If you’ve read a rundown of the 2012 political campaigns, you probably know one of two things: big data played a big role this cycle, and everything the Obama campaign did – from web design to email subject lines – was tested and retested to identify the most effective way to recruit volunteers, raise money and turn out voters.
Evan Zasoski, the Obama campaign deputy director of analytics and Michelangelo D’Agostino, a senior analyst from the Obama campaign, spoke at the Roots Camp event earlier this month about some of the ways this team used big data to improve campaign performance. A few key points stood out:
- There’s more to testing than A/B. You can test to optimize a particular email send (A/B testing a subject line), or you can perform tests with more long-term value that can inform your entire program. Campaigns should use both, but make sure you know when a test is situational and when it is foundational.
- Behavioral targeting worked better than demographic targeting. The Obama campaign spent a lot of time modeling their supporters to determine how to make the most appropriate asks. Over time, it became apparent that a person’s past activation history was far better as a predictor of future behavior than their demographic profile.
- Automate, iterate and push down. As often as possible, the analytics team automated processes or built front-end tools that less tech-savvy staffers could use to replicate their work segmenting and targeting supporters. That freed up their own staff time to conduct additional tests or build more tools.
Not everyone can afford to hire dozens of in-house developers and data scientists. For those operating on less stratospheric budgets, a number of sessions at Roots Camp focused on simple ways that campaigns and organizations can build testing and measurement into their work on any budget.
The key in these sessions, as outlined by Daniel Mintz of MoveOn among others, is to build a “culture of testing” within your campaign or organization.
What does that mean? Philosophically, it means recognizing that your digital platforms are never “finished.” There’s no such thing as the perfect subject line or call to action that you can hone in on. There is only “today’s” most successful subject line, and what works today may not be what works tomorrow.
It means recognizing that, as great as your new website design is, launch day is not the end of a process you undertake every five years. It’s the start of an iterative process that always seeks to improve the experience of your users and optimize performance to reach your goals.
Practically speaking, it’s easy to get started. All modern CRMs and blast email systems are capable of basic audience segmentation and can execute A/B tests on subject lines or body copy. Tools like Optimize.ly offer an affordable way to perform A/B or multivariate testing on pages of your website dedicated to user conversions. And books like Sasha Issenberg’s The Victory Lab can walk you through the basics of campaign testing and the significant impact it’s had on driving volunteers, dollars and votes in recent elections.
What’s clear from this election – and the excitement at Roots Camp – is that testing, measurement and analytics are only going to become more important to successful campaigns in the future. The question we should be asking isn’t whether to start testing, but rather how to set appropriate goals and start building that culture of testing into all of our work.
More and more organizations are beginning to realize that 1 million likes on Facebook or 1 million Twitter followers does not equal a good social media strategy. The bigger concern is whether your Facebook and Twitter communities are actually engaged with your product or cause.
Beth Becker of Progressive Social Strategies, who gave a talk earlier this month at RootsCamp entitled Measuring Engagement Or How to Tell You’re Not Wasting Your Time on Social Media, summed up her engagement strategy with the following phrase: “Don’t be a Newt.” She was referring to former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who discovered that of his 1.3 million Twitter followers, only 106,055 were real humans.
Since Newt had been concerned with getting high follower numbers with no regard for who the followers were, he was not able to meaningfully engage with his Twitter following. Beth pointed out that it is called social media for a reason; if you’re not online to have a conversation and engage your community, then why are you on social media?
For our clients, we use audience research and careful targeting to make sure we are reaching our target audience. For example, our upfront research for the National Women’s Law Center included focus group testing and a national survey with KRC Research. Taking the time to test variables such as tone of voice, messaging and storytelling approach allowed us to craft content that was highly engaging for our target audience. Tools like Attentive.ly can help you discover what your audience is talking about online and ultimately help amplify your message to the right audience.
There are two sides to this coin: organizations should try to foster engagement on their social channels but they should also make an effort to engage with their communities.
This means creating engaging content that encourages your Facebook fans to join the conversation around your product or organization by commenting on your content or sharing your posts. But it also means taking the time to respond to comments and tweets from your community.
