The results are in, Donald Trump will be the 47th President of the United States. 

Regardless of if this is a result you wanted or expected, there’s no denying that in the past few months the battle for the presidency has provided some unforgettable marketing moments. 

News outlets have reported that in the week running up to the election alone close to $1BN dollars was spent on political advertising. While both candidates maintain a strong presence in traditional media, it's clear that the campaign trail is diversifying and candidates are looking for new techniques to connect with audiences.

Particularly noteworthy was both candidates capitalising on the pulling power of podcasts. Trump’s appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast amassed 47 million views on YouTube alone, while Harris utilised the format to try to reach women appearing on Alex Cooper’s Call Her Daddy.

On X, Kamala embraced a Charli XCX endorsement hopping on the trend of brat summer with a ‘Kamala is brat’ banner. While Trump cosied up with X owner, Elon Musk. Despite being out of favour in Congress and banned on most government-owned devices, TikTok played a huge role for both candidates in connecting with Gen Z as social media continued to prove a crucial tool to connect with voters.

Celebrity and endorsement remained a staple with Hulk Hogan ripping open his vest while screaming ‘Let Trumpmania run wild’ at the Madison Square Garden rally and Kamala Harris’ appearing on SNL in a sketch opposite Maya Rudolph.

While there is no doubt the election result is about far more than marketing, it is nonetheless worthwhile to consider the tactics and tools put to the test in the race. With this in mind as the dust settles, we ask industry experts what marketing lessons can we learn from Trump vs. Kamala?

One of the main things we should take from these campaigns is to focus on your strengths, not your competitors weaknesses. Kamala Harris’s campaign started with so much promise; the announcement that she was going to run for president really resonated with people. It built her emotional appeal because she was leading with themes of opportunity, hope and inclusivity. But, when she presented Trump as a dictator and started talking about the impact of 2025, it damaged people’s perception of her as an aspirational, forward-thinking leader; it tarnished her positive messaging with negativity and darkness.

The ‘attack’ strategy didn’t work well for Trump either. He’s not a politician in the traditional sense and this is his unique advantage. As soon as he painted Harris as a radical leftist, calling out her policies around gun confiscation and immigration, he became ‘just another politician’. It damaged his point of difference. For marketers, the main lesson should be to cautious about strategies which focus on attacking your competitors and, of course, to test that your messaging will land before you use it. 

From a purely marketing perspective, this outcome seems to suggest that, for the average American, practical concerns like gas and grocery prices are high on voters' agenda. Let's face it, the economic climate in the U.S appears to have been a significant influence on this result.

I think the first lesson is: don’t assume everyday voters are highly engaged with the nuances of political leadership. In reality it would appear many voters aren’t as attentive or interested in the specifics of the candidates and more focussed on immediate, personal concerns, such as managing household expenses.

The second lesson is to know your audience. The Republicans’ approach to segmentation and messaging appears to have been particularly effective, with a strong grasp of voters' concerns—often tapping into their fears.

The Republicans also got the basics right. Their messaging has been both consistent and memorable, centred around the long-standing slogan, “Make America Great Again,” and a high-profile celebrity in Trump. Their campaign assets are bold, clear, and instantly recognisable. The addition of the question: “Were you better off four years ago?” provided a compelling and emotional closing message. Together, these elements formed the foundation of a highly effective brand campaign.

In contrast, the Democrats campaign seemed to lack cohesion. Biden’s late withdrawal really didn’t give Harris time to get organised. That showed, with no clear, unifying message, less appreciation of audience concerns, and a noticeable absence of emotional resonance. Voters were left with little sense of Harris’s personality. Or product. She had so many ‘good vibes’ but didn’t have the one liner that could blow away Trump. Without this or distinctive brand elements and with poor alignment to the economic concerns of voters, their approach fell short—even with significantly higher media spend.  

This year’s US presidential election offers marketers a crucial learning opportunity. With social platforms setting the pace, both parties deployed distinct strategies to connect with their audiences, showcasing the different ways to approach community engagement and cultural relevance.

