There were some interesting insights that we can gleen from the election, however, as marketers.

Marketing is some powerful stuff. Obama’s guys ran a really tight, well-disciplined campaign. His message seldom wavered – “CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN” – he kept it simple, hammering home his point in virtually everything he did. There were things that the McCain camp did that knocked Obama off-point from time to time (specifically Sarah Palin’s nomination and the Joe the Plumber dust-up) but every time, Obama was able to come back and get his campaign focused on his message. That’s huge. His constant leitmotif of CHANGE was, I think, instrumental in his success. 

Marketing also shows us that the more compelling, resonant, simple story beats a less-focused, tired one that is not well-articulated (ie: the John McCain “Maverick” mantra). We can also see that most people (especially those in the center) find it easier to vote FOR someone than AGAINST someone. The centerpiece of McCain’s message was “I’ll fight against what the other guys want to do, to do what’s right.” That essentially put McCain at odds with everybody. That also kept him talking about fighting rather than what he specifically wanted to do. Obama, by contrast, talked about where he wanted to go (vaguely) rather than spending all his time talking about how he would fight the status quo. 

Marketing, no matter how compelling the story, is an expensive proposition. Obama raised almost twice as much money as McCain – and spent it. No matter how good your story is, unless you can repeat it ad nauseum over the air, nobody will buy it. Obama proved that public financing for Presidential campaigns is a joke. And he used the medium better than any candidate did in recent memory. 

Marketing is much easier when you have the media on your side. Save for FoxNews, Obama had virtually every other major media outlet fawning all over him for the last two years. Ironically, McCain went from “the Only Republican The Left Respects and Likes” to “McBush the Third” in record time, making his job all the more difficult. The combination of Obama’s simpler, more compelling story and the media’s willingness to cut him all the slack he could get made it impossible for someone like McCain (who lacked a winning story to tell) to beat him. 

Marketing also tells us that your story has to resonate – no false notes allowed. Frankly, Obama’s inexperience and lack of a record helped – rather than hurt him. It left those on the right flailing. If it hadn’t been for Obama’s tendency to hang out with people of VERY questionable character (Wright, Ayers, Rezko, et all), McCain wouldn’t have had anything of substance to hit on. In contrast, Obama did a masterful job tarring McCain with the “Bush” brush. 

Lastly, think back to 2004. The Democrats were all but marginalized. The GOP had it all – control of the Presidency, both houses of Congress, the good will of the people. Fast forward four short years, and the GOP is in a blue funk, and the Democrats are once again ascendant. Why? Because the GOP forgot their story. The GOP was supposed to stand for smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, and honesty and openess in government. They lost their way. And when you no longer resemble your brand image, the people remember the story – and find you to be liars for not living up to it. If the Republicans want to take power again in the future, they’d best rethink their mistakes and come up with a way to tell a unique, resonant story – and then stick to it.

So there. In many ways, marketing was the key to Obama’s election – and McCain’s defeat. I think that says volumes about the power of marketing, and serves as a cautionary tale for all of us in the marketing biz. We should treat the powers that we wield with respect, for playing with marketing is a lot like playing with fire – without a healthy respect for that power, somebody’s gonna get burned.

Who knew these guys had a sense of humor?

Looking at this from a marketing perspective, this evening was a fascinating look at how one or two events or public appearances can radically remake perceptions of a brand – in this case two candidates. 

Of the two of them, McCain seemed to get the bigger yuks, and looked like an experienced roaster, while Obama looked a little more like what he is – a freshman senator, unused to the rigors of the rubber chicken circuit. However, they both got in some good lines, and neither of them hurt themselves or their campaigns. 

I don’t know if it’s that expectations for McCain were low (and therefore all he had to do was get a couple of laughs to aquit himself) or if he’s genuinely got a gift for it. Hard to tell that night, as both candidates obviously hired some crack joke writers and speechwriters to put their act together. 

McCain’s stuff was more topical, more on-target, more acerbic, and frankly, delivered better. Obama’s timing seemed a little off, and he seemed a little uncomfortable up there, even though the crowd was filled with New York Democrats, largely friendly to him. 

McCain skewered Obama, Biden, Hillary, Bill, MSNBC, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, the mainstream media, and himself. His routine was masterful – he even setup Obama at the end, poking fun at the expectations for his speech. 

With that setup, Obama didn’t have a prayer, unless he could be Abbott, Costello, George Carlin, and Bob Hope rolled into one. 

He swung for the outfield, but at best got a single. 

I was genuinely surprised, as I figured that Obama would clean McCain’s clock. It was really the other way around. Still, I could rationalize this by giving McCain’s writers a lot of credit. 

Then McCain went on Letterman and stood up to Dave, giving every bit as good as he got. In that format, he had to rely on wit and spontaneity. He did. And he did well. 

So how can we apply these lessons to marketing? Well, first of all, this is a sterling example of how a single event (or in McCain’s case, two events) can cause people to rethink what they “know” about a brand. It’s also a reminder that every event or interaction with the public is an opportunity for the public to reinforce – or rethink their perceptions. 

Have a brand problem? Take heart – one well-timed event can swing perceptions in your favor. But you need a forum that will play to your strengths, and help you sway perceptions. 

It remains to be seen if these events will change any votes. Frankly, nobody will ever know if the charity roast, the “Joe the Plumber” flap, or the debates have swung enough votes to change the outcome of the race. But if you’re in marketing, every event should be an opportunity that your brand can use to gain an advantage.

Early on, McCain latched onto the “Maverick” brand as his own. He doggedly trotted out his willingness to go against his own party, and be his own man. This consistency helped, but it was never the home run he was hoping for. Lately, he’s gone with “Country First” – a not-so-subtle jab at Barack “Citizen of the World” Obama.

