen by many as the moment the extent of the financial crisis became clear.

In March 2008, just days after the firm’s collapse, only 11% of the public said that national economic conditions were good or excellent, while 32% said they were only fair and 56% said they were poor.

The share viewing the economy in positive terms changed little over the next several years – but the share saying the economy was poor increased as the economic crisis deepened, reaching 71% in February 2009.

The trajectory of these views differed for Republicans and Democrats. In March 2008, though few in either party had positive views of economic conditions, the assessments of Republicans and Republican leaners were somewhat more positive than those of Democrats and Democratic leaners: 23% of Republicans rated national economic conditions as good or excellent, compared with only 4% of Democrats.

After Barack Obama took office, these views reversed, and throughout most of Obama’s presidency Democrats were more likely than Republicans to view economic conditions positively. Since Trump’s election, Republicans have grown substantially more positive about the state of the national economy. Currently Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to say that national economic conditions are excellent or good (74% to 37%).
Within parties, income differences in economic expectations

Looking ahead, the public has mixed views of how they think the national economy will perform over the next year. While slightly more say they expect conditions to be better a year from now (34%) than worse (25%), 40% expect conditions to be about the same.

While opinions about the economy are much better today than they were a decade ago, the public’s economic expectations are similar to views at that time. In March 2008, 33% expected the economy to be better a year from then, 22% worse and 39% about the same. The public became increasingly optimistic about the economy in 2008 and early 2009, as conditions worsened. But economic optimism subsequently declined.

Republicans and Democrats currently have starkly different expectations. While 59% of Republicans say economic conditions will get better in a year, just 10% of Democrats say the same. Four-in-ten Democrats expect economic conditions to get worse over the next year, compared with just 9% of Republicans (31% of Republicans and 48% of Democrats expect conditions to stay about the same).

While economic expectations do not differ by income in the public overall, the picture is very different within each of the two parties. Higher-income Republicans are more likely than those with lower incomes to say that they expect economic conditions to improve in the next year: 68% of those with family incomes of $75,000 or more say this, compared with 50% of those with incomes of less than $30,000.

Among Democrats, the pattern is reversed; lower-income Democrats are modestly more likely to say they expect economic conditions to improve (though this view is not widely held among Democrats at any income level), and while 52% of Democrats with incomes of $75,000 or more expect conditions to worsen, that view is only held by about a third (35%) of those with lower family incomes.

Republicans and Republican leaners have become significantly more optimistic about the future economy since Trump took office. Today, 59% say they expect conditions to be better a year from now. Until Trump’s election, no more than a third of Republicans had expressed this sentiment during Obama’s administration. However, the current share of Republicans expressing this optimistic view is down from the three-quarters (75%) of Republicans and Republican leaners who said this in February 2017, shortly after Trump’s inauguration.

Today, 40% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say they expect conditions to get worse in the coming year, down 9 percentage points since February 2017, but still higher than at any point during Obama’s presidency.
What affects household finances?

Among the factors that affect household finances, the public ranks the cost of health care and the prices of food and consumer goods highest. About half of Americans say the cost of health care affects their household’s financial situation a lot (53%), and nearly as many (48%) say the same about prices of food and consumer goods.

Real estate values (37%), gas prices (37%) and the availability of jobs (34%) are mentioned by about a third of Americans as affecting their household’s finances a lot. Only about two-in-ten say the same of the stock market (21%) or the federal budget deficit (22%).

Today, far fewer consider gas prices as a top pressure than did so seven years ago: In April 2011, when gas prices were far higher than they have been in recent years, fully 69% of Americans said gas prices affected their situation a lot – the highest of the six factors included in the survey. Today, the cost of health care – asked for the first time in this survey – ranks higher than most other pressures.

Fewer today see the federal budget deficit as a chief concern for their household’s financial situation than did so in 2011, and the then 10-percentage-point partisan gap in assessments of its personal impact has dissipated.

And while the prices of food and consumer goods remains a top pressure for household finances, the share reporting it affects them a lot has dipped 10 points since 2011, from 58% to 48%.

Those who say the availability of jobs affects their finances a lot also has declined slightly from 2011, in the midst of the financial recession, when 42% said it impacted their household finances a lot.

The share who say their households are affected a lot by the stock market or real estate values is little different today than it was seven years ago.

There continue to be wide differences across income categories in assessments of the impact of financial pressures, but health care costs is a top household financial pressure across all income levels. About half (53%) of households earning $100,000 or more a year say it affects their financial situations a lot; about as many (52%) of those earning $30,000 a year or less say the same.

On the impact of other pressures, there are some substantial differences across income groups. While about six-in-ten in lower income households say the prices of food and consumer goods impacts their finances a lot (59% of those in households with incomes of less than $30,000 a year), four-in-ten of those in higher income households say the same (40% of households making $75,000 annually or more).

Gas prices are also more likely to be characterized as having a lot of impact among middle- and low-income households than higher-income households: Just 26% of those with family incomes of $100,000 or more say this, compared with about four-in-ten of those with lower family incomes.

By contrast, high-earning households are more likely to see real estate values as affecting them (46% of those with family incomes of $100,000 or more a year, compared with only about a third of those with lower incomes). And while about one-in-three with family incomes of $75,000 or more (32%) say the stock market affects their households’ finances a lot, only 15% of those with lower family incomes say this.

Rubén Weinsteiner