For example, you can share posts by partner organizations on your Facebook wall or tweet about news articles that are interesting to your followers but may not be about your organization specifically.
Are you replying to comments on Facebook and replying to people on Twitter? Engaging your fans or followers is a process that requires continuous time and effort.
Developing a long-term content strategy and a steady drumbeat of content will ensure that you are effectively using your time on social media.
Last night we had the pleasure of hosting a great line-up of panelists from the DC Sports community to discuss the role of social media across the industry and the influence it has had on social impact issues. Our team member Mark Wysocki put together a full recap below:
As DC sports are on the rise (Redskins, Nationals, DC United and maybe the Wizards after Tuesday’s win over reigning champion, Miami Heat), the conversation around sports influence and social impact has become increasingly relevant. The past five years have witnessed the growth of social media which has only heightened these dialogues. Our team decided to host a panel featuring thought leaders in the space to explore sports influence, social media and social impact.
Sports. Social media. Social impact.
Matt Winkler, Associate Dean of the Georgetown University Sports Industry Management Program moderated our #SportsImpact panel which showcased the following experts:
• Chad Williamson, Director of Philanthropy for Dhani Jones & CEO, BowTie Cause
• Mike Donnelly, Senior Communications Manager, Head of Social, NFLPA
• Chad Kurz, Director of New Media, Washington Nationals
• Joe Briggs, Public Policy Counsel, NFLPA
The event welcomed 50+ attendees observing and participating in the dynamic discussion. The agenda was broken down into three segments; 1) how leagues/teams are active and regulate social media, 2) how fans are engaging and interacting over social media, and 3) how social platforms are being used and can be used to facilitate social impact. The audience challenged panelists with questions that sparked debate around past, present and future opportunities to better capture sports influence in the social impact space. We hope this panel will be the first of many to bring awareness to this apparent gap in the industry.
Top Ten Takeaways from #SportsImpact Panel:
10. Players with a long term view can create and leverage an online audience to make a difference after football yet many do not. Chad Johnson, ex-NFL star, has near 4 million Twitter followers but has not taken advantage of his influence.
9. If you don’t control your message, somebody else will.
8. Players with huge potential in social impact space include RGIII, Arian Foster & international soccer stars such as Ronaldo, due to likeability, influence and leadership.
7. Not all leagues have the same approach in regulating social media. Rules and sanctions vary across leagues/teams. Operationally, the MLB is unique in which each team must work with the interactive online branch of the league, MLB Advanced Media, to update their respective websites.
6. ROI = Return on Influence/Impact
5. Implementing an integrated approach across channels to deliver a uniform message in vital. As the NFL lockout was nearing, the NFLPA bought nfllockout.com and properties on Facebook and Twitter to be the initial online point of contact and frame their message accordingly.
4. Social media is effective for connecting and spreading influence but traditional marketing tactics are still essential in building a brand and communicating effectively.
3. Players/leagues/teams/entities receive requests for retweets and mentions all the time. You don’t have to respond! It’s essential to keep accounts authentic and organic or else fans can tell.
1. Most athletes aren’t having the right conversation. Give back, social impact. Be a better person. A great deal of CSR opportunities exist across professional sports with thousands of present and past players that hold influence.
Presidential elections often provide the opportunity for renewed conversations on the direction of the country and innovative ways to effectively communicate with the public and elected officials on important issues.
Last week, Powell Tate served as a host for the National Urban League's “Urban Ideas Forum,” a half day conversation about the disparities in jobs, education, and wealth in urban centers and among minority communities all across America. This panel brought together thought-leaders and policy experts representing the private sector, community-based organizations, academia and the policy world to our space for this engaging discussion.
Topics ranged from the importance of educational funding to the value of homeownership and the “wealth gap” in America. The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart moderated the panel and Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, Janet Murguia, president and CEP of the National Council of La Raza and Bibi Hidalgo, Senior Policy Director of the U.S. Department of Treasury, were among the panelists providing insight on issues and solutions for urban communities. The panelists offered financial literacy, savings and investment as solutions for achieving economic parity.
Powell Tate played an important role in the execution of the Urban Ideas Forum. As a leading public affairs firm, it is our goal to sustain partnerships with organizations like the National Urban League that prove vital to our clients’ business, and facilitate conversation among thought-leaders around the country. Through hosting events like the Urban Ideas Forum, Powell Tate is further established as a conduit for engaging and timely conversations.
