Last night’s debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris offers a clear example of political branding at work and how both candidates used their own, very stylised brand tactics rooted in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector.

Trump’s Shock Tactics:

Donald Trump's approach was typical Trump and very on message (for trump) which was to use shocking and controversial marketing. How else can we explain Trump’s claim that "in Springfield, they're eating the dogs... and the cats... they're eating the pets of the people that live there,"; a statement that was fact-checked and found to be false in real-time.

This sensationalism is reminiscent of PETA or Benneton, who frequently used graphic and provocative content to force public attention on animal rights issues or simply to get our attention. For the most part it worked because shocks stir emotions, Trump’s claims are designed to incite fear and outrage, particularly around immigration.

Like Trump, brands like Axe (Lynx) and GoDaddy have built their identity on shocking or controversial advertisements that (like Trump) alienate some audiences while deeply resonating with their target market. Trump’s political brand follows the same path—prioritising emotional impact over factual accuracy, with the intention of mobilising his core supporters.

While Trump’s claims will get immediate attention, they also risk his credibility with fact-checking and rebuttals. But does he care? Of course not – the jobs done as soon as the idea leaves his mouth. Brands using shock tactics will face criticism for misleading or offensive ads, but they also succeed in capturing attention and starting conversations. For Trump, this tactic is tried and trusted—engaging his loyal base at the potential expense of undecided voters.

Harris’s Trust and Credibility

In contrast, Kamala Harris’s strategy is grounded in building trust and credibility, like brands that sell quality and reliability.

She addressed her role in handling immigration and law enforcement saybing, "I’m the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organisations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings", positioning herself as the experienced prosecutor, highlighting her credibility on national security issues. By emphasising her qualifications and past successes, Harris’s brand is aiming herself as the stable, trustworthy and knowledgeable leader, much like brands that focus on credibility and proven expertise, such as Colgate, Volvo, Dove or Toyota. Her brand is about reassurance, telling voters that she has the experience to handle complex issues, aiming to build a sense of reliability and confidence.

Brand Harris pushes towards the centre ground that Trump likes to run away from. She distanced herself from extreme positions; “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.”

The Harris brand is about credibility, inclusivity, and long-term reliability. By clarifying her stance on gun ownership, Harris reassures voters that she is aligned with moderate, centrist views, expanding her appeal without alienating too much of her core Democratic base. Harris’s goal is to create a solid foundation of trust with moderate voters by presenting herself as a balanced leader with a clear plan for the future, designed to win over centrist voters while maintaining her progressive base.

Comparing Political Branding to Commercial Strategies

Much like in the world of FMCG, political candidates tailor their strategies to different audience segments. Trump’s shock-and-awe approach mirrors brands which push the boundaries of what is considered acceptable or tasteful in order to dominate the conversation. These brands, like Trump’s campaign, thrive on attention—even if it means risking controversy or backlash.

Harris, on the other hand emphasise trust, ethics, and consistency in their messaging. By positioning herself as a reliable and thoughtful candidate, Harris aims to build long-term credibility with voters who are looking for stability and pragmatic leadership. But does she have enough time for this to work?

Summary

The 2024 debate between Trump and Harris offers a masterclass in how political figures adopt FMCG marketing tactics to reach voters. Trump’s use of shocking claims aligns with brands that rely on controversy to spark engagement, while Harris’s credibility-based messaging echoes the strategies of trusted, long-standing brands.

Whether through shock tactics or trust-building, both candidates are shaping their political brands to resonate with distinct voter segments, much like FMCG brands craft their identities to appeal to different consumer markets. And they are very different markets.