Forget The Campaign, The Show must go on

Without delving into politics, this election cycle offers brands a wealth of insights. It would take too much of your time—and probably mine—to unpack everything in a single piece. So, I want to focus on one takeaway that stands out, especially as I'm in the process of handing off a brand strategy to a roster of agencies. These agencies will turn the strategy into a robust Customer Experience Program, yet they're struggling to understand why I insist that campaigns are relics of the past. I get it—campaigns have long been the backbone of the marcom industry. Large budgets and high-stakes productions were once the norm, but norms don't apply anymore.

This week showed us that campaigns no longer deliver the expected results in today's complex media landscape, where consumer-generated content is overwhelming and uncontrollable. Thinking in terms of traditional campaigns has become unrealistic.        

For those younger than me—likely most of my readers—let me start by explaining why the entire marketing industry is built around a "campaign" supply chain model. Back in the day, when most marketing was done through mainstream media, we started, as politicians do today, by crafting the messaging, developing assets, and creating a media plan.

A campaign was a defined period with a single goal or metric. Once we had the strategy and creative, we'd analyze the target audience and decide which sitcom, news program, or live game to air a carefully crafted 60-second commercial supported by placements in three national magazines. For geo-targeted audiences, we'd add local assets like strategically placed billboards in high-density markets. That was a campaign.

The past few months and the outcome we just witnessed prove my point: campaigns are becoming obsolete in politics and marketing.         

Let's break down what happened: two competitors aimed to capture the hearts and minds of the American people—a target audience as diverse as it is vast. One executed a flawless campaign; the other focused on running its "show" with consistent brand precision, as it has for over a decade. While the campaign tried to appeal to a broad demographic, the "show" stayed true to its target audience.

You might think "show" refers to showmanship, but I'm not judging either candidate. Instead, I'm using this example to explain why brands today cannot be built through campaigns. Campaigns are only as powerful as the budget and tactical resources behind them, making them inherently limited.

Shows, by contrast, are brand sequences of memorable moments—delivered as frequently as possible to create impact. The key word in this sequence is memorability and how they continuously build episodes of the foundational story.

While conventions, like campaigns, might try to create this impact, their momentum fades quickly in a 24/7 news cycle. They're fleeting, grandiose tactics overshadowed by the next trending story. Smaller, more frequent, and drama-filled moments create a rhythm that keeps the audience engaged. During his tenure on The Apprentice, our next president likely began to master the art of ratings, measured episode by episode. He learned to build his version of a franchise, a long-running show as enduring as Law & Order, now in its 28th season.

No brand can succeed today without shifting from a flawless campaign mindset to the "longest-running show" approach. This shift acknowledges the most critical change in marketing: we are now at the intersection of persuasion and entertainment.        

That's the difference between building a long, sustainable franchise—where characters or MVPs shape the brand but don't define it—and relying on a single-shot campaign every four years.

This lesson applies to brands in politics, sports, entertainment, technology, and beyond. Campaigns are like affairs—exciting but often ineffective for building loyalty and unsustainable for creating lasting desire.