There's no debate about presidential candidates amounting to "brands". A brand is a compilation of attributes. A brand is a promise to deliver an experience. Barack Obama captured the imagination of Democrats based on his novelty, his media-genic charisma and his considerable ability to articulate their yearning for change.
John McCain? In the 2000 primaries, his maverick style was at first an asset. It became a liability. In 2008, that same streak of independence and instinct to veer away from ideology paved the way for his nomination. His rivals carried baggage that he did not. As a "product" he was relatively free of the attributes that appealed mainly to niche markets (Evangelicals, etc.). He won the contest for marketshare because he was more of a mainstream product that appealed to the most "buyers".
To win in November, when the McCain brand goes to market nationally, this appeal will succeed or fail based on its power to cast McCain as the safest and surest choice to right the economy and ensure national security. The successful brand makes the most compelling case for its "promise".
In fact, both candidates represent dramatic change in substance and style compared to that of the past eight years. The battle will be fought over how well Obama convinces the electorate that only his brand of change is genuine. He must turn McCain into the incumbent. McCain must convince the same electorate that only a McCain White House promises change that's in the best interest of the economy and national security. To appeal to the undecided marketplace of voters who will decide the election will not be an easy task for either brand as they roll out their value propositions.
Comment Preview