Case Study 1 – Policy Branding of the Affordable Care Act 2009 – 2016
Branding can be a powerful tool in gaining the necessary support to pass legislation as well as
maintaining positive public opinion while the policy is in effect.
This case study analyses the effectiveness of the Democrat Party in the branding of the Affordable Care
Act in relation to Barberio’s principles of presidential policy branding
1
, and discusses the ways in which
the policy brand negatively impacted public support.
Branding of the Affordable Care Act
Naming a policy should be intentional and well thought out as it sets the tone of the bill and is indicative
of its perspective
2
. The Obama administration initially branded the policy as the ‘Affordable Care Act,’ an
insightful brand name that emphasized the benefits of the bill while steering the public away from the
animosity towards healthcare reform. The naming of the policy aligned well with Barberio’s principle that
the brand should appeal to universally desired values
3
. By attaching the policy to the value of fairness and
affordability, the administration was able to direct public focus towards the bills contents and reduce the
divisiveness of party lines. The advertising of the policy focused on “empowering patients
4
” and the
#I’mCovered
5
campaign attempted to give the underlying sense of insurance providing strength and a
less stressful life. As recommended by Barberio, this encouraged consumers to see benefits beyond the
immediate advantage of having health insurance. The ads showed real people and real benefits, which
people could relate to. They also attempted to brand the policy as the best option, a nonpartisan bill that
addresses the concerns of both parties, pooling the best ideas. This formulated the perception that the
opposition could not offer a better alternative policy
6
.
While the branding of the Affordable Care Act was well thought out and well aligned with Barberio’s
principles, the brand name was not announced until late 2009. By this point, the name Obamacare had
been circulating for 2 years, being used as a derogatory placeholder by republicans throughout the
election, and was now being used by media outlets
7
. The Affordable Care Act name struggled to compete
with this level of organic branding. The brand name, as well as the disastrous rollout of healthcare.gov
negatively influenced the brand value of the policy. Obama needed to rebrand the policy in order to sell it
