Sides of the House: Understanding the Change

Have you seen this or this or this? It is bubbling in to something big and nasty, and "we" are on the wrong side (assuming this letter truly reflects toe Democratic position)...

The following chart compares the adoption rates of the internet from 1995 - 97 versus the recent rise of MySpace and Facebook. The starting point for both was around 2 million users.
Social media is bringing upon the constituency a rapid evolution. Understanding of where it is heading and what it means is lagging. Few understand the opportunity, let alone the consequences. And even fewer of those folks are in decision-making roles, whether it be government, corporate or otherwise.

Issues such as this are going to bubble up fast and furious over the next few months and years. Societal change is so fun to watch!

Facebook is Dead? Long Live Facebook! (in Politics)

I commented on Colin Delaney's post about the failure of Facebook to deliver on its value to political organizations & campaigns, but I wanted to elaborate.

As I wrote, no one has yet really invested in a well-thought-out strategy. The features of Facebook are limited. By features, I am referring to Groups, Pages, Events and even Profiles. Active communication tools such as email messaging are hamstrung on each of these, to suppress spam. Interactive features do not go beyond basic discussion boards and comment threads. These tools become no more than glorified blogs. Thus, maintenance of these has been left to lower-level staffers and often interns within the campaign's internet team.

But the application platform is much less inhibited. You are able to do whatever your creative mind can think of within the canvas page. And then you are able to connect your application to the existing features of Facebook and, more importantly, adapt your application to the behaviors of the existing Facebook community. Is Facebook's discussion board infrastructure too limiting? Build your own. Is your application constrained by Facebook's strict emailing policies? Figure out a way to motivate users of your app to provide you their email address. The opportunity to connect with the 25+ million US Facebook users is limited only by creativity.

And yet, Obama and Clinton have made minimal investments of time and energy in their applications, and McCain's is nowhere to be found. Non-presidential apps have been few and far between.

To consider the value of political activism via Facebook a dead end at this point is premature. Many people (and development firms) have tried to take advantage of the application platform. But the folks that "know" politics, know what works and what does not in the offline world, have yet to commit investment dollars to the space. The people that get the opportunity (and get politics) are most often on the internet team, buried within communications. Those that control the purse strings don't yet understand the opportunity of Facebook and the greater social media space, and therefore are reluctant to invest when tactical opportunities are presented...

Full disclosure: I helped produce Clinton's Hillary Gifts - what I expect(ed?) to be the beginning of a longer-term investment...

Freak Show

Interesting article in yesterday's Politico, laying out a few rational reasons as to why the Clinton machine continues to churn, despite calls to end it. Democrats in the last two cycles have been obliterated on the ground, given the hardened GOP "freak show," as Vanderhei and Harris refer to it, that has been developed and cultivated over the years. From the article:

The last two Democratic nominees, Al Gore and John F. Kerry, were both military veterans, and both had been familiar, highly successful figures in national politics for more than two decades by the time they ran.

Both men lost control of their public images to the right-wing freak show — that network of operatives and commentators working mostly outside of the mainstream media — and ultimately lost their elections as many voters came to see them as elitist, out-of-touch, phony, and even unpatriotic.

Can the freak show continue to dominate the conversation, given the power of social media? Does new media make such underhanded efforts more or less effective?

More on Control

From Yesterday's Washington Post:

"What we're watching is an evolution away from Washington's control, away from the power that big money and big donors used to have a monopoly on," says Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat and former Senate majority leader.

Adds Richard Viguerie, often called the "funding father" of the modern conservative movement for his effective use of direct mail: "The establishment, the power structure, the Karl Roves, are losing control of the process. There's a new center of power developing."

What I find fascinating is the latency in understanding this diminishing control. By continuing to retain control, campaigns stifle what energy exists...

McCainBlogette Redux & The Campaign Strategist of '12

I wrote previously about the McCainBlogette site, where I questioned how it could be considered separate from the campaign. I still have reservations, especially since Meghan McCain is not answering the question of how the site is funded (see the end of today's article on the operation from the Washington Post).

Such legality and minutiae aside, this is a fascinating example of how the dynamic is changing. McCain offers a different perspective as a fly on the campaign wall, as her father travels the country. Some certainly find her thoughts improper, especially from the daughter of a candidate. However, she is providing a unique angle to the conversation, one that cannot be replicated by another candidate or even within another time.

