ONE. Understand that your core product (in the case of politics, policy) is often of secondary importance to the context you create around it (think tone, narrative, heritage, storytelling, experiences, people). In other words, politics is the best example of the significance of the fuzzy middle ground that exists between the two classic marketing Ps of product and promotion. Politics is dominated by the emotional, the hard-to-quantify, the 'x-factor'.

TWO. Learn that how you frame the debate in your space can help you win the argument. So never start a fight you can't win. Instead, find the fight you can win and make that the issue.

THREE. Recognize the value of message discipline, and the danger of going (even slightly) off message for a short-term publicity sugar hit. Know, with absolutely certainty, that there is (almost) NEVER a good reason to do the wrong thing, to corrupt or clutter your message, to lose track of your narrative, or to abandon your position in the debate.

FOUR. Know that the most powerful brands live in the hearts and minds of people. Know that strong brands have an incredible strength at their core which allows them to come to life and be reinterpreted in the hands of others. Brands like this create movements around them which in turn build their own momentum, becoming at times almost unbeatable.
Looking at John McCain’s campaign, marketers can also learn a powerful fifth lesson. This time about the dangers of going negative.

Of all the mistakes the McCain campaign made over the past months, one thing for me stood out above all else. The failure to hold onto his narrative, his angle, his frame for the debate. First occasionally, and then completely, with the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
The McCain brand had always been about doing the right thing, not the right-wing partisan thing. McCain has always been a patriot first and a politician second. He has reached out to his Democrat opponents and made them allies whenever his personal agenda has called for it. But, by picking Palin, a woman whose politics and personal manner seemed a terrible fit with the McCain of old, John McCain went negative and cynical.

McCain demonstrated that he was willing to take massive risks with the future of the United States (by putting someone like Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the White House) if it would just mobilize enough Christian Conservative votes to get him elected. He put his party and party unity first and his country second. The complete reverse of what he has always stood for. He corrupted his narrative and broke his brand. He became the heir to Bush, not the antidote.

So, in short, Obama understood that politics was about more than just rational argument, it was about emotional connection. He energized and activated legions of supporters, creating perhaps the largest grass-roots movement in the history of American politics. He built his brand from the inside-out, and remained absolutely disciplined in his behavior, never allowing the veneer of his brand to crack.

McCain, in contrast, lacked a story to anchor him, went negative by picking Sarah Palin, and ended up campaigning in territory in which he lacked credibility. Combined with his, at times, erratic behavior, his lack of a compelling and authentic narrative ruined him.

Obama made and delivered a consistent and aspirational promise. McCain’s promises waivered and his behavior rarely lived up to them. It was a no-contest by the end, and a great lesson for any marketer.

-- post written by Matt Jones