While Republicans and Democrats are spending almost equally on their Web efforts, Democrats are spending dramatically more on in-house staff. Approximately 36% of the Democrats’ Web budgets are dedicated to staff, while less than 8% of the Republican budgets are. Overall, the Democratic candidates have 39 people working in the Web departments while Republicans have 18, spread over 9 active candidates. That works out to an average of 5.6 staffers per candidate on the Democrat side, and just 2 on the Republican side, encompassing both frontrunners and also-rans.
[...]
Most disturbingly, it shows that we are not investing in the human capital needed to drive our online efforts forward. If we can’t innovate in a competitive primary environment, when can we innovate? The Democratic nominee will have access to nearly 40 bright minds who have direct Presidential campaign experience, and the Republican nominee will have access to less than half that.
Thinking ahead past 2008, this staffing inequity could have serious long-term effects. When you look at the progressive/Dem online politics world, veterans of the 2004 Dean and Kerry campaigns are hard to miss. Joe Trippi, of course, but also Zephyr Teachout, Zack Exley and the Blue State Digital folks. Ditto for EchoDitto, and I’m sure for quite a few others. These people are helping campaigns NOW and also training a whole new cohort of online activists for 2010, 2012 and beyond. Each skilled web person has a potential multiplier effect, as he or she moves on to other campaigns or into the advocacy world.
The Republicans started this cycle behind the Democrats in overall online experience (with notable exceptions like Patrick, David All, Matt Turk and Mindy Finn), and if senatorial and congressional races follow the presidential campaigns’ current pattern, that imbalance seems likely to persist for years to come. Consultants can help, but it’s in their interest to hoard rather than to spread knowledge. Skills multiply best when widely distributed — wildfires spread faster if they start from more than one spark.
Some interesting conclusions in a preview of a study of presidential candidates and social networking sites to be released by two Bentley College (Mass.) professors in August. For instance, the authors note that the different demographics of MySpace on one hand and YouTube and Facebook on the other show a generation gap favoring certain candidates: Barak Obama and Ron Paul far outshine the other candidates in their parties on YouTube (and Obama on Facebook) but are much less ahead on MySpace, whose audience is more diverse and not as dominated by students and recent graduates. The authors are also not the first to note the disconnect between social networking standing and broader popularity:
The Paul, and to a lesser extent, Obama, examples show that a dominant online presence does not necessarily convert to a commensurate standing in offline polls or campaign contributions. Similarly, a weak online presence relative to other challengers need not preclude reaching the top of the polls, as Giuliani’s numbers show. Of course, these data can not answer the most important question about the role of the Internet in 2008: are the Paul and Obama campaigns doing much better than they would be if they did not have a dominant online presence? Or, would Giuliani be further ahead of the pack if his online presence were stronger?
Hmmmm, a Google alert just delivered this little tidbit — according to Politico, Fred Thompson has raised only $3 million for his “exploratory” committee so far, not exactly an overwhelming wave of support, online or off. Despite his blogging and strong online team (including some Republicans-who’ve-been-out-drinking-with-e.politics-before), the Thompson campaign-to-be hasn’t exactly figured out how to turn on the Internet ATM yet. Kos crows, not surprisingly.
The past week’s online uproar at the thought of Republican frontrunners skipping their turn in the sights of YouTube video questioners has been both revealing and (for a Dem) quite a source of mirth. Talk about a PR black eye — hey guys, let’s give the impression that we’re afraid to speak to regular people unless we’re sure we can yank on their puppet strings from above the stage.
Since Jose Antonio Vargas’s original report that only Ron Paul and John McCain had so far agreed to participate in the September Republican version of last week’s CNN/YouTube debate, plenty of folks on the left, right and center have dogpiled on the candidates, lacerating defenders’ arguments and leaving me with little doubt that Romney, Giuliani, et al will ultimately grudgingly deign to take questions from The Common Man.
