US election 2016: Product vs Politician

There's less than a week to go until Election Day and the world waits in anticipation to find out who will be the new leader of the free world. Will it be the publicly misogynistic, xenophobic, millionaire Donald Trump who has zero political experience? Or will it be Hillary Clinton with her political pedigree, secrecy issues, and wrangles with the FBI?

This election is not just gripping for its drama and controversy. As a marketer I have been following it with professional fascination. Two singular candidates, with divergent media and brand strategies, are battling for the same campaign goal. Their tactics clash as much as their beliefs, policies, and personalities. Only days remain until the result. The slight margin separating the presidential hopefuls in the polls flabbergasts the political establishment. At the time of writing, Clinton holds only a one point lead.

Trump has rewritten the campaign rule book, regardless of whether he wins. He has already triumphed in the constant battle for public attention. His campaign has identified its audience and relentlessly tells them what they want to hear—classic product-marketing strategy.

He positions himself as the solution to their problems, and preaches the benefits (if you can call them that) of a Trump administration rather than its features. In this telling, a winning product is one that enjoys its seller's fanatical belief in it. This should be easy for Trump—the product is himself. His ability to offend others without angst or embarrassment, coupled with his bluster and self-assurance, ensures he makes a splash in the mass media. Disenchanted Americans love it. He is the change candidate, the middle finger to the suits at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and a weapon for the powerless. But, like a Samsung Note 7, this product has a manufacturing defect. Republican leaders have been trying to recall him since the primaries.

Trump's campaign uses marketing tactics from the business world. Political marketing focuses on proving integrity, strength of character and shared humanity. Trump has turned this upside-down, left and right, and spun it on its head. Received wisdom suggests the future of political campaigning lies in big data and grassroots activism. But Trump's bid for the White House reveals a lot about mass media's enduring power in PR and marketing terms. Trump won the Republican primary and has almost drawn level with Clinton despite spending less on advertising, ignoring election procedures and disregarding the rules of the political game.

Clinton's campaign is a stark contrast to that of Trump. She's had time to rehearse, as this is her second attempt at the most important job in the world. Clinton is in it to win it and isn't letting anything get in her way. The Clinton campaign is a well-oiled marketing machine, headed by some of the best digital thinkers in America. Her creative team is 500 strong, 150 of them dedicated to digital content and an analytics team of 70. This resource ratio is a model all agencies should note. It's been shaped by some of the industry's elite. It illustrates the chasm between Trump's ad hoc approach and the detail-specific, data-driven communications from Clinton. Both reflect the personalities of the candidates that they serve.

Clinton has a political past, a tarnished reputation, and the baggage of her husband's mistakes. Hillary can't just stand up and spout political nonsense and racist rhetoric to make the evening news. It would be political suicide. The Trump campaign seems to get away with it. They break the rules and throw punches left and right (and at female reporters) which resulted in Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski being arrested and charged for battery. Hillary however, can't miss a step getting into the back of a car without there being an outcry.

Her campaign has to focus on changing public perception, communicating policies and demonstrating competence as well as combating the trickery that Donald Trump practices in his speeches. Her campaign has done this by using words such as 'calm' and 'together'. They use soft images, along with primary and pastel colours in campaign collateral and by hosting a live fact checking service to the public on Hilliaryclinton.com.

When you look closer at the campaigns of each of the presidential hopefuls it's difficult to determine any clear strategy. The world of politics changes as often as the daily news cycle. What is interesting is the comparable variances in advertising spend from each campaign. According to opensecrets.org, Trump's campaign budget pales beside Clinton's. In January to August the Trump campaign raised $168.2m (￡129.6m) compared to Clinton's $516.6m (￡398m). The US Federal Election Commission shows Trump's campaign spent only $5.3m (￡4.1) on paid media in August while the Clinton campaign spent around $33m (￡25m). The spend from both campaigns falls far below the advertising dollars spent in previous presidential elections. Social media and a focus on owned media channels have helped to reduce costs.

This shift to earned and owned channels reflects the broader trends in marketing and advertising across the globe. In 2008 and 2012 campaigns would respond to statements by writing to the press or by taking out a full-page ad. Now, senior aides can tweet from their phones as an official campaign response. Digital advances have armed political campaigns with information inaccessible through standard polling. For example, Clinton's digital team identified that some groups, particularly African-Americans, didn't know the election date. Within hours, her creative teams capitalised on this data by producing a video of young people shouting the date. That same day, social media users shared the video millions of times.

Trump is particularly good a maintaining his straight-talker persona. His unscripted and on-the-fly approach exudes authenticity and truth. He has almost bluffed a nation into believing nonsense by being confident in his delivery. Trump's mastery of the newsfeed has created a straight-talking antithesis to the polished politician—something the Clinton campaign has struggled with from day one.

Fewer than 5% of Hillary's tweets are from mobile devices with 64% being from Tweetdeck. This suggests that a staffer is sending her social posts rather than Clinton herself. She struggles to connect directly with people, something her husband was particularly good at. In contrast, Trump tweets personally from his Android phone and his campaign tweets come from an iPhone. Fifty-six percent of his tweets come from his personal Android device. His followers know he is in control of the tweet button, and anything could be posted at any time. This sense of 'what will he say next' is something Trump uses to his advantage and it has the media hooked. Taking note of this, the Clinton campaign catapulted their social engagement with the 'Delete your account' tweet. It has been the single most-engaged post of either's campaign to date with over 1.1m interactions. No well-produced videos or policy talk, just raw, unfiltered content takes home the prize.

The Clinton campaign machine compensates for her lack of personality. The challenge is to make 'Hillary the brand' seem like 'Hillary the human'. Her campaign maintains boards on Pinterest such as granddaughter gift ideas, hairstyle inspiration and favourite moments. Her Instagram account features storytelling and nostalgia, sharing photos of her past - and occasional shots of her pantsuits.

There are many insights and takeaways from this extraordinary election. The campaigns contrast in every possible way. As it stands, both have been successful in their objectives to date. All eyes are on America, with only one point between the world and a Trump presidency. Who will win? Inexperience or sophistication? Paid media or owned media? Product or politician?

Article images courtesy of: @hillaryclinton & @donaldtrump