Trump’s camp relied on creating spaces for its supporters to connect in unfiltered discussion. His social strategy involved keeping the right leaning communities and socially disenfranchised engaged, not amplifying every wider message. For marketers, these online communities have the power to drive growth for an idea or cause and increase loyalty in self-sufficient spaces built on the concept of shared interests and values. The approach isn’t about virality or mass awareness. But following the result, we clearly saw that the community did feed its own cycles and contributed towards amplification beyond these spaces. On platforms such as Meta, where there is the potential for more general access, we saw Republicans engage in behaviour that is intended to activate their more extreme followers with far-reaching community networks. When it comes to outward-facing promotion, Trump’s team lent into mainstream media outlets like Joe Rogan with mass Republican, and what some may term “everyman” appeal, with JD Vance also heading on to Rogan’s podcast.

On the other side, Harris’ campaign exemplifies the importance of cultural resonance. Her strategy embraced trends like “Brat Summer” and appearing on platforms like Call Her Daddy, shows how tapping into popular culture and adapting to audience interests can make a brand—or a political figure—feel genuinely integrated into people’s lives. For marketers, this is the creator and community economy in action: meet your audience where they are and give them culturally-relevant content they’ll enjoy.

But what’s clearer coming out of the other side of this election is that these approaches represent the current state of social media and its power: the positive, highly considered, and culture-driven magic that brings us joy, and the infectious prolificacy of dark social as well as the more extremist community spaces that mirror the private and potentially darker parts of humanity. Platform campaigns have the power to shift perceptions, creating a form of social vibecession that is far more powerful than perceived. And in the face of governments and politically motivated groups leveraging social media for its significant influence, we know that this space needs much tighter regulation and monitoring and are calling for brands to get behind that cause. 

I can admit this was not the result I was hoping for, but after Donald Trump’s win, you can’t fault his ability to resonate with his base. While he hasn't done this with an overly complicated or hugely involved economic programme; he has made his audience feel that he will have a huge impact on their standard of living and stokes their fain in the American Dream mindset. And interestingly, he steered clear of all the traditional media outlets, ensuring his rhetoric wasn’t questioned or probed. It gave him the opportunity to deliver the exact messaging he wanted without distraction. Something brands can learn a lot about.

On the other hand, Kamala Harris did an amazing job – leaning into the channels she knew her potential voters were tuning into. Jumping on the ‘brat’ trend, showing up on a non-traditional but hugely young-skewed podcast like Call Her Daddy or her SNL appearance with Maya Rudolph – they all allowed her to break through a stereotype of modern politics, lean into humour, and come across as authentic. In the light of Trump's win, it may seem like her marketing strategy didn't work, but it's important to recognise that she did what most candidates have a year to deliver on, in less than four months!

The main lessons from the recent US election are that they provide further examples and evidence of what good marketers already know about what makes communications effective.

They focused on emotional narratives related to what matters to people and care about that felt tangible and specific to their immediate desires, such as the money in their pocket and immediate job prospects.

Trump was especially effective in this. Much of his rhetoric was centred around how people felt their finances were now, compared with when he was last President. Harris, by contrast, wasted energy talking about things that—whilst matter to the world—have less salience and relevance to the mainstream, such as human rights and the environment.

The campaigns emphasised the unique characteristics of the two candidates. Trump, in particular, created a compelling narrative that he, as the strong leader, was the only one capable of navigating the US into a more prosperous future, then made his policies the proof of such, e.g. America First – communicated as a big picture point, not details.

And the campaigns demonstrated that having a strong, consistent central narrative that played out across different and sometimes unexpected ways across media is more effective than going all in on one media.

The two campaigns offered an interesting perspective into the language of leadership, and, ultimately, what type of rhetoric resonates with undecided and hard-to-reach voters. As marketers, we can see how the language we use not only affects how we view and talk about brands when it comes to brand stature, but also who we think should be leading those brands – in this case, the brand USA.

This is a concrete example of why we need to change this, and how the language we use impacts decision-making and, ultimately, women’s lives. Democrats tried to challenge the perception there is only one effective leadership style, but their strategy failed to attract the votes of the elusive undecided voters they so crucially needed. At the same time, Trump’s campaign powered on with its aggressive undertones, undermining Harris’ ability to lead through commentary about her person instead of skills and policies, and the use of words such as ‘demonic’ and ‘vessel’.

This is a wake-up call. To drive societal change, we urgently need to acknowledge and change our perception of what leaders should look like, and how we expect them to talk, and that’s something we can only do from the inside out, starting with the organisations we work with. As we’ve seen here, the failure to do so can put women’s health, independence and career progression at risk for years to come.