The latest change is from the Obama camp. They were pretty consistent in the era that was BP (Before Palin). Once Hurricane Sarah hit the national stage, The Obama-ites hit the panic button, big time. For months, they’d used “Change You can Believe In” as a cudgel against Her Inevitableness, Hillary Clinton. And it worked – as Hillary thrashed about from theme to theme – “Experience!” “Change!” “Experience!,” “Change!” – nothing resonated, and as a result, nothing worked. Obama became the Agent of CHANGE. Problem was, while La Hillary’s “experience” message didn’t work, it wasn’t because of HIS inexperience, but HERS. She touted her White House experience as First Lady as somehow grooming her for the Presidency, and people didn’t buy it. Obama did – and does – have one huge chink in his armor, that being his own lack of experience – and substance. Even with a couple of legislative years under his belt in Illinois and two years in D.C., he’s essentially accomplished nothing more than have two ghost-written books published under his name. He’s voted “present” (in other words, unable to make a decision) a shocking 44% of the time. Obama never met an issue (other than the war) on which he’s afraid to express his indecision.

Enter Sarah Palin.

Before Palin vaulted onto the scene, McCain was not exactly setting the world on fire. He was the “least objectionable choice” or the “lesser of two evils” for most conservatives. He was the closest thing to voting “None of the Above.” And, surprise, suprise, with Obama lacking in credibility, The Anointed One’s been unable to seal the deal with the American Public. The polls revealed an election closer than anyone would have predicted – or imagined. Then in one masterstroke, McCain reframed the election from “Obama: For or Against” to “Obama versus McCain.”

After a week of Presidential Candidate Obama attacking Veep Candidate Palin, he’s changed his tune – and his theme. Out goes “Change You Can Believe In.” In comes “Change You Need.”

Sounds a bit desperate, on the order of “Hey, American Public! Yeah, over here! Remember us? The ‘Change’ guys? Pay no attention to that Palin woman…she’s just a flash in the pan. What you really want is CHANGE. What? McCain says he’s for change…and actually has a track record backing that up? Palin too? Wait…that’s the wrong KIND of change! McCain/Palin is bad change. Ours is good change. That’s it! ‘Obama…the Change You NEED.’ Brilliant!”

Palin has injected something into this race that had been lacking on the GOP side – excitement manifesting itself as real enthusiasm for the ticket. Recent polls suggest that not only is McCain maintaining his convention bounce, but the swing toward the GOP is starting to affect the down-ticket races. A leading indicator of her “game-changer” status is the burgeoning number of sites selling Palin merchandise. (I should know, I’ve been commissioned to create as much Palin merch as I can think up.) And I’m not alone. The ‘net has a case of Palinmaina, and it looks as if SHE is the cure for Obamania that McCain alone never was. So what’s an empty suit like Obama to do?

When a candidate suddenly changes his slogan like that, you can bet it is not because he’s tired of the old one. No, this is indicative of a Bold Move, designed to shake things up, and maybe give him back the momentum he’s lost. Unfortunately for Obama, I don’t think it’s gonna work. Eventually, you have to start talking about what your definition of “change” really is. Smoke and mirrors (or fireworks and Styrofoam columns) only get you so far. Because of Obama’s refusal to debate McCain in a town hall format, we’ll only get three debates this time around – two with Obama/McCain, and one between Palin and Biden. That may work well for Obama to maintain his refusal to be nailed down to specifics, but if substance is as important as style (hint: it is), Barack better hope McCain falls flat on debate night, and Palin does the same.

So what does this mean for your marketing? Slogans are like horses – find a winner, and ride it as long as you can. Change mounts when the old horse won’t get you to the finish line ahead of the competition. But be aware that if you change mounts too often, you lose momentum – as well as the audience that’s betting on you. So pick a winner and stay with it. That’s my slogan du jour, and I’m stickin’ to it.

Obama is the “New!” “Fresh!” “Improved!” candiate.

McCain is the candidate for those who value “Different,” “Independent,” and “Maverick.”

Hillary was the “Traditional” candidate, with “Liberal” and “Progressive” values.

Only it’s all a lie. A big fat marketing lie.

Obama comes out of the political machine of Chicago. Chicago politics and corruption go together like mac ‘n cheese, salt and pepper, or Abbot and Costello. If you can get past the media’s love fest, you can start to see that he’s made some really bad choices in associates and friends (Tony Rezko, Reverend Wright, etc.). He talks a good game, but he’s at his worst when pinned down to talk specifics. There’s nothing ‘new,’ ‘fresh’ or ‘improved’ about socialism, which is what Obama’s pushing.

McCain is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He’s (at best) a moderate. At worst, he’s a compromiser in situations where compromise is NOT a good idea – say, for instance, on torpedoing the only chance the then-Republican majority had in the Senate to force that body to take an up-or-down vote on Bush’s federal judicial nominees. You say “independent,” I say “unpredictable.” You say “maverick,” I say “loose cannon.”

Hillary’s marketing was the worst. She tried to be the “experience” candidate, when her only real experience was in being First Lady. Then she padded her resume, got caught, denied everything, and finally admitted to her sins. You might agree with her politically, but you can’t really trust her. Obama’s “change” mantra played well, especially as it allowed him the luxury of being a bit vague on the details. “Experience” is something that begs specificity.

The rest of Campaign ’08 will depend on how the two candidates market themselves. Can Obama keep his “change” message resonating with the people, once he has to explain exactly what “change” he’s talking about? Can McCain talk the conservative wing of the party into backing him, if for no better reason out of fear of a President Obama. We’ll see. My guess is that the narrative each candidate tells will have to have some kind of resonance with reality, or that guy will be the big loser in November.