Please click here to view C-Span’s video of the Urban Ideas Forum.
Sports. Social media. Social impact.
These three topics alone can create a lively discussion and many times over have done just that. Next week, we look forward to hosting a panel with guests from Georgetown University Sports Industry Management Program, the NFL Players Association, and the Washington Nationals to discuss the convergence of all three topics.
The past few years have shown us the dramatic impact social media can have on the game itself from the team, player, and fan perspective. We'll explore topics such as the business incentive for a "socially responsible personal brand," the upside/downside of athletes using social media for sharing their personal beliefs, and how player organizations are evolving their digital policies for athletes.
We hope you can join us.
What’s the single quality you require in an op-ed piece above all? On the flip side, what’s the single quality that most undermines an op-ed submission? Finally, what’s the most important advice that we communications professionals should share with clients in working on op-eds?
Those are the three questions we recently asked, in an online survey with multiple-choice answers, of op-ed editors at newspapers and magazines around the country.
The results – from 17 respondents, including editors at The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg View -- surprised me.
The choices given for the single quality most required were “news value,” “marquee-name author,” “hot-button issue,” “contrarian viewpoint,” “new research,” “persuasively argued” and “brilliantly written.”
The top pick was “persuasively argued,” with 43% of the vote. Third was “brilliantly written” (21%). “News value” came in second (36%). “New research” drew 7%. Nobody opted for “hot-button issues” or the others.
I would have bet otherwise, laying odds on substance over style, with “news value” coming out ahead, followed closely by “hot-button issue.”
The answers to the second question, about the single most undermining quality in an op-ed, equally surprised me. The choices available were “self-serving,” “conventional viewpoint,” “evergreen,” “dated issue,” “poorly argued,” “badly written,” “unknown author.”
The winner was “badly written,” with 44%, followed by “poorly argued (25%). Third and fourth places went to “self-serving” and ”conventional viewpoint” (tied at 19%). “Dated issue” pulled only 6%. Again, I anticipated a tilt toward the material itself – namely, “evergreen” and “dated issue.”
The theme of style over substance held true for our final question, too, about advice to give clients about op-eds. The options were “It’s a tough sell,” “offer context,” “give practical advice,” demonstrate your authority,” and “speak plainly.”
“Speak plainly” garnered 64%, the strongest of all responses. “It’s a tough sell” and “demonstrate your authority” came next (tied at 21%). Only then did “offer context” come into play (14%). Me, I would have speculated on context and advice claiming the day.
The topline takeaways? The editors surveyed prefer op-ed submissionsthat are “persuasively argued” and “brilliantly written,” albeit accompanied by news value. They’re also averse to op-eds that are “badly written” and “poorly argued.” In short, the rhetorical skill you bring to the table, how well you argue your case, could make all the difference.
Tonight marks the last of the traveling circus that has been the presidential and vice presidential debates. While constituents will tune in to see the main act, it’s the debate on social channels giving rise to those turn-key laugh-out-loud, landmark social media gaffes that have really stolen the show. And although more and more Americans are using Twitter, Facebook and other social media to express their political opinions, vent their frustrations and sharpen their critiques of the opposition, our social manners are becoming less and less refined.
For example—there are whole meme sites dedicated to the now infamous tweets like those from KitchenAid and Delegate Eleanor Norton, which have gotten national attention for their vulgarity and have since been deleted from the accounts.
So, tonight, in the hopes of avoiding a top spot on a Buzzfeed or Gawker-esque “Top 10 most inappropriate debate tweets,” here are a few debate social channel etiquette reminders that won’t make your mother gasp:
1. Steer clear of personal attacks on candidates and their families. If you were having dinner with them, would you say it to their face?
2. Snarky and creative are fair game, insults are not.
3. Use hashtags like #DemsIRespect or #RepubsIRespect to note that while you disagree, you respect other opinions.
4. Call out misrepresentation of fact and keep people honest. Listen to the conversations carefully and promote productive learning on platforms and issues.