Did the idea come about from campaign strategists? I doubt not. Is it an effective channel to offer a different dimension to the overall message and idea of the McCain candidacy? Absolutely. She is reaching folks that her father never could...

I don't think the current lottery of campaign strategists could conceive of something like this, much less support such a separate, uncontrolled channel. However, this will be more the norm next cycle than the exception. At least, it will be for the winning candidate. Who will fill these roles in 2012?

Viral v. Retention

I just came across Andrew Chen's blog - interesting stuff. I am pondering this post where he digs in to the lifecycle of a Facebook application. The prevailing idea is that many successful apps fall just as fast as they rise. The essential idea is that that viral elements feed the rise, but retention elements are needed to stave off decline. Applications that are deep on retention elements miss the rise all together. It is a rare app that provides a healthy balance.

The process of evolving an app from viral to retention follows a similar path found in traditional grassroots politicking. The goal is to first identify the supporter with very low-hurdle asks - sign a petition, pledge your support, provide an email address. Once snared, you then bring the user along the ladder of engagement, from these low-hurdle asks to such things as displaying a yard sign, volunteering, and ultimately donating.

Social media offers the opportunity to drive supporter engagement in a very similar manner, albeit with a plethora of new tools and opportunities. First, on the viral front, the initial hurdle for identification can be much lower (i.e. add an application, join a group). And the bar for engagement actions are much lower as well - make a call from your home, send an email, etc.

We have made our first successful stab on the viral front, with Hillary Gifts. Stay tuned as we support the Clinton campaign's move up the engagement ladder...

Hillary Gifts

Our first app - Hillary Gifts! 4 K users and climbing...

Comb Overs

This. Is. Awesome. You gotta watch it all the way through. Here's a hint: comb over at 22?



Things haven't changed much, aside from the clothes and hair styles. That is, until this cycle...

Paradigm Shift

Patrick Ruffini offers a similar message that you have heard here, that there is a fundamental shift in the manner with which political campaigning is conducted.

All of this — the massive resource advantage Obama now enjoys — is the result of a decision to trust in a fundamentally more deeper and more resilient medium for building support for his campaign: a word of mouth network that can only be corralled online. Hillary Clinton trusted the establishment and is on the brink of losing. The GOP candidates who leaned on the party’s Wise Old Men lost.

We saw the first concrete results of adaptation in 2004 with Dean's prowess in online fundraising. Adapting to, rather than fighting the new paradigm of political campaigning with the social web has enabled Obama to out-raise everyone. More importantly, he has taken the opportunity a step further, out-mobilizing everyone through the use of technology to boot.

The political web is now reaching the vast majority of the primary electorate with dozens of touchpoints throughout the cycle — few of them controlled by the campaigns themselves — and is reaching all the people who will do anything beyond vote in a general election.

The impact goes beyond just politics. A new channel for communication is maturing, with a power to persuade unlike any other. And, the right message radiates with an ease never before seen. The social web exponentially changes the balance between effort in and effort out. The message has even more paramount than ever.

The ramifications of the success of political web strategy this cycle will be felt for years to come outside this space. There are certainly areas where politics follows distantly behind traditional marketing. Even some of the techniques finally being employed with much success this cycle have been around for years. However, there are few events as public and as closely watched as the US presidential election. Just as the message radiates, so too will the methods...

Nader Analysis

Yes I am bitter. Not only did he let George Bush into the White House in 2000, he cost me a job (I was working for Al Gore at the time). But, rather than write my own diatrbe on the lunacy of his persistence, I defer to Micah Siftry's in-depth look of the Nader candidacy given the power of today's political web.

My favorite quote:

Nader is at most a Web 1.0 candidate in a 2.0 era, seeing the web as a cheap tool for broadcasting ("transmitting") his views to others and missing entirely the power of the network. He may argue that all sorts of issues are being ignored by the major party candidates, but the tools for mobilizing people around neglected issues have never been more potent--if you are willing to work in concert with others, give up some control of your message and embrace the democratic public sphere that we are all collectively building.

