In the past, when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was mentioned, the image that appeared in people’s heads was that of a party that was honest and local, a party that had the support of many prominent intellectuals who were against the concentration of power in the hands of one party.
From a brand management point of view, these were some enviable brand assets.
After eight years as the ruling party, impressions of corruption, incompetence and extremism are weighing hard on the DPP brand.
These are very lethal brand liabilities. It does not matter if the DPP is really like the manner in which the media has portrayed or not.
The fact is the public has a very bad impression of the party, or else it wouldn’t have lost so badly in the legislative and presidential elections. Under the long-term subtle influence of the media, the DPP’s brand liabilities have for some time now outweighed its brand assets.
The DPP is in need of thorough brand repositioning.
Repositioning does not mean the party has to abandon all its original core values, rather it means removing existing negative impressions that people have in their minds.
Apart from engaging in open and honest self-evaluation, even more importantly, the party must exploit and even create opportunities to improve its image.
The choosing of a new chairperson for the party is an excellent opportunity for the DPP to reposition its image.
Especially because this new chairperson is being picked on the heels of the serious setbacks in the legislative and presidential elections, the person who is chosen will be a representation of how willing the party is to reform itself.
Some of the things that the DPP members should keep in mind when selecting their new chairperson are which of the candidates can improve society’s impression of the DPP and minimize the DPP’s brand liabilities, and who can maximize support from within the party.
A political party is like a product. If you want to sell a product to consumers, you must tailor the product by putting yourself in the consumer’s position.
To really sell something, you have to abandon the arrogant attitude that consumers should buy your product simply because you think it’s good.
The DPP runs the risk of choosing a chairperson based only on whether the candidates can maximize support within the party. This often gets mixed up with too many private interests. In this situation, there’s a danger of compromising too much and straying from the ideals in the process.
The DPP has already been nearly suffocated by its brand liabilities.
If all the talk about reform turns out to be no more than empty words, and no real action is taken, it will be impossible for the public to adopt a fresh and new image of the party, let alone be inspired.
Candidates Koo Kwang-ming (辜寬敏), Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮) and Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) are all very talented individuals. Whoever wins will not necessarily be better or worse than the other candidates. Rather, the race will be decided by considering the expectations of society and who can minimize the DPP’s brand liabilities.
The DPP is standing at a historical crossroads: It will either slowly start to steer toward success, or it can continue its steep descent.
The next chairperson will more than ever symbolize the DPP’s desire to reform.
Liu Shun-ming has an MSc degree in Public Policy and Management from Carnegie Mellon University.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS