Do Those Take Action’ Causes and AutoFill Forms Really Work?

by Brian Reich | 26 Aug 2009, 7:15am

My friend, Amy Jussel, the Executive Director of Shaping Youth and an all-around super smarty-pants on the issues of how media and marketing influence kids, tweeted me last week to ask modern-day advocacy and activism.  Specifically, she asked me: “Do Those Take Action’ Causes and AutoFill Forms Really Work?”

Amy has now written a very full post — including some of the thoughts I shared.  Here is an excerpt from that post, my answers to three questions that she posed over email:

Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: When cause-marketing prompts us toward ‘urgent action’ for a piece of legislation, lobbying at a state level, etc. does it ‘do any good’ to pick up a phone, quick click an autofill form, retweet, SMS, or otherwise respond to digital pleas? Does it ‘count/matter?’ How so? Give us the inside scoop from the back end of these campaigns!

Brian Reich: Each situation is different. But the short answer is yes – feedback from constituents plays a big role in the outcome of a vote by a Member of Congress or similar. There are lots of factors that go into a decision on an issue, how to vote — not to mention a host of different meetings and votes along the way.  Still, at the end of the day, elected officials want to know that their vote reflects the will of their constituents and provides the best possible outcome for their district/state. That’s who they answer to in an election year (and when it is an election year, or a big election issue, that is top of mind). Providing a personal word of support or opposition on an issue can have a big impact.

That said, there are some important things you should know:

- Email is a commodity. It has become so easy for people to send emails to their members of congress that the direct impact of that form of communication has become limited. e.g. Members of Congress receive so many emails that most of the time what is presented is just a summary; a chart showing what percentage of the emails are in favor of a  piece of legislation and what percentage are opposed and use that, along with a host of other things, in their decision making. Calls, texts, etc. are treated the same way by many officials.

Most decisions are made long before votes. There are some cases where the vote is very close and some Members of Congress (for example) are wavering one direction or another. In those situations, a last minute flood of calls/emails can have an impact.  But, in most cases, the decisions are made well in advance.  So, what is more important is for people to show their support, share their stories, lodge their opposition or similar early on – when a bill is being shaped, when a committee is taking up the issue, before an elected official has decided their position and announced their intention to vote.  And if you really want to get your opinion known by an elected official, set up a meeting, attend a town hall, talk to them personally — they remember that stuff for sure. (AJ-yay, I did it right!)

- Local is key. The most important people that an elected official wants to hear from is their constituents.  You can get millions of people to send a note or make a call, but if they don’t live in the district, if they don’t vote, if they are only spewing advocacy organization created talking points, it will fall flat.

Personal, genuine, authentic communications win the day.  Technology can help speed and scale the delivery of those, so organizations should use them accordingly.  Millions of the same note aren’t as helpful as a handful of the right notes.

- List Building: A big reason why groups send out the last minute requests is to build their lists.  Every time you send an email or similar you add your email address to their list — and open yourself to future fundraising solicitations, requests for action and similar. If you are already on their list, responding shows that you are interested and willing to be active in future efforts.

From my view, the organizations don’t always interpret that action as they should… that you were interested in a specific issue or action, and that your support may not be broadly for the entire organization or effort.

- There are exceptions. I worked for a member of congress years ago who voted in favor of the assault weapons ban in 1993/1994, knowing full well that the decision was right for the country but not supported by his constituents.  And then, as expected, he was voted out the next election.  He was personally lobbied by the President (Clinton) and his head/heart was what drove the final decision, not electoral politics or constituent feedback.  So, every situation is different.

Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: Is one media form more impactful than another? (obviously fundraising is quantifiable but I’m talking lobbying actions/legislation-appeal)

Brian Reich: There is no way to quantify the effect of one media over another any more — to get your message across, to get an elected official to consider your issue, etc. you have to present your argument across a variety of channels and hope that it finds the right target.

In terms of how to figure out a specific approach or tactic, start with an understanding of who the decision makers are.  Most of the time, elected officials aren’t reading their own mail, or in some cases working on the details of the legislation themselves. Their aids and deputies are.  What do those people read?  In the ten minutes before the LA or LD goes in to meet with a Member of Congress to advise him/her on how to vote, what sources are they checking? That is the media you want to use.

In a lot of cases, the audience that you are trying to reach is only one person, and determining not only what channel to use in reaching them, but also what content/argument/experience you need to create for them to understand and appreciate your argument is what matters.

Mainstream media still has sway in that regard – an editorial from the local paper in the district, or a high-profile article in the Washington Post will get read.

Blogs are increasingly powerful for the same reasons, because certain blogs, on certain issues, or representing certain geographic areas, have influence and audience.

That doesn’t mean the YouTube videos or Tweets don’t get watched/read, but it means that a campaign focused around a really compelling video may not find its intended target.  And that doesn’t mean that a mass virtual protest won’t get an issue some needed attention.

But at the same time, some of the tactics that result in big, measurable numbers have the opposite effect you want (e.g. if so many people call the office, urged on by an angry radio campaign, and it shuts down the phone system and stresses out the staff, you made your point that people care about this issue, but you also may have burnt a bridge).

The way I see it, you have to look at activity vs. impact:

You could get 100,000 people to watch your online video, but if the LA or LD, the member of congress, or whoever advises them isn’t among that audience, and you don’t flip their vote on an issues as a result, that effort was a failure.

Obviously, getting 100,000 people to do anything is pretty impressive, but you have to look at using online/social media/technology to facilitate the kinds of actions that will get the results/have the impact you want.

In the case of media/social media, many of the decision makers still aren’t using the tools, or haven’t figured out who to trust online.  So, you have to use a mix of traditional approaches and more innovative online approaches.

And again, if you look at the organizational goals, getting 100,000 people to watch a video may be exactly what they want, regardless of the outcome of the vote – because those people get fired up, they join the email list, they make donations, they spread the word… and all that allows a group to sustain its operations and live to fight another day.

My personal belief is that too much time is spent serving the cause and not solving the cause – meaning that groups spend a lot of time raising money and keeping the lights on, but don’t apply the smart strategy and tactics to getting their issue passed, or similar.  Its a different approach and very different use of media, and social media, and technology in general, when you are trying to drive and measure impact vs. activity.

Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: How can change agents more effectively mobilize and activate time-crunched consumers?

Brian Reich: That question requires a very long answer.  But I would suggest three things quickly:

1) Engage them early and often… you want to build relationships with the audience/consumer so that when you need them to take action, they are already interested and motivated.

2) You need to add value… don’t just ask for money or action, give them something in return.  Something they need.  Something they want.  Add value.

3) Have impact.  I know full well when I sign an online petition that the likelihood that petition will result in a meaningful, measurable change on an issue is slim.  Everyone knows that now (or soon).  So the more times you ask for help, and direct action, and still can’t produce a real impact, the sooner you will find yourself asking and getting a response.

Here is a related blog post turned US Airways Magazine article I wrote on this called “The Internet Has Made Us Lazy.”

I hope you will read the entire post, and I encourage you to pay attention to Amy’s work generally - its super important, and there are lessons for all media and marketing efforts, regardless of audience, that you can take from her focus on kids.

Thanks for asking, Amy!

TAGS :
2 comments

Politics of Hope vs. Politics of Fear

by Brian Reich | 5 Sep 2008, 5:51pm

I posted a comment last night on my Twitter feed, as the balloons fell at the XCel Energy center in Minneapolis/St. Paul marking the Republican Convention, that read: “Our long national nightmare (read: two Conventions in two consecutive weeks) is finally over.”  I wasn’t joking.

The Conventions have passed, the 60-day sprint towards the Election in November is underway, and I need this campaign to be over.  This campaign season, no matter how it turns out, has already failed to live up to my expectations.  Instead of a spirited debate about the issues and an open dialogue with the American people, the two parties have set up a battle between the politics of hope and the politics of fear.  Sadly, there seems to be very little backing up either strategy that, in the end, will benefit the voters, or our country.
Continue reading Politics of Hope vs. Politics of Fear

TAGS :
1 comment

The Future of Media, Discussed By Media

by Brian Reich | 1 Sep 2008, 5:49pm

Arianna Huffington, in her role as New Media Baroness (and founder of the Huffington Post), convened a panel discussion today in Minneapolis about the future of media and the influence of blogs — on politics, and society, and all things decent in the world. The lineup of talent assembled for the discussion included (in no particular order, and not limited to), Tony Blankley, Frank Luntz, Laura Ingraham, David Kralik, Cyrus Krohn, Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peggy Noonan. It was ‘moderated’ by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. In the audience were such luminaries as Liz Smith, Ron Brownstein, Tucker Carlson, Joe Klein, and Ana Marie Cox (the original Wonkette).

Huffington had hosted a similar panel last week in Denver (with a significantly different lineup of talent, including George Stephanoupolos, Will.i.am, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) among others).

I took notes, and have lots of thoughts - a few of which I will try to summarize here. But, the event took place in the basement of a hotel — with limited/no internet connection and few electrical outlets — and when my laptop battery died I was forced to take handwritten and thumb-types notes. As such, my thoughts below are far from comprehensive (and could be far from coherent).
Continue reading The Future of Media, Discussed By Media

TAGS :
leave a comment

A different kind of campaign

by Brian Reich | 11 May 2008, 2:00am

Much has been made of how Barack Obama has change the way politics is waged in this country.   I don’t believe it, at least not yet.   Yes, Senator Obama’s campaign has used internet to create a significant base of donors.   They have launched a social network for the campaign and delivered tools to tens-of-thousands of activists around the country, not just permitting but encouraging them to organize on their own to advance the campaign cause.   They have talked about hope and collaboration and breaking down political barriers.   But, at the root of his campaign against Senator Clinton (who I support), the same basic political tactics ruled the day.   The tone and rhetoric of his campaign were significantly different than any in my lifetime (and certainly different than Senator Clinton’s tone and rhetoric), but his overall effort was far from complete.
With the primary campaign all but over and Senator Obama inching closer to securing the Democratic nomination, his opportunity to change politics is about to begin.   I expect him to take it.   Seize it.   Use the platform he has managed to secure for himself and his followers to transform this nation in a serious way.   Win or lose, we should come out of this presidential campaign a better nation than when we entered it.   That may be a big burden to shoulder, but Barack Obama has asked for it, and I expect him to take it on.

There are hints that this will happen, but I am still skeptical.   The campaign has launched a 50-state voter registration effort… which will either serve to inspire and increase participation in our democracy, or become one of the largest, most influential political machines in history (or possibly both).   There was talk in this morning’s paper that Senator McCain and Senator Obama were open to the idea of unmoderated debates or joint forums around the country… their barnstorming will either raise the level and quality of the debate about the issues, or serve as another opportunity to paint one camp or the other as unwilling to   engage in a new form of political theater.   What about new policy solutions, instead of a debate over whether the existing ones work or not (they don’t)?   What about a visit by the candidate to all 50 states between now and November (including Alaska and Hawaii), even the ones he isn’t likely to win, because a vibrant democracy comes from participation everywhere, not just the states that are likely to tip the balance in your favor.   And beyond the campaign, if Senator Obama is truly committed to his rhetoric of change, I expect him to start now - not wait until he is elected.   Senator Obama should ask his donors, particularly those who have maxed out, to support worth charitable causes and volunteer their time to help not only his campaign but the neediest in our communities.   I want to see him use his sophisticated technological platform to direct his donors to help UNICEF raise money for the survivors of the cyclone in Myanmar.   I want to see him use his extensive network of activists to solve some of the most vexing problems in our society, instead of waiting for Congress and a new President to tackle it.
Don’t get me wrong - I am a good Democrat and I will support Senator Obama either way.   I will vote for him.   I will donate.   I will tell my friends to do the same.   And I will challenge those who support Senator McCain to explain to me why his Presidency would not be an extension of the awful failures that George W. Bush heaped on us.

But, I want more.   I want more than politics.   I want more than speeches.   I want more than millions of small contributions and stories of people who are inspired. I want real change.   I want improvement.

I want a different kind of campaign. And that starts now.

TAGS :
1 comment

The Politics/Technology Discussion Is Going In The Wrong Direction

by Brian Reich | 9 Mar 2008, 3:00am

(This is cross posted on the EchoDitto SXSW blog)  

I have been in politics all my life. For most of that time I have been very optimistic about the potential for politics to have a positive impact on the world. And that optimism increased as I saw the potential for using technology to educate, engage, and mobilize audiences increase and become more integrated. It’s a fairly simple equation in my mind. Better politics help better people get elected and better people do a better job running the country (at whatever level they were elected - local, state, federal, etc.). And technology can help facilitate that on many different levels.

Of late, however, I have been down on politics — I am frustrated that the media and various other people talk about all the innovation and evolution in our political process, but the reality is far from that. I am saddened by the fact that our government fails to serve most of our population well, and some people not at all - and that tools are available to help expand the reach of government, but those in power don’t seem interested in using them in any meaningful way. I’m cranky about the fact that so many people look at technology as the solution, when there are obviously so many more more important factors.

Politics is exciting to watch and occasionally fun to participate in, but its not fulfilling its role in our society right now. Worse than that, our democracy is broken. And the rate at which change is occurring so that technology can play a meaningful role in fixing these problems is painfully slow.

What made me so frustrated today?
I was at a panel discussion this morning with a group of very smart political operatives from the internet space (several of whom are friends of mine). They were talking all about Facebook (one of the panelists was from Facebook) and user-generated videos that appeared on YouTube, list building and GOTV. Frankly, there wasn’t any new ground broken in the discussion.

So, I stepped up and asked the panel if they felt the shifting nature of politics, which increasingly recognizes the role of the community and gives some (though still not very much) voice to the grassroots community will spill over into better functioning of government, greater access for citizens, and an increased likelihood of real solutions being found for the problems facing our society. I think it was a good question.

The responses were not very good. Panelist answer ranged from “government doesn’t understand technology and has no interest in using it that way” to “the campaigns haven’t really achieved anything of significance, so there isn’t a model to transfer over to the operation of government anyway.” (Those aren’t direct quotes, FYI…)

So, I’m frustrated on a couple levels. First, I’m frustrated that the media (and people at a panel like the one this morning) obsess over the ‘paradigm shift’ happening in politics, when really very little, if anything, has changed at all. Second, I’m frustrated that nobody in the political space seems to look past the end of the campaign cycle to the job that ultimately their candidate/party will have to do when elected. I was in the political space for a long time (and am not that far outside of it now) so I understand the mentality, but I got into politics with the goal of helping improve our society and I feel as if the industry is just navel gazing far too much about this technology stuff. And lastly, I’m frustrated that you can get so many smart people together on a panel, or at a conference like SXSW for that matter, and not even begin to scratch the surface of the serious issues that need addressing.

I’ll keep hoping to find a panel, or a group of political professionals, who want to realize the true world changing opportunities that technology offers and how to actually improve our society.

TAGS :
leave a comment

Substance and the 2008 Elections

by Brian Reich | 8 Mar 2008, 2:00am

Since the Presidential primary contests began almost two years ago, I have been calling for a substantive debate of the issues.   I told my friends, my family, and anyone who would listen to me that the key to victory — especially for the Democrats — was to articulate (and discuss, in detail, with the voters) real solutions to the challenges that are facing our society.

There are many issues: the war, the economy, education, the environment and climate change, various social issues, etc. that the candidates aren’t talking about in any depth.   Their websites only host a few paragraphs about any issue.   Their speeches gloss over the important points.   The press hasn’t called them on it.   Hillary Clinton (full disclosure: I am a supporter and donor to Senator Clinton’s campaign) has done better than Barack Obama, but both have fallen well short.

This week, the New York Times agreed with me.   The editorial board wrote:

… it means that there is still a chance to take this campaign and elevate it, finally, to a serious debate about major issues. That is what American voters deserve. And that is what Democrats must do if they hope to break the Republican grip on the White House.

And then this…

For Democrats, changing this dynamic is all the more urgent because Senator John McCain has now won the Republican nomination, and he visited the White House on Wednesday to collect the dubious blessing of Mr. Bush’s endorsement. Mr. McCain is now free to enjoy the food fight knowing that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be weakened. He can now hone his attack for the fall.

And this…

The quality of this contest has not reflected that interest or the candidates’ intellect. Instead of a serious debate about trade, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have engaged in a depressing fit of pandering to voters in economically troubled Ohio. They tripped over each other in rushing to attack the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement rather than offering voters honest answers about what government can and should do to help them adapt to globalization’s challenges.

And this…

Even if their differences on Iraq are negligible, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should still debate the issue, explaining how they plan to bring American troops home and contain the chaos…

Instead of talking seriously about reforming health care, each side has run attack ads distorting the other’s proposals. There has been some discussion about taxes, the home-mortgage crisis and the slowing economy — but mostly when the candidates are asked about these issues during debates.

And finally this…

Nearly a third of the 50 states have yet to hold a nominating contest. Before they do, we’d like to hear fewer character attacks and a lot more discussion of the nation’s many problems after nearly eight years of failed Republican rule. That is the Democrats’ comparative advantage. They should start to use it now.

Voters have an important responsibility in our country and they take their role seriously.   While some voters choose based on personality, I feel confident that most voters decide who to cast a ballot for based on the issues.   We all believe something, and have opinions about how to tackle the tough issues (even when we don’t fully understand them) and we look for the candidate that shares, or at least represents, our beliefs.

So far, the candidates haven’t given us much substance to use in making our choice.   There are many months left (it seems) in the Democratic primary contest, and more months beyond that when John McCain will debate Senator Obama or Senator Clinton further.   Let’s hope the candidates finally listen to me, and the New York Times, and start talking turkey.

TAGS :
leave a comment

Email and the Presidential Campaign — ClickZ Comments

by Brian Reich | 4 Mar 2008, 2:00am

I was quoted in an article for ClickZ today talking about how the Clinton and Obama campaigns are using email in their GOTV efforts in Texas.   Here is a quick excerpt:

Still, the fact is e-mail recipients haven’t all made up their minds. By neglecting to discuss issues in recent e-mails to Texas voters and distinguish one candidate from the other, both campaigns may have taken support for granted.

“It assumes that everybody who signs up for the e-mail list is a supporter…and in a closely contested race that people aren’t looking for reinforcement of why they should vote,” said Reich. “Campaigns do themselves a disservice by thinking that e-mail in particular is not going to fall into somebody’s inbox who needs more than just a reminder to find their polling place.”

You can read the whole article here.

I think the campaigns have missed a significant opportunity to use email to reach and engage prospective voters and talk about issues that are important on a local level.   The content of the emails could have been more focused, more practical, and generally more inspiring.   There are so many advancements in the use of technology to support grassroots politics this year it surprises me that email was overlooked.
There is still a lot of campaigning to do this year, so maybe the campaigns will learn their lesson.

TAGS :
leave a comment

2 Days of Riding For 4 Years Of Hope

by Brian Reich | 20 Feb 2008, 2:00am

I walked into a  Starbucks this morning in Cambridge and saw a flyer that read “2 Days of Riding For 4 Years Of Hope.”   It  was promoting  a bike ride across Massachusetts to help raise money for Senator Obama’s campaign.   When I pointed it out to my colleague, Nicco, he said “Oh my god, he’s going to win” — because the Clinton campaign isn’t  organizing, or inspiring, anything even remotely this creative.

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, and donor, and fully believe she is the better candidate.   I still believe she can, and will, win the nomination.   But, it is painfully clear to me right now that Senator Obama’s team is out-thinking and out-maneuvering  Senator Clinton’s team.   I never thought I would see the day when any team beat the Clintons at campaigning.

TAGS :
leave a comment

Presidential Announcements v2.0

by Brian Reich | 21 Jan 2007, 2:00am

I had this really long, eloquent post written about how all the candidates are using the web to launch their political campaigns.   I hit the wrong button and the whole thing was lost.   I won’t try to reconstruct the entire thing, but let me try and summarize a couple of the key points.