5. Keep it short, simple and to the point. Rants don’t prove your point.
Given that the presidential debate on Oct. 3 was the most tweeted about event ever in U.S. politics, topping President Obama’s 2008 election victory and inauguration, tonight’s debate with salient issues like the Benghazi consulate attacks and Israel-U.S. relationship is sure to be another record breaker. As you watch the debates and (hopefully) engage in this election, consider the advice of eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and tweet with respect for those on the other side of the aisle.
Flickr Creative Commons Photo by SchmilBlick
Online advertising is an evolving landscape - and one that will certainly come in for much scrutiny, academic and otherwise. But I was surprised to see the headline of Dylan Matthews' story on Wonkblog - "Why Facebook campaign ads are a sucker's bet."
The post is a summary of an article draft by Prof. David Broockman of Berkeley and Donald Green at Columbia, which purports to show little to no lift of a state legislative candidate's name recognition based on a treatment group exposed to several Facebook ads.
Unfortunately, Broockman and Green seem to misunderstand the Facebook platform and how advertisements both function technically and can be most effectively used.
The first hint of trouble comes when they state that users appear to have seen the ads they ran "on every Facebook page all week" (emphasis theirs). While they do later establish that the campaign was unable to spend its $150 daily budget despite their high CPM (cost-per-thousand-impressions) bid, they attribute this to having exhausted Facebook's inventory for their targeted users.
Facebook — which is self-interested in creating a product that people will come back to — will show ads to users online a limited number of times in a given period. This is a variation on the Facebook EdgeRank algorithm that selects the posts you see in your Newsfeed. Thus, while the campaign was unable to exhaust its budget, it cannot be assumed that this is because Facebook exhausted its inventory.
This is where the candidate's advertising strategy comes in. The authors state that their click rate of 0.1% was "encouragingly low… as we are primarily interested in the impact of exposure to the candidates' name and message in the ad listing itself." Facebook Marketplace ads, with a 25 character title, and a 90 character body, a 100x72 pixel image, are to say the least not ideal message delivery vehicles.
Instead, their power is in their ability to create a lasting relationship between advertiser and user — typically through a user clicking the "like" button and consequently receiving messaging from a candidate or other advertiser in the future. By ignoring this most fundamental aspect of Facebook advertising strategy, the authors discredit their results.
It is as if they have concluded that there is no brand lift from television advertisements that people see in a crowded bar out of the corner of their eye. Of course there isn't — because that is not how people experience the medium, and the best ads are not calibrated for corner-of-the-eye viewing.
Moreover, the ad units purchased are the most basic on Facebook. In our work, we have found these to be ineffective. However, we have found great success at using newer ad units such as "Like" ads and Sponsored Stories, which encourage both current and potential fans to interact with page content. Recently, Facebook has allowed ads to be placed directly into Newsfeed, and we have seen even better results with these ads.
Those TVs in the bar? Turns out they were 15" black and white boxes, not today's 52" flat screens.
What lessons can we take from this? Certainly not that all Facebook ads are ineffective. The lesson here is that an advertising strategy cannot exist in a vacuum. At Powell Tate, we run ads only when we know that we have great content to promote, whether it's a video, an image or an interactive experience. At the same time, we don't put out content without an ad strategy to promote it.
In today's media landscape, reaching people means drawing on emotion and forming a lasting relationship — not carpet-bombing their periphery with a brief, un-engaging message.
Flickr Creative Commons Photo by Vox Efx
Since Facebook added the “like” button to fan pages in February 2009, the social network has facilitated over 1.1 trillion likes and now boasts over 1 billion monthly active users.
(Remember when I said that Facebook had reached its membership saturation point in the U.S.? Uh, never mind about that.)
As for Twitter, its 140 million active members send out a combined 340 million tweets per day.
Despite these gaudy numbers, optimizing your content for social means far more than worrying about your Facebook and Twitter accounts. That’s because most shared content on the Internet comes not from those two social networking sites but from what Alexis Madrigal of The Atlantic calls “dark social.”
Dark social refers to the social experience that takes place outside Facebook and Twitter. For example, a friend may share a link with you via instant message, text message or email — none of which are particularly traceable when you’re looking at your referral traffic data.
In fact, dark social accounts for almost 69 percent of online referrals, dwarfing the traffic referred from Facebook and Twitter.
Madrigal’s advice: “The only real way to optimize for social spread is in the nature of the content itself.”
If you create content that resonates with your audience, then you’ve created content that’s optimized for social.
As a result, it’s just as important to focus on making your content compelling as making sure that it’s lightweight and portable.
In today’s political and economic environment, conveying the potential impacts and consequences of climate change is more challenging than ever. Across politics, business, government, and the nonprofit sector, organizations are developing strategies to communicate on this issue to a vast array of stakeholders, influencers, and audiences.
That’s why our Social Impact team is partnering with Net Impact this week to host “Communicating Climate Change,” a discussion that will examine the issues, sensitivities, and opportunities for communicating successfully about the potential impacts and the contribution that people and societies have made to climate change. Moderated by our colleague Cindy Drucker (link to bio), a seasoned sustainability strategist, the discussion will feature leaders in the sustainability space, including:
- Alex Bozmoski, Director of Strategy & Operations, Energy & Enterprise Initiative
- Mark Grundy, Director of Communications & Network Engagement, Carbon War Room
- Tim Juliani, Director of Corporate Engagement, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)
Together, the panel will examine best practices and illustrate how organizations can achieve real impact in communicating the issues surrounding climate change.
For twenty years, Net Impact has played a critical role in uniting change makers in the business, government, and nonprofit sectors to tackle the world’s largest problems. Its annual conference – happening this year from October 25-27 in Baltimore – brings together leaders from all sectors to share stories of inspiration, innovation, and most importantly, impact.
The discussion this Thursday, October 18, promises to be lively and informative. Visit Communicating Climate Change to register to attend.
Last night, Vice Presidential candidates Joe Biden and Paul Ryan squared off in Danville, KY in a widely followed and crucial debate in the 2012 Presidential Race. The VP candidates discussed foreign policy, Medicare, the economy, and social issues, offering key contrasts between the Democratic and Republican tickets in front of millions of American viewers.
According to our PoliPulse 2012 Election Dashboard, the conversation on social media channels was lively, favoring terms such as “debate,” “ryan,” “biden” and “#readyforjoe.” Interestingly, in the hours after the debate, the terms “win” and “voting for” were frequently used in reference to Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Overall however, President Obama held his social media edge over Governor Romney, with 27% more mentions and 35% more retweets.
Immediate polls after the debate showed mixed results. A CNN/ORC poll of voters gave Ryan the edge over Biden by four percentage points, while a CBS News poll of uncommitted voters gave the debate win to Biden, with 50% of those polled believing the current Vice President performed best, 31% stating that Congressman Ryan won, and 19% saying they felt it was a tie.
In the end, what’s important is that each Vice Presidential candidate gave their respective party bases the debate performance they needed. For the Democratic ticket, Biden brought much-needed energy, focus, and aggressiveness. And for the Republicans, Paul Ryan laid out his ticket’s vision by coolly, confidently and fluently explaining the policies behind his proposals.
Keep checking in for updates from the PoliPulse 2012 Election Dashboard as we gear up for the second presidential debate next Tuesday, October 16 at Hofstra University on Long Island.
Last week, Facebook commemorated its 1 billionth user with the announcement of its first ever television advertisement, called simply “The Things That Connect Us.” The ad offers examples of the things people use to connect with each other – from the tangible to the abstract – and likens Facebook to those things.
Critics lambasted the ad calling it, as Gizmodo's Sam Biddle did, “confusing and stupid.” The Atlantic Wire’s Rebecca Greenfield called it “absurd” and “kind of silly,” with an attempt at deep meaning that lacked sincerity. But what Facebook knows – and what we as communicators know – is that things that connect us are powerful and stirring. Things that connect us move us to action.
This past weekend, I participated for the first time in the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society’s Light the Night Walk in my area. During the walk, the words from Facebook’s ad repeated over and over in my head: “the things that connect us.” Like most who participated, I was walking individually in some ways, for my own personal reasons that are particular to me. But I was acutely aware of the hundreds of other walks that have taken place and will be taking place across the country, of the thousands of people that would be participating, for all their own particular reasons, and of the greater cause they represent. It may sound trite, but events and causes like this – in part through tools like Facebook – unite people in a common purpose.