Focused actions

Jeremiah Owyang has yet another great post on how to effectively take advantage of social media from a marketing perspective. As I look at his thoughts through a political lense, I believe he / we should go further with business objectives bullet. From his post:

Meets a business objective: First and foremost, any marketing campaign or activity should match with a business objective, regardless of the tools being used.

As I mentioned in the comments, I think this idea can be taken further, to ensure the success (especially within the political world). I believe that, for a social media campaign to be effective, it must also drive a focused, specific action of the community. For some campaigns, that may be as vague as “engagement”; for others it may be “visit our store” or “donate”. The more focused the action, the easier it is to measure and (I argue) the more likely it is to be accomplished.

Just more of my 2 cents...

Technology vs. Machines 2008

Is it me or is our electoral process getting tighter and tighter as technology continues to imbue the process? First, we had 2000 - the first online presidential election, and that went down to Florida. Next, we had 2004, with the Dean phenomena and a result that went down to Ohio. And now we have Clinton v. Obama.

Obama's candidacy is nothing if not unique. Have we had a candidate with less federal or executive experience be the nominee of a major party? Even Kennedy had 6 years in the House, and 8 in the Senate before 1960. Yet, Obama continues to succeed, much in part to his innovative use of technology.

I don't necessarily see this as a counterpoint to his candidacy. I am a big believer that direct experience is NOT necessarily a predictor of future success. It comes down to how successful is the candidate in the environments they have been in before. Context can be learned.

What I do see is that technology is enabling a new kind of politics, one where the traditional political machine is no longer as powerful. Issues, ideas and vision are rising to the top, past the traditional trajectory the hierarchical machine spews out.

In the 2000 and 2004 elections, the machine won. The Republican army was amazing if not exquisite in their execution. Despite some of the worst approval ratings in modern times, the Bush machine was able to secure re-election.

Are we at the tipping point, where technology propels the non-traditional past the machine? We shall see...

You Too Can Play at Home...

Rick Klau and friends put together a wiki to monitor the DNC's super delegates. It offers a rundown of who is committed to whom, as well as a decent integration with Google Maps & Earth, enabling users to see exactly where these delegates reside. (Rick works at Google.)

CNN recently used it:




Assuming Clinton survives her current slide, this could become a very useful site to explore how things may play out come August (and a bit freaky for the delegates themselves).

McCainBlogette.com Not Affiliated?

McCain's daughter Meghan has been blogging since October. There are a few things about this that peaked my interest. First, the blog is interesting - professionally done with a very casual feel. Meghan and team do a great job of weaving behind-the-scenes tidbits with song lists, video vignettes, etc. - hitting the armchair politico, the fashinista, and the iPod DJ in one swing.

What I find interesting is that they claim not to be affiliated with the campaign, yet they are on the campaign plane with unparalleled access to the Senator. Who is paying for this? There is no advertising on the site, nor any other means for revenue that I can see. Was this separated in order to shield the campaign if things go awry?

And why shouldn't they be affiliated with the campaign? In the age of the social web, it is this kind of unique perspective that engages and entertains.

The prevailing opinion of the coverage at launch was that this would be "a farce". Given what I see thus far, this is an excellent step forward (by the McCain campaign?).

Mitt's Video Post-Mortem: No Wonder...

Michael Kolowich, one of the folks involved in Mitt Romney's video operation offers this dissection of what happened on the web video front. What struck me is how his language continues to be about quick returns on investment, versus seeding the conversation as required by the social web:

If part of the idea is not just to inform but also to inspire people to act (give money, sign up, give us their email, etc.) then YouTube was weak at the “call to action” part.

Politics has never been an A = B environment - you never get your return on investment at first blush. There are tools at the politico's disposal that do drive specific action, but there are just as many that are about laying groundwork. I argue YouTube is a channel for laying groundwork towards the masses.

Providing rich video content on YouTube enables the campaign to reach a large, mass audience. Given the cacophony of content available (opposition clips, foibles, etc.), it is critical that the campaign be loud and proud within this channel, to ensure their message is heard.

He continues:

The most remarkable statistic of all is that more people watched the Romney campaign’s clips on Mitt TV than on our YouTube channel.

