🗣️I deconstructed $80M of Donald Trump & Kamala Harris’ ads: here’s what I learned 🗣️

Welcome to Intelligent Artifice, the podcast that helps you become a 10x performance marketer. Intelligent Artifice explores the cutting edge of the intersection of AI, creatives, and performance marketing. Every week, we deconstruct the ad systems behind high-performing advertisers using our in-house semantic analysis system, BruteForce AI — or we sit down with top operators redefining how advertising gets done in a generative AI world.

Whether you’re scaling user acquisition, leading a creative team, or building a creative engine with AI, this podcast is your unfair advantage. Intelligent Artifice is hosted by me, Shamanth Rao — the founder and CEO of the boutique growth marketing agency, Rocketship HQ. You can find out more about us at rocketshiphq.com.

Check out our socials!

Podcast website: intelligentartifice.net
Newsletter: intelligentartifice.kit.com
YouTube: @Intelligent-Artifice

Today’s Teardown: Trump vs. Kamala — Political Ad Strategies

In the 2024 US presidential election, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris spent a combined $80 million on Meta ads in just three months.

Now that the election is behind us, we can zoom out and ask: What can marketers learn from two of the highest-spending political campaigns in history?

In today’s deep dive, I break down:

Their spending behavior
Their messaging strategies
Video and headline frameworks they used
What they did well
And what they could have done better

Spend Breakdown

If you look at the spend estimates, according to Meta, Kamala spent 5x more than Donald Trump on Meta.

That alone sets expectations for polish, depth, frequency, and strategy.

But when you dig into their creative approaches, it becomes clear they were playing two very different strategic games.

Headlines: Tone & Targeting

Kamala’s headlines were geo-targeted — talking about New Hampshire, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and so on. A lot of these ads were donation-driven.

By contrast, Trump’s headlines were more aggressive, more minimalist, and very focused on voting:

Find your polling place
Vote today
Make a plan to vote

There were also quite a few attack ads, like:

Don’t let Kamala threaten your future
We can’t let this happen

Everything was in ALL CAPS, and the contrast in tone was stark:

Kamala used a softer, value-led tone
Trump used a sharper, rallying tone

CTAs: Donate vs. Turnout

If you look at their CTAs:

Kamala’s ads were very focused on donations, with softer asks like:
- Donate to get Kamala’s recipe
- Can I give you a call?
Trump’s ads were focused on voter turnout, with harder CTAs like:
- Go vote on November 5th
- Make a plan to vote

Many of Trump’s CTAs were framed as a moral or civic obligation, with bold typography and minimal distractions from the CTA itself.

Kamala’s CTAs, by contrast, felt more transactional.

Messaging Angles: Stories They Told

Kamala’s Messaging:

Rallying & motivational videos:
- We are the generation that shows up
- It’s time for us to go vote for the wonderfully educated, beautifully qualified Kamala
Focused on rights and policies:
- Healthcare
- Reproductive rights
- Democracy
A few attack ads, but not many
Empathetic appeals and personal stories
Economic & social issue ads:
- Economic inequality
- Drug costs
- Tax cuts
- Healthcare

Trump’s Messaging:

Patriotism:
- Save America
Attack ads:
- Stop Kamala’s crime epidemic
- Mocking Kamala’s laugh
Cultural & national grievance:
- America is under threat
- China and Iran want to see Trump defeated
- Freedoms are being taken away
- The country is under attack from within
Economic concerns:
- Taxes
- Fear of future hardships under Democratic leadership
Fear-inducing language:
- It’s an invasion of America
- Don’t let them take control

What They Could Have Done Better

Kamala Harris

1. Diversify CTAs.

Nearly all her ads asked for donations — despite having 5x the budget. She could have:

Explained why the donations were needed
Added CTAs that encouraged non-transactional engagement

2. More policy depth.

There were broad appeals to rights and freedoms — but not a lot of specifics. High-information voters may have found the ads light on substance.

3. Improve authenticity.

A lot of Kamala’s ads felt corporate and overpolished. She could have:

Integrated more UGC-style visuals
Included real testimonials from everyday supporters

4. Use more attack ads.

While Trump used many, Kamala barely did.

5. Stronger overlay text.

Trump’s overlay text was bold, emphatic, and clear. Kamala’s often wasn’t. This is an easy, high-impact fix — surprising it wasn’t addressed despite her larger budget.

Donald Trump

1. Dial down the fear.

Fear-based messaging may have worked for his base, but likely alienated moderates and swing voters who rely more on information than emotion.

2. Highlight policy achievements.

He could have reinforced credibility by pointing to wins from his previous presidency.

3. Add voter testimonials.

There were few personal stories — a missed opportunity to humanize the campaign.

4. Increase creative variety.

Many of Trump’s ads looked aesthetically and stylistically similar. More variation could have:

Reduced ad fatigue
Improved performance

Big Takeaways

This wasn’t just a tale of two candidates — it was a tale of two very different marketing strategies.

Kamala invested in fundraising, policy, and optimism
Trump spent leaner but focused on action, urgency, and turnout

Both approaches revealed deep insights into how each campaign viewed its voters — and what they believed would move them to act.

This was performance marketing at national scale.

Closing Thoughts

We all know how this campaign turned out. This is Shamanth Rao. Thank you for watching. Thank you for checking out Intelligent Artifice.

If you liked this breakdown, please share and subscribe. And for the full visual teardown and the ad library, check the link in the description. See you next time.

For the full visual teardown and data insights, check the link here: https://intelligentartifice.kit.com/a4bcec66ee