( CNN ) -- There is n't just one Republican national convention that started on Tuesday ; there are four of them going on . There 's the convention for the base , which is why Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz were up there , and why the day was suffused with religion . Then there 's the convention for the undecided -- or as they are called now , the persuadables . Anne Romney and Chris Christie were the headliners for this bunch . Mrs. Romney 's role was to be the humanizer-in-chief , and the governor 's role was to bring his blunt charm to independents looking for a lack of posturing and pandering . As the week progresses , other speakers will be carefully chosen for their ability to get fence-sitters to climb in their direction . Of course , there 's also the convention for the media , which in many ways might be the most important audience of all . There are 15,000 journalists in Tampa -- Jeff Jarvis accused them of squandering `` ego-dollars . '' Since their coverage will influence a lot more people than actually saw the proceedings , their lens becomes the national lens . Lastly , there 's the convention for everyone else . That 's most of America , but most of the country does n't really care that much , which is why `` America 's Got Talent '' on NBC pulled in more than 4 million-plus viewers than their convention coverage managed to scrape together . Those are a lot of masters to serve , which is why the first night of the convention came across as such a fragmented affair . There were strands of a narrative -- end the culture of dependency , do n't let us turn into Europe , Republican policies help immigrants succeed , you can trust Mitt -- but the strands were stranded , lacking a big cohering theme . What Peggy Noonan said about Anne Romney 's speech actually describes the entire evening , that it was `` scattered , full of declarations ... that were n't built upon but abandoned . '' There were a few moments of strong Republican branding last night ; I thought the best single line came from Chris Christie , when he said `` I believe we have become paralyzed by our desire to be loved . '' In the era of counting Facebook friends and Twitter follows , that 's a message that cuts across parties and that speaks to everyone who in their heart knows and understands the risks of striving for popularity . It 's also a smart way to turn President Barack Obama 's superior likeability numbers against him , although it 's doubtful that Mitt Romney 's lower numbers are based on his willingness to trade off short-term favorability ratings for unpopular stances . Chris Christie is building his own political brand around a persona of strident rejection of the seductions of being an object of political eroticism ( he is the anti-Clinton in that regard . ) But the trouble for the Republicans is that the counterpoint to the `` desire to be loved '' -- what Christie described as `` strengths greater than the passions and emotions of the times '' -- is exactly what many find lacking in his candidate . If political parties are essentially brands -- and they are -- then contemporary political conventions should be occasions when those brands are both strengthened and nuanced . But they rarely are -- the `` bump '' is notoriously ephemeral . There 's a reason for that . Successful brands -- those that are both enduring and changing below the surface -- have a strong hand at the controls . Not dozens of self-interested brand managers which their own constituencies , which is the way politics operates . Great brands -- Apple , Nike , Starbucks , Virgin , you name it -- are not created and managed by committees . But that is exactly and literally what the parties are : The Republican National Committee ; The Democratic National Committee . The flaws of `` design by committee '' are so well-known that they even have their own Wikipedia page . Parties out of office , by definition , find it harder to create and project a unified , focused brand identity . The lack of a leader , an ability to hand out plum jobs , bitter infighting and posturing for the next election , are all brand-destructive . The 2008 Democratic Party , despite a bitter primary battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton , was an exception . Their titanic battle was one of personality more than a debate on the issues , so the core of the party was n't riven by the fractiousness that comes from being out of power . Obama 's singularity and aura of personal mission projected a massively powerful Democratic brand ; in fact , it 's the emotional investment in the Obama brand that the Republicans are now trying to turn against the president . It 's a potent weapon ; disillusionment stings . It was n't the Democratic Party that won in 2008 , it was Obama . The personal brand was more potent than the party 's . Now we face the reverse . In 2012 , the Republicans lack a commanding personal brand at the top of the ticket , and it remains to be seen if their political brand is strong enough to overcome that absence . There 's nothing I 've seen , from the brand theater of Tampa -- including an inability to cut to anything but older white faces in the crowd -- that looks all that encouraging . There are too many brand managers in the party , and at the party . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Adam Hanft .
Adam says : These are four political conventions in one , playing to different people . He says the party is aiming at the base , undecideds , the poor and everyone else . He says it has fragmented message with too many masters . Adam : Can we win anyway ? So far it does n't look good .