Sorry, Michael, but the reason your channel was more popular was not because your video was better, more tailored, etc. It's because you spoke to your zealots rather than the masses. In politics, the zealots get you close, but in the end it is all about reaching the masses. The fact that your YouTube channel was less popular was more a symptom of a more pressing problem - that your campaign's message was not inspiring the masses.

Was your Mitt TV content also published on YouTube? Assuming all content is cross-published, YouTube views should exceed your internal video site. You should be reaching folks that don't necessarily engage in your campaign, but at least hear your message. Focusing on such "seed" channels is just as necessary as focusing on those channels that drive action, in the age of the social web...

TSA Gets in the Game

Interesting - the TSA now has a blog. From the New York Times:

The T.S.A. blog has links to independent bloggers and real news reports, including negative ones. It also has personal blogs by five employees of the agency. But its most notable feature is the lively give-and-take, without refereeing, except for monitoring for obscene language and egregious crack-pottery.

This is an impressive foray into the conversation. It is already helping improve things, particulary around consistency as to how various airports implement regulations. What a great way for the government to use its constituency to help get the job done. Crazy how the TSA can launch a blog that is more open than most campaign blogs...

Its the Economy, Stupid!

A little off topic, but I had to share this article from the Politico. My favorite point:

As the economy was rising late last year as a major issue for voters, McCain in New Hampshire delivered this grenade, with its pin still in it: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," he said. "I've got Greenspan's book."

Let's hope this gets the attention it deserves.

Red Trucks & Explosions & Money, Oh My!

Online fundraising has been explosive, yet hesitancy abounds as to what is "appropriate" in today's political climate. Michael Turk discussed a few weeks ago how the Thompson campaign waited to deploy their successful Red Truck idea, out of fear of appearing too focused on raising money. From his comments (emphasis added):

In October, we began discussions of an end of quarter fundraising drive featuring a real-time disclosure of our success. The concept was shot down over concerns that it would place too much emphasis on money. As we moved through November, we began to hear rumblings of Fredsgiving Day - a third party money bomb effort scheduled the day before Thanksgiving.

It was unclear whether the campaign would support the effort. There were concerns (voiced by many online) that the timing was off - nobody would pay attention the day before the holiday. In the event the campaign decided to jump in, we went ahead and built the little red truck to track contributions that day. It was never deployed.

It was late in December when the little red truck finally saw the sunlight. Over the next three weeks, that little red pickup helped the campaign raise 1.25 million dollars. Had it been unveiled sooner, who knows what might have happened.

I have a few ideas on this front that have been met with this same fear. Campaigns have yet to come close to pushing the envelope of what is accepted. They continue to try new things, yet they can do more. Does anyone have an example of a campaign that pushed the online envelope too far? Where does this fear come from?

Barenaked Ladies and Crowd Sourcing

Barenaked Ladies are no longer signed with a record label. As of 2003, they own all of their intellectual property going forward, and also are able to re-record older music to use as they wish. Given such a position, they are wisely exploring the digital age, to discover tools and resources to better develop and engage their fan base.

One recently discovered tool is crowdsourcing. They have begun using their fan base choose a few logos. Fans are asked to submit designs, as well as vote on which ones they like best. The theory is that the best will rise to the top. In their tests, they have also gone the traditional route of working with a professional designer. Each time, however, the crowdsourced design has been favored by both the band and the fans. They hope to use this idea to choose the cover art for their next album, due next year.

Clinton used half of this idea to a limited extent, with her choice of theme song over the summer. However, the content was preselected. The YouTube debates CNN produced used the other half of the idea, by allowing users provide content, but not the opportunity to help select it.

Who will be the first to put the two halves together? Though control over the outcome is ceded to the "fans", the engagement driven will provide significantly more value to the campaign than a controlled outcome would ever provide...

Example: Driving the Zealots

From The Nation:

The speech has now drawn over 268,000 views, after about 36 hours online. By contrast, a shorter, spicier clip of Clinton and Obama's debate clash currently has under 50,000 views, (after half a day). About 43 percent of viewers have come from links on Obama's social networking page, MyBO, which encourages supporters to share videos and information with their friends...

These are impressive numbers, especially given the closed, proprietary nature of MyBO. This is a great example of directing your army of zealots to take action and drive the conversation. Imagine what could be done with an integrated approach within an existing social network...