The reality is that social media plays a huge role in generating momentum for causes, in magnifying voices, and in creating experiences that make people feel connected to something bigger than themselves. These tools don’t function in a vacuum, but they offer enormously effective ways to communicate ideas and even to bring about change.
As for the ad itself, perhaps it’s as my high school business teacher said: a good ad is one you talk about and remember. On that score, the Facebook spot seems like a winner.
Tweets were flying Wednesday night and into Thursday after the first of three presidential election debates between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
In addition to terms like “debate” and “last night,” tweets about Obama focused on terms like “people,” “plan,” and “presidential.” According to the PoliPulse Election Dashboard, “altitude” also registered as a key topic of Obama tweets, in reference to Former Vice President Al Gore’s assertion that Obama’s poor performance might have been attributed to Denver’s high altitude.
Tweets about Romney focused on terms like “plan,” “won,” “big,” and “wins the election,” reflecting the sentiment that Romney gained major momentum from the debate. This sentiment has been validated by a new Pew Research Center poll showing Romney now leading Obama 49 to 45 percent, among likely voters.
Tweets about both candidates also often included the terms “lie” or “lies” and “facts,” reflecting the public’s desire to call out claims the candidates had made and either substantiate them or tear them down. Fact-checking has indeed become a popular event in the post-debate analysis games.
While interesting in and of themselves, these findings have greater implications than they may seem at first to have. These are the terms that appear in the most influential and numerous tweets. They have the ability to influence public opinion as much, if not more than, the performance of the candidates themselves.
What other people think matters. What important and influential people – in particular those with lots of Twitter followers and retweets – think matters more. And what lots of important and influential people think really matters, especially when a presidential election is at stake.
Stay tuned to the Polipulse 2012 Election Dashboard to see what topics are trending in connection with each candidate after Thursday’s first and only vice presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan.
The issue of healthcare reform undoubtedly looms over the heads of Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) as they prepare for tomorrow’s Vice Presidential debate.
In last week’s first debate between President Obama and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, healthcare emerged as a hot-button issue, though not nearly as scalding as jobs.
While both candidates agree that the $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare system is unsustainable, neither offered a clear picture of what they envision as the new status quo during the debate. “My priority is jobs,” asserted Romney. But, contrary to popular opinion, healthcare is an equally powerful driver of many Americans to the polls.
A recent symposium held by the Harvard School of Public Health, titled “Health Care & 2012 Elections,” dove into the intricacies of the healthcare system as it relates to the 2012 elections, highlighting Medicare as one of the single most influential, mobilizing terms of the campaign season.
Panelists at the symposium ranged from policy experts, such as the American Enterprise Institutes’ Joseph Antos, to policymakers like former Senator Blanche Lincoln and former Senate Majority Leader, Senator Tom Daschle (pictured above), former Congressman Billy Tauzin, among others.
Senators Daschle and Lincoln were joined on the “Political Landscape for Health Care Reform Panel” by Governor John Engler.
“This election isn’t being fought over healthcare. This is an economics election,” said Engler, making a declaration that was echoed by some on the panel, who agreed that healthcare simply isn’t top-of-mind for most voters. But not everyone agreed.
“You are wrong,” grinned the final speaker, Robert Blendon, Senior Associate Dean for Policy Translation and Leadership Development at the Harvard School of Public Health. Blendon conducted an impressive polling of United States voters, which he presented. His polling included a staggering array of statistical evidence showing that healthcare is, unequivocally, one this election’s most salient issues, especially when “Medicare” is interjected.
Blendon found, for instance, that while 46% of voters think the national healthcare law will negatively impact the economy, 67% of Americans disapprove of Congressman Paul Ryan’s “competition”-based plan, perceived by many as a terrifying attempt to “gut” Medicare.
“’Health care’ was ranked third, below ‘Deficit’ in second place and ‘Economy/Jobs’ in the lead,” affirmed Blendon. “That is, until Medicare messaging came into the picture and then ‘Health Care’ shot up past ‘Deficit.’”
