Thanks Dan! You make a number of good points that other marketers will find useful.

1) She was positioned as a filler for “Ted Kennedy’s seat.” Hence the national endorsements and the heavy emphasis early on for national programs. The problem with this positioning is that any warm body can fill a seat… just as any of your competitors can probably serve your customer. Undifferentiated product lose.

2) He was positioned as running for “the people’s seat.” This overtly populist position played very well against the acrimonious debate in Congress on HC. Good positioning wins in business too.

3) He carried through the brand promise implied by the positioning. He drove his truck, as you said. He also beat her 3-to-1 on Twitter and Facebook. A candidate of the people and for the people needs to demonstrate he listens to the people… in the venues they want to communicate. This is also true in business. As you say, companies need to listen hard for feedback, both good and bad… and they need to listen where the customers are talking, not where it’s convenient.

4) Her campaign went sharply negative. Everyone knows negative advertising comes from weakness. McDonalds never mentioned BK; Coke never mentioned Pepsi. If you are in the lead, negative ads give the impression that you’re not. They may energize your already-supporters, but they leave undecideds with a view that, if you’re so threatened, perhaps they should check the competition. Against the backdrop of the positioning, above, this was a poor choice.

5) He took the high road in responding to the negative ads. The high road comes from strength and only reinforces that perception. Companies need to respond to direct challenges and they certainly need to correct misinformation. However, the response will be tied into the brand image. A strong brand makes a strong response, without feeling the need to respond in kind.