As the manager of a few congressional campaigns and a former communications director in the political world, I was familiar with the concept of creating a brand for my candidate and putting it out there to do battle with our opponent’s similar effort. My candidate’s record of service helping constituents with red tape problems, his work securing dollars for infrastructure improvements and his positioning on key social issues made the brand that we promoted. Slap a good logo on the web site, distribute materials that hit the key messages and stick to the script. That was my branding formula and I stuck to it – with the desired results.

But that was congressional level politics. The presidential campaign of 2008 made a mockery of that traditional formula. In 2008, the presidential candidates didn’t seem to be hawking their own brands to compare and contrast to the competition. Instead, they were all battling for control of and identification with one brand – the brand of “change.”

Instead of having the “peace candidate” (think Eugene McCarthy in 1968) or the “New Deal” candidate (remember FDR?), or even the “Morning in America” candidate (Ronald Reagan), we suddenly saw the presidential hopefuls claw and scratch for ownership of the same message. Take a quick quiz:

Who said it? (I would include links to the sources here, but I know you: you would cheat)

1) “It’s long past time to bring real change to Washington.”

1. Obama
2. McCain
3. Romney
4. Clinton

2) “You have to have experience to change things. I have a record.”

1. McCain
2. Richardson
3. Clinton
4. Obama

3) “We talked about change when we were up; we talked about change when we were down. This change thing must be catching on.”

1. Clinton
2. Obama
3. McCain
4. Palin

4) “Change is just a word without the strength and experience to make it happen.”

1. Obama
2. McCain
3. Clinton
4. Edwards

5) “We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us.”

1. Clinton
2. Edwards
3. McCain
4. Richardson

Answers: 1) Romney; 2) Richardson; 3) Obama; 4) Clinton; 5) McCain

It was almost like the 1960s and ’70s when it seemed like every single consumer product out there had to be “new and improved.”

In keeping with current events, we can blame President George W. Bush since he must be the thing everyone wanted a change from.

But, the “change” banner is still aloft even though the election is over. President-elect Obama’s transition web site address – http://change.gov/. The good news for folks who yearn for a little more beef in their brand soup is that the substance is now taking shape behind that “change” mantra.

The transition site is peppered with “ing” action words that continue the change theme. Take a look at the subject areas: Revitalizing the Economy; Ending the War in Iraq; Providing Health Care for All; Protecting America; Renewing American Global Leadership.

Each link on the site leads to information that finally begins to create a message of action, but you have to go through the “change” portal to get there. The new president has four years to add real beef to his brand so that the campaign of 2012 isn’t a battle royal among new candidates for claim to the “change” brand all over again.

I’m not saying Obama and the other candidates in the ‘08 race didn’t have some substance if you were among the small percentage of voters who bothered to drill down a level. I’m just observing that the messages they created as their brands for their 30 seconds or so of free media coverage and packaged television commercials were remarkably similar and remarkably – well – interchangeable.

An unchanged change theme in four years depends on the realization of real change. Until then, the only change Americans really want to think about is the change in their pockets.