Needless to say, candidates are unwise to assume that the only thing that matters in this year’s elections is jobs. Equally unwise would be to assume that Medicare and Social Security are not high priorities among voters. “Medicare and Social Security are seen as the last things that should be cut, way after things like the Commerce Department or the Navy,” Blendon insisted.
Unlike the first round of Presidential debates, the Vice Presidential candidates need to address and confirm what Blendon so adamantly proved: voters really do care about healthcare and they want hard answers.
As the general election begins to heat up, so does the digital arms race. This clash goes far beyond the simplistic jockeying between candidates for the biggest following on Facebook and Twitter — indeed the data lying beneath the surface may end up being far more important.
In January, the online news publication Slate.com broke news about a top-secret Obama campaign project called “Project Narwhal,” which aims to integrate all the data the campaign has captured over the past six years — from door knocks and donations to email activations and Facebook app installs. As a result of these efforts, Obama for America now has an unprecedented, and scarily accurate, understanding of the interests and motivations of their 13 million or so supporters. That data is already fuelling a hyper-targeted outreach programme that personalises the campaign’s communication with supporters.
The Obama campaign knows the next president will not be re-elected based only on the number of his Twitter followers or Facebook likes. Facebook and Twitter are still extremely important gateways for the campaign in creating opportunities for engagement and building relationships, but simply having a presence on those social platforms isn’t enough.
Republicans are responding quickly to this data build-up with voter database platforms of their own. A conservative grassroots group called American Majority Action has released a community mobilisation app to rival tools the Obama campaign has been using.
The keys to winning are what they have always been: convincing voters, recruiting volunteers, raising money and getting people to show up to vote. This means driving people to action. Thanks to the integration of all data points into a single database, and the ability to mine that data in supporter communications, Obama for America will be more effective at driving people to action than ever before.
In 2008, the campaign knew when to ask someone for money, when to ask for volunteer hours, and when to send informational emails. In 2012, they’ll also know how much a supporter is likely to give, the kinds of volunteer activities (door knocking, phone banking, etc.) that a supporter is likely to do, and the issue messaging that will strike a chord and drive that activation.
As Teddy Goff, the Obama for America digital director, said on a panel recently: “We try to speak to people in the language of the people we’re speaking with.” Campaigns know in order to resonate in this day and age they can’t just broadcast from on high, they need to tell a story that is deeply personal and unique to each person.
The campaigns also need to know where to find their audience. In late March the New York Times reported on how in the tight Wisconsin primary battle the Romney campaign has put a significant investment in paid online video ads as opposed to traditional television spots because they know that a sizable portion of the electorate does not watch live TV anymore.
The campaigns will continue to use what they know about their audiences to serve them to tailor how and where they communicate with them. This means building a narrative with different constituent groups all over the country in sustained ways that gets them excited and gives them the tools to act.
Information travels instantaneously in the modern social political campaign and campaigns know that they can’t take a moment off. They have to create content and engage with voters every day. They know that one sound bite can knock them off their message and the only way to defend against this is to continue to deliver the story you want and empower followers to help tell it.
As the general election heats up, we will see a lot of this data-driven storytelling from both campaigns. And organisations of all stripes will be looking to these campaigns for innovations. In this socially driven world, people expect to be treated as individuals and the campaigns will have to do what they can in their power, and use all the data they have to meet people where they are.
Executive Vice President and Senior Global Corporate Strategist
- Nov | 13
- Oct | 13
- Sep | 13
- Aug | 13
- Jul | 13
- Jun | 13
- May | 13
- Apr | 13
- Mar | 13
- Feb | 13
- Dec | 12
- Nov | 12
- Oct | 12
- Sep | 12
- Aug | 12
- Jul | 12
- Jun | 12
- May | 12
- Apr | 12
- Mar | 12
- Feb | 12
- Jan | 12
- Dec | 11
- Nov | 11
- Oct | 11
- Sep | 11
- Aug | 11
- Jul | 11
- Jun | 11
- May | 11
- Apr | 11
- Mar | 11
- Feb | 11
- Jan | 11
- Dec | 10
- Nov | 10
- Oct | 10
- Sep | 10
- Aug | 10
- Jul | 10
- Jun | 10
- May | 10
- Apr | 10