The Trump brand is the newest casualty of the 2016 election -its destruction will be as dizzying to watch as the Donald’s political ascent has been. As shin, fake and tarnished as its namesake, the brand has heretofore held some commercial value, even if the products it represents have long since lost their lustre. Many were made with outsourced labor and materials; others were revealed to be at best fake and at worst a cynical attempt to defraud hard-working people attracted to his self-created image like magpies to a shiny, worthless trinket.
Estimates of his brand’s declining value vary according to how they are calculated and to what experts in the field agree is most likely. In a net worth filing in 2015, Trump himself estimated it at $3.2 billion in real estate licensing deals, brand and branded developments. Using Brand Finance's annual list of the most valuable corporate brands, Trump's estimate would rank him No. 486 out of 500, according to CNBC. ww.cnbc.com/2016/07/20/whats-in-a-name-for-trump-it-could-be-33-billion.html . By contrast, Apple’s brand is valued at $146 billion.
With the exception of Steve Jobs ,few other individuals have been as linked in the public mind with the products they put their name behind as Donald Trump, except perhaps for Hugh Hefner, whose hedonistic lifestyle attracted almost as much attention as Trump’s. Trump’s, Hef’s brand was aspirational for a generation of men who saw his success with women and his sophisticated, risque persona as within their reach, if not their grasp. There were and are key differences between Hefner and Trump; while the former objectified women, the latter subjectified them, as anyone who’s watched Trump single out certain women and attack them personally, cruelly and unremittingly will concur. Another is that Hefner appears to admire and respect women; he has supported their goals as a fair and generous employer. And the value of Hef’s brand has outlasted all the social and cultural upheavals and revolutions of over the last 50 years; licensing the Playboy bunny remains more profitable than anything the Donald has put his name to except perhaps his assorted real estate properties – but then, since his is a privately held company and he still won’t release his tax records, we’ll never know, will we? In any case, recent reports about rebellious tenants in luxury buildings who want Trump’s name taken off theirs (New York Times) and cancelled reservations at many of his properties (Washington Post) have indicated that what gold is left in his brand has been significantly tarnished by his presidential campaign.
It will be fascinating to watch how and whether, going forward, Trump’s branding efforts attempt to monetize his political supporters, who appear to be a different core constituency than the glitzerati who once aspired to the lifestyle he symbolized. Though the brand is already devalued, there is still money to be made out of this campaign. Trump’s advisors’ books may already be under contract. (How high will the auction go for the one by Kelly I’m-With-Him-To-The-End-Unless …?) His ads, his flacks and his spinners may be getting rich (although it’s almost inevitable that he stiffs them, too) not to mention the TV networks (like CBS, whose president admitted that although the circus of the election has been bad for the country, it’s been great for ratings)) but when Trump talks about how much this campaign has personally cost him (another fluctuating, undocumented figure), he hasn’t even begun to calculate the bottom line loss to his brand