Those of us who are focused on the value of customer intelligence have much to learn from how the political parties -- both Democrat and Republican -- made use of voter intelligence in the American presidential election.

One week on, perhaps we can look at the campaign and election in an analytical (as opposed to emotional and partisan) fashion. We all have much to learn that may help us in our own respective fields.

Here are a few factors that came into play in this election cycle that I found particularly notable.

Reality vs. Realities. Not talking about political philosophy here, but rather, metaphysical assumptions. Late in the campaign, an article by Ron Suskind caused a stir. It suggested (unfairly in my view) that facts and data are essentially irrelevant to President Bush's leadership and that he leads by "gut" or "instinct."

Suskind quotes a Bush aide stating that "the reality based community" is full of people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' The aide then continues: "That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Different people can see this different ways. Is this a frank and laudable acknowledgement of what it means to be decisive in a dynamic, fast-changing and threatening world? Or is it an irrational rejection of all facts and analysis? In a real-time economy, corporate leaders also must choose a place on this continuum of action and analysis. Many have struggled with their own choices.

Rove vs. Whouley. Behind all leaders and campaigns, one finds a core of strategists and advisors who are essential to the overall effort. Let us focus on two in particular. Bush had Karl Rove and Kerry had Michael Whouley. Both appear to be brilliant men with disciplined and analytical marketing backgrounds. Both relied heavily on vast databases to develop their strategies and plans. Both ran sophisticated get-out-the-vote operations.

One article described the reclusive Whouley as engaged in "the unglamorous work of analyzing voting patterns and identifying a candidate's pockets of strength and weakness. While the media and the voters keep their eyes on the candidate, strategists like Whouley are shuttered away in 'war rooms,' constantly monitoring the ebb and flow of possible votes, precinct by precinct. Their job is to move resources -- direct-mail pieces, phone-bank calls, door-to-door canvassers, sometimes the candidate himself -- to their highest target of opportunity."

Whouley accomplished this objective with great skill in the primaries, enabling Kerry to identify his areas of greatest opportinuity and pull off an unexpected victory. For instance, it was Whouley who encouraged Kerry to shuttle around Iowa during the primaries in a helicopter to maximize the number of his personal appearances.

However, Whouley does not appear to command anything like the mystique accorded to Rove. It was Rove who saw early on -- when Bush was still considering a run for Texas governor -- that a campaign could be mounted by courting evangelicals and other Christians that felt largely ignored by contemporary politicians.

While the Republican party is a wide coalition, it's hard not to notice the energy and passion that comes from Bush's religiously devout base. Rove was the one who built a game plan to turn that energy into votes.

The lesson? Great leaders (corporate or otherwise) need the analytical insights of left-brain strategists to guide their efforts behind the scenes. Public appearances, by contrast, tend to be emotive, right-brain activities that favor leaders that can "connect" with their constituents.

Energizing the Base vs. Attracting New Voters. It's the difference between prospects and existing customers. Republicans and Democrats seem to have emphasized strikingly different things in this regard. Whereas Democratic resources tended to be directed to getting out the youth vote and signing up new voters, Republicans were much more likely to focus on getting their existing base excited about the election.

The outcome of the election makes it clear that it's better to "upsell" an existing customer than place a "cold call" to a prospective one. Republicans relied much more heavily than Democrats on past voters to get their friends and family to the polls. Even the Republican campaign workers were volunteers, emotionally committed to the outcome. "The way to build a grass-roots movement is to get one volunteer to recruit several other volunteers, and so on, so that the organization is constantly growing, feeding off itself," said campaign strategist Ken Mehlman in the New York Times Magazine. "The big thing that brings them all together is viral activity.''

Democrats, by contrast, placed much more hope on the idea that new voter drives as well as rock-concerts and star-studded events would carry them through to victory. They also tended to pay their campaign workers pretty well, which raises questions about how committed many were to the cause (as opposed to the paycheck).

What can't be disputed was the impressive turnout made possible by both parties -- a sign of vibrance and life in a modern republic. Companies that hope to capitalize on customer intelligence have much to study and learn from this election cycle. Just don't study these lessons too long. New realities are constantly being created -- and we need to be prepared to act.