John Edwards announced his campaign for the Presidency with a web video.   Barack Obama used a web video a few weeks later to do the same.   And now  Hillary Clinton, who announced her intention to run for President on Saturday, has used a video on her Website to break the news.   It seems you can’t be a candidate for President - at least not a Democratic candidate - without launching your campaign on the web.   (Memo to Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, who announced their candidacy’s on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows — you might want to check to make sure your announcement registered at all, or consider posting the video of your appearance on YouTube to make sure people take it seriously).

Both the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post used Senator Clinton’s announcement to analyze the role that the web will play in the upcoming campaign.   The LA Times offers a brief history of the highs and lows of internet campaigns over the past decade, writing:

The Internet’s power both to make and break politicians has been vividly demonstrated in recent years.

In 2004, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean jumped from political obscurity to grab the front-runner’s position in the initial stages of the Democratic race largely on the strength of the interest and fundraising he generated online.

Last year, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) watched his reelection campaign — and his hopes of emerging as a prime contender for the GOP presidential nomination — go down in flames after a video clip of him addressing a young man of Indian descent as “macaca” made the rounds on the Web.

Barely a factor in campaigning 11 years ago when Clinton’s husband won reelection as president, the Internet has become an integral part of the political landscape, with every major candidate fielding a website and seeking to create a virtual community around his — or her — campaign.

But with the recent advent of YouTube and other video-sharing sites, analysts said the most intriguing aspect of the evolving use of the Web may be as part of an immense game of political “gotcha,” in which campaigns seek to catch opposing candidates off-guard and off-message, as happened to Allen.

By contrast, the Washington Post took more of an editorial stance on what makes for good web video in Politics, offering this comparison Clinton, Obama, and Edwards:here) and has posted his announcement video to YouTube and other places.   He has  a MySpace page, a Facebook profile, etc.   He’s following the new media playbook pretty much to all the way.   We will have to wait and see how that works for him.

Unlike other candidates (coughBarack Obamacough), whose videos might have been produced by a guy with a cellphone camera, Clinton’s announcement was a veritable showpiece of Hollywood-style set design, lighting and cinematography. While Clinton, looking radiant in a red jacket and flattering makeup, affected the demeanor of a kaffe-klatching neighbor while speaking about the Iraq war, energy, Social Security and health care, the camera swung with pen dular subtlety between a background tableaux of framed family pictures and a fabulous table lamp exuding a warm glow. In fact, the background is so eye-catching, so crowded with totemic details, so bursting with semiotic potential, that I missed whole passages of Clinton’s statement the first time around. (And yes, I do want that lamp.)

The effect was one of breathtaking political shrewdness and brilliant staging, like a mash-up between “The West Wing” and Diane Keaton’s latest holiday heartwarmer. And for all its studied spontaneity, its air of having been pre-tested, choreographed, and managed to within a microfiber of Clinton’s mascara, it worked, if only to provide a little eye candy within a grainy sea of canned speeches and awkward iChats. The aesthetic sophistication suited Clinton, who, as a former first lady and a U.S. senator, would look hopelessly out of place in most other contexts (rocking the mom jeans in the Ninth Ward? Uh-uh. Maybe an ornate Senate office, but where’s the zazz in yet another wall of law books?), and the look and the script warmed up a woman portrayed as either an amoral ice queen or control-freaky dragon lady by her political opponents.

 

