It's the ads wot dun it for Obama. With $150m he massively outspent McCain. On TV, phone calls, mail, online ads, networking, virals, press, PR etc....He spent over $2 million on Google alone. Advertising plays a huge part in US elections. But it hasn't yet here.

The difference between a UK and a US election is that we elect a party, not a president - although the leaders' personalities are important. The issues here will focus more on managerial competence and the economy. There will be some stuff, but not a lot, about Gordon Brown's emotionally stilted personality and David Cameron's lack of gravitas. However, when Labour tried to play the 'Eton toff'  card it backfired horrendously.

TV advertising is most effective when attempting to get the electorate to take a certain view of a candidate, as it does in the US. However, even Hugh Hudson's stirring film on "The Life of Neil Kinnock" failed to convince enough people that the "Welsh windbag" was ready for office. Since Major, Labour has not had to paint the Tory leaders as 'nasty people' as they all did a good job on that themselves. But the next election will be the closest yet and marketing techniques are likely to play a bigger role.

Direct marketing will be used to target key voters in marginal seats...less to convince them to vote Labour, Tory or whatever but more to ensure they actually DO bother to get out and vote for their stated preference. Direct mail is costly, but it can be effective in this role. Lord Ashcroft is controversially funding direct campaigns focused on marginal seats for the Tories.

This may also be the first election where online techniques play a major part. I don't think there was generally enough excitement in 2005 for people to be sufficiently engaged. With a close result being forecast this will change. The glory of digital is that it takes on its own life. Rumours spread, virals are swapped, people chat and 'small issues' can snowball. For party managers, it can be very hard to address or counter issues once they've caught alight in forums.

However,  digital evangelists need to recognise that most people who actually vote will not be school leavers or hardcore gamers. People who vote tend to be older and go to the BBC for their news and analysis. Webcameron is nothing more than a PR stunt.

Most advertising and the TV ads will be designed to encourage and enthuse supporters and activists. The effect that marketing has on switching votes is limited. People don't even vote the way their newspaper tells them. News management and a sound PR strategy are more important. Did Hague ever recover from the baseball cap? Or Kinnock from tumbling into the sea? Or Howard from 'something of the night'? But these images only reinforce a perception that's already there.

So I predict for 2010 that we'll see a significant spend on marketing, especially on direct (mail, email and maybe phone), but the role it will have in vote switching will be limited.  It will get the vote out and bolster existing support. And the internet will play a much bigger part in setting the news agenda. For what it's worth, I believe the Tories have not quite got their hand firmly on the tiller and are more likely than Labour's battle-weary professionals to make mistakes. The Liberals will be severely squeezed. It could well be a hung parliament with even more pronounced regional variations. Get involved and enjoy it!