Groundswell: The Engagement Ladder

Within politics, the idea of an engagement ladder has been around for decades. You begin to engage a potential supporter through a small, low-hurdle action, such as a short, ID survey (who do you support, etc.) or nowadays an email sign-up. The idea is that you then harvest those that filter through this initial hurdle with a larger ask, such as posting a yard sign. Eventually, you grow the supporter's engagement to volunteering their time and, ultimately, giving money.

Notice any parallels from this figure from Groundswell?
The social web allows the political engagement ladder to elongate in both directions. The gamut of actions from which you can choose to employ to grow your pool of supporters becomes vastly larger. The low-hurdle asks no longer have to be as active as a phone survey or even an email sign-up - now you can ask them to download a virtual gift within a social network (see Hillary Gifts).

Once engaged, the actions available can be much more broad than in the offline world. Campaigns are already allowing supporters to make phone calls from home. May more opportunities exist to activate and engage the supporter through social media (well beyond my ideas or existing examples).

How can the ladder be expanded?

Groundswell: Dems Dominate

I added another book to my list - Groundswell. Each of my clients is getting a copy - it's a great discussion of the social media opportunity. Most important, it looks at the phenomena not from the technical perspective, but from the direction of how social media is changing the relationships people have with their friends, colleagues, family, etc. Ultimately, these changes will also impact a brand, presidential campaign, or any other organization that relies on marketing and public relations to get its message out.

Li and Bernoff discuss their Social Technographic Profile, a breakdown of the various behaviors exhibited by users within the social web. Marketers (and campaigns) can use this breakdown to focus their social media efforts, as each tool and technique provides value to a different type of social media user. From a political perspective, the breakdown is:

The data suggests Democrats have a healthy advantage over their Republican counterparts in the areas of Spectators (those that primarily consume the content) and Critics (those that enjoy opportunities to react). Thus, providing opportunities for your community to view and digest new and interesting content will feed the Spectator (i.e. content aggregation). Ensuring your efforts provide ample opportunity to comment and discuss is necessary to feed the Critic's needs (i.e. comment tools, discussion boards, etc.). I am just scratching the service here of what this data means, but you get the idea...

I have long had the sense that Democrats & Progressives dominate the social web, as the Republican & Conservative movement has long dominated talk radio. This, in conjunction with the tremendous opportunity brewing on the business & marketing front, has driven me to help major Democratic political organizations realize and seize this growing opportunity. It's always nice to find empirical data to support your gut.

There is a ton of great information in this book, for anyone curious about the social web and how it will impact your organization, if it hasn't already. More to come on this one...

The Art of Conversation

I am reading Garrett Graff's "The First Campaign", an interesting look at the history of American leadership and politics, and a thought occurred to me. The media strategist as we have known them are dead; the art of conversation is now paramount, not the 30-second sound-bite. Campaigns have relied on the media strategist since the days of JFK - smart, savvy people that understand the television medium. Sure, resources have gone in to other communication channels in recent years, but television continues to reign supreme. No other channel has proven as effective at moving voter behavior as the tv commercial. As such, the art of one-to-many communication through short, 30-second bites has been the root of any successful campaign.

The rise of the internet, coupled with the recent social media phenomena, is changing that dynamic. Traditional advertising does not work in an online world. Users are impatient. They no longer "have" to sit through the 30-second rifts. They simply click on to the next. The traditional media's attempts at advertising (banner ads, even Google ads) are better, especially given the opportunity to target like never before. However, they are not nearly as effective as tv advertising, nor do they reach such a wide audience. Traditional online advertising will never become what tv has been - a single, powerful channel with which to communicate a message.

Assuming existing trends continue, people are spending more and more time online (and less and less in front of a tv). Of course, there is and will continue to be a population steadfast in their tv viewing, but that population is in decline. Unfortunately, however, those in the driver's seat (i.e. the media strategists) are still beholden to the tried and true of tv advertising. Their knowledge base rests within this one-to-many medium. Converting to the tactics that this new age requires breeds opportunity for new strategists, savvy in the art of conversation.

Instead of focusing on one-to-many opportunities such as tv and traditional online advertising, campaigns must shift focus towards community building. Tap the existing networks of people where they already live online - within blogs, social networks, etc. And therefore, the media strategist must evolve as well. The art moves from creating short, 30-second bytes to engaging in the conversation.