Three quick points: First, the novelty of launching a campaign on the web should have worn off a long time ago.   The web is not even close to being the most dynamic vehicle for delivering information anymore, politics has just been slow to embrace what virtually every major consumer brand and entertainment company in the world has been doing for the past five years.   A really nice website, a blog, or even a web video announcement is not enough.   Its time you ran a fully funded, fully supported effort online to promote your campaign - and to engage the audience that chooses to get its information there instead of through traditional news or campaign events (which are still important as well).   Second, announcing your campaign online sets all of our expectations very high that you, as a candidate, will remain committed to using the web.   John Edwards, you have already created behind-the-scenes web videos about yourself, recorded  podcast conversations about issues, and similar.   Are you going to keep doing that when you are visiting four states a day - so we can see what really happens to a person when they don’t sleep enough, eat healthy, or have  complete control over their message?   Hillary Clinton, you are taking your web efforts to the next level already,  inviting the audience to create the first guest blog post  to be published on  your site and hosting a series of live video chats with the web audience over the coming week.   Are you going to host live web-chats every week, about any topic?   Are you going to take on the large and vocal segment of the online audience who questions your policies, challenges your positions, and even insults you personally — or will your web campaign, like your offline efforts, be so highly managed and controlled that it fails to really engage people?   Finally, the media needs to find a better way to cover and express the value the web plays in this upcoming cycle than how they are currently doing it.   We have all read, time and time again, what a big impact the web is playing and will continue to play in politics.   Its time  to assign a full time, daily reporter to cover each campaign’s online efforts.   It is time to hold the campaigns accountable for what they say will be an online, grassroots fueled effort and  put the same scrutiny on their web efforts as you do on their fundraising, their television ads, their speeches, and — even in some  cases, their clothing.   Just as you have pushed increasing resources into covering traditional news through the online medium, now its time to recognize that the online efforts of a presidential campaign are also news and cover them accordingly.

It should be an exciting couple of years for those of us who live, work, and love the online medium.   I will definitely be watching to see what happens.   I hope the political world realizes the potential that it has to reach and engage the audience before and lives up to its end of the bargain.

Update: I wasn’t totally fair to Bill Richardson.   He has a very nice website (

TAGS :
leave a comment

John Edwards’ Online Presidential Launch

by Brian Reich | 30 Dec 2006, 2:00am

The online world is buzzing about the online-heavy launch of John Edwards’ campaign for President.   Jeff Jarvis summarized it this way:

So John Edwards announced his presidential announcement on YouTube in a video made by Andrew Baron and Joanne Colan of Rocketboom (who put up their own interview the next day) and Chuck Olsen (who, Andrew reports, is flying with Edwards to make video for the official campaign site). The digital cool doesn’t end there. Edwards tells you to text the word “hope” to a given number to get more instructions; how mobile. As NewTeeVee reports, he has Robert Scoble trailing around with a camera as well. He’s “live-bloggin” (their usage, not the usual meaning) at Daily Kos. He’s trying to create is own sort of Peace Corps called One Corps with people signing up online to do good deeds under his brand (they will “fight poverty” and, oh, while they’re at it, flog candidates who “support One America ideals’ [that was the old name of this campaign effort] and spread the word by calling radio stations). And tonight he’s having an online town hall from Iowa.

How cyber can you get?

Is this all just a publicity stunt to look modern and cool or is this a turning point in how campaigns are run? We’ll know in about a decade.

I think we will know whether John Edwards, and other candidates for President in 2008, are serious about the use of the internet and change the way they campaign well before a decade has passed.   Change is already taking place.   I wonder what impact those changes will have on politics - and what use of online is really worthwhile when promoting a political activity like this.   What will John Edwards’ next announcement look like and how much of his campaign will be geared towards the online audience (as opposed to complementing his outreach to all audiences, to balance or bypass television coverage, for example)?   How will the online momentum that he is able to generate translate into real votes on Election Day (remember, Howard Dean had all the online momentum before the 2004 primaries began but couldn’t translate them into wins in key primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire, dooming his quest).  

I have high hopes for the Edwards campaign and their online efforts in particular.   But I don’t want this to become a debate about what an internet-driven campaign should look like, or a media-driven frenzy over ‘who is going to be the internet candidate’.   Every candidiate should launch their campaigns online  in some way because a big part of the electorate looks online for some part of their news, or political information.   But every campaign, Edwards included, should also have a substantial grass-roots base, a sophisticated media strategy, a good message and some credible policy positions,  advertising,  and a host of other things.   The smart campaigns know this.   And when we look back in November 2008 at which candidate was elected as our next President, it will be the one who mixed all those pieces best that wins the day.  

TAGS :
leave a comment

  
Next Page →

  • RSS Subscribe to this blog's feed

  • Recent Posts

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • Pages

  • Latest Tweets

  • Archives