Trump vs. Clinton: Industry execs sound off on the third and final presidential debate

Below, find out what execs from branding agencies, creative shops and consultancies took away from the debate and what they think marketers can learn.

Rebecca Armstrong, managing director of North

Going into the last debate the “undecideds,” it seemed, wanted to see substance on issues from Trump. From Clinton they wanted transparency. Did the candidates deliver?

I think Trump delivered on more substance than usual (the bar is low). But he couldn’t do it without throwing in the occasional deprecatory “wrong” in response to Clinton’s assertions. And his continued position on questioning the outcome of the election is dangerous to say the least.

Clinton continued to demonstrate her superior qualifications. But her pivot on the question about the speech in Brazil won’t help concerns about transparency.

Lessons for brands from Trump? Positioning yourself as the only solution in dark times while spouting off highly-polarizing points of view is one way to get ink, but as smart brands know, it’s easy to get awareness. What you need is quality awareness. A colleague of mine still jokes that if awareness is all you want, then you should just put naked people in the ads. Awareness itself should not be an end.

Lessons from Clinton? In a world in which social media and email hacks force (rightly or wrongly) a high degree of transparency, be transparent. Secrecy is not a reliable tactic any more. Secrecy, unfortunately, is where Clinton has tended to retreat.

But for the record, I’m With Her.

Nick Clark, executive creative director at The Partners

Reflecting on the final presidential debate from a branding perspective, Donald Trump does many of the right things, whereas Hillary Clinton does many of the wrong things.

Trump has a clear and simple message. Clinton does not.

Trump is (grotesquely) compelling. Clinton is slightly boring.

Trump is authentic: at least we know what he stands for. We might not like it, but we know.

Checking boxes, Clinton is somewhat robotic and still lacks a genuine edge. What does she stand for, exactly?

Trump last night continued to drive home his brand.

Clinton doesn’t really have a “brand”. Her brand is the generic: it works because the caustic strength of Trump’s brand throws it into relief.

In fact, his brand is doing most of the work for her. I’m sure it’s why she smiles like that, as it’s likely Trump will lose. Not because his brand isn’t strong, but because it cannot appeal to enough people. His polarizing brand is a huge miscalculation in a contest where he hopes to win over the majority.

The lesson for me is that divisive brands can have an extremely potent appeal, but by definition, they come with clear limits. And in branding practice, it really is best to understand what they are.

Claudia Cukrov, senior strategist at SS+K

Debate 101 - do your research, know your opponent's weaknesses and deliver your message with both logic and empathy. Clinton knew Trump was both unprepared and undisciplined, and while he desperately tried to contain himself, her constant baiting delivered a series of blustery, personal attacks that capped off a disastrous few weeks for Trump.

Both candidates live-tweeted the event, and their feeds were a perfect reflection of their campaign approaches. Trump answered every comment with single statement graphics on his opponent, while Clinton's feed was filled with substantial, validating third-party content and historical proof of the events Trump adamantly denies. Key takeaway - it's not enough to focus on the "what", voters and consumers need the “how” to develop brand trust and that’s exactly what Clinton has done.

David Blacker, creative director at Supermoon

I couldn’t decide if I was going to watch the final presidential debate or stand in front of a mirror and punch myself in the face for 90 minutes. Fortunately, the debate turned out to be far less painful than I expected. Trump started off surprisingly composed and articulate on hot-button topics such as abortion and gun control, but then quickly lost his cool when taking Hillary’s bait on his alleged relationship with Putin and numerous accusations of sexual misconduct. The point of no return came as Trump offered what would become the defining moment of the night — he refused to say he would concede if the election results showed he had lost. Casting doubt on the very essence of our democratic system won’t sit well with undecided voters. Hillary, on the other hand, managed to move past her dark cloud that is WikiLeaks to give a passionate, confident performance. She was strong. Steady. Informed. Correct. And, yes, Presidential.

Did either one of them move the needle tonight? Not really. But they both stayed on brand. Trump was every bit the unfiltered, entertaining businessman we’ve come to expect, and Hillary, the ambitious, experienced, hardworking woman who will endure and fight to the finish.

While Hillary clearly won the debate, and will likely win the election, the biggest winner of all might just be the Donald Trump brand. Because I predict he’ll take his newly formed, ardent fan base and officially announce the launch of his much-rumored media empire — TRUMP TV — on November 8th just as Hillary gets elected. Because, as we all know, Trump always gets the last word.

Rebecca Bedrossian, global content director at Possible

Third time’s a charm, or not in this case. True to what you’d expect—at this stage in an extremely contentious campaign—Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump walked on stage, she with her quintessential pantsuit and he with the red power tie.

At first, it seemed Trump had heeded calls to reign himself in, his voice remained even and reserved. His serious, though somewhat puckered expression attempting to appear presidential.

His experienced and prepared opponent was consistent, on the mark, and that was Trump’s undoing. His self-control slipped away, with Clinton watching and the world hearing “bad hombres” and “nasty woman”.

The color on Clinton’s face rose a few times, as Trump attempted to bait her. And while I may have personally wanted her to lash out, her discipline served her well. Trump appeared petty and child-like—the very opposite of presidential.

Clinton’s strategy in the debate was subtle, as it needed to be because she’s held to different standards. In today’s fast-paced world of Shiny Object Syndrome, social, and sound bites—where Trump makes much noise—Clinton’s intelligence and empathy rose above it all.

She was the tortoise, and Trump the hare. And we all know how that ends.

Matthew Spector, principal of Bow Bridge Consultants

The evening was a set of clear contrasts: Secretary Clinton's healthy glow and executive confidence were made all the more apparent and commanding by her 2016 campaign outfit, and a power tie-clad Trump overly wound and surprisingly dull.

While the nation expected a more knock-down, drag-out fight as Trump sought a miracle to turn the tide of an election he has seemingly already lost, communicators and media strategists should note that failing in a manner that is civil is as important as winning, and Trump's refusal to commit to honoring one of the pillars of American democracy was, in Clinton's parlance, "horrifying."

Whether brand, candidate or both, it takes character to lose elegantly and appropriately, and Trump demonstrated he is willing to take the system with him. Last night we saw the end of the Trump campaign and the formalization of something else entirely - Trump TV, or whatever post-election movement Team Trump becomes.

Scott Goodson, founder of StrawberryFrog

The red, blue and the - blah blah blah - white.

Bloody shocking is my overall take away from this evening's third and final debate between Hill and Don. From the start the values of the red were centered on the good ole wedge issues that rally the base such as tax cuts and anti-abortion. On the opposing side the blue talked up their own values to inspire their base, such as appointing Supreme Court judges who respect their pov, blah blah bland. But then the turd hit the fan, yanking my chain while I was about to doze off, ignoring the painful long political soap opera.

Trump decided, for whatever reason, to take a stand against the republic, saying he wouldn't raise the white flag in defeat, and wouldn't accept the official outcome. Shocking for both parties actually and bound to egg on those militaristic individuals who think their time has come to take back government by force.