Why did this happen? Sarah Lai Stirland, writing in Wired’s Threat Level blog, said early on that it’s all about the war, noting that candidates other than McCain and Paul may be reluctant to face a video as powerful as this one:
The Wall Street Journal had a piece last week (via PoliticalWire) on the growing use of newspaper ads in political races. Besides the usual trend-piece anecdotal evidence, author Kevin Helliker has actual numbers to back up the claim: between 2002 and 2006, overall campaign spending in the U.S. doubled, but the amount spent on newspaper ads tripled. Admittedly, the $104 million spent advertising in print and on newspaper websites in 2006 was still only 5% of the amount spent on TV ads in that cycle, but some politicians and consultants swear by newspapers and their sites as a channel to reach the politically active — including those under 40, who tend to get their news online. As South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds put it, “People who read newspapers vote in elections.”
Interestingly, “the rate of growth appears to be highest in races for local posts, such as mayor and state legislator, because newspapers boast greater penetration and influence in small- to medium-size markets.” This ties in with an article in this month’s Wired about Gannett’s focus on hyperlocal coverage and citizen journalism in papers in its chain (see also Post coverage from December). More local focus in regional newspapers equals an even more targeted audience for local political advertising plus more opportunities to get earned media — free coverage for events or initiatives. How about widespread advertising by a national campaign with messages tweaked for different papers in different parts of the country — geo-targeting by media outlet. Add in some online ordering to make up for flaws that the Journal finds in many papers’ ad sales process, and we might have something interesting for ‘08 and beyond.
Ad contests have become a bit passé of late, but MoveOn’s recent solicitation of scripts for radio ads stands out as a good example of social media in action — as well as an online/offline mixed-media performance from the organization that invented crowdsourcing of political ads. I risk being labeled as obsessed with radio, but audio seems like an excellent channel for citizen contributions, in this case ads to be run against Republicans blocking changes in Iraq War policy. The MoveOn contest requires even less technical ability than video, since anyone with a feel for words can try his or her hand at writing a script. I’d love to see them open the production process to member contributions as well — let people submit their own MP3s and see what comes out. But this script competition will be determined in part by member vote, and overall it looks promising. Update: A Loyal Reader (thanks, Mom) points out that this competition is also being heavily pushed on the John Kerry list, which she still reads but whose messages I am apparently all too likely to delete.
Hi y’all, I’ve been off in a print- and web-production frenzy the past few days, but the world of online politics never sleeps, so let’s dive right in with some revealing information about two much-hyped channels for online outreach.
First, according to MarketingVOX, Facebook is already the sixth-most-visited destination on the web, with users spending over 20 minutes on the site per day. They’re not all young: more than half of site users are out of school, and the site’s fastest-growing demographic is the over-25 crowd (which is what you’d expect, since it only opened to old people like me a few months ago). Users are also receptive to widget-like applications like those used for advocacy and fundraising, with over 75% installing at least one app. For those of you trying to go where your audience is, a good chunk of it may be hanging out on Facebook (particularly if they’re preps rather than nerds).
Unfortunately, Second Life doesn’t seem to be faring as well as a marketing tool: according to this month’s Wired,the site hasn’t lived up to its promoters’ buzz, with most commercial spaces unstaffed and rarely-visited. Those high traffic members (7 million!) are grossly exaggerated, since most accounts are quickly abandoned — over 85% of all avatars ever created are now ghosts in the immaterial machine. Though some visitors do become regular users, “the big draws for those who do return are free money and kinky sex” (god bless ‘em). The main benefit companies seem to have gained is press attention for the outreach effort itself. Who knows what they’re paying their PR agencies, but I’d love to see some ROI numbers for THAT little project.
The YouTube debate may not have revolutionized politics, but it sure as hell was more of a pleasure to watch than your average political event. I’d read both hype and skepticism in the days beforehand, and I suspect that ultimately the new format will have a bigger effect on the debates themselves than on the political process. Still, it brought home the hollowness of much of our scripted political speech, since those candidates who could break through the rhetoric and speak with a human voice really stood out. And it demonstrated the real potential of citizen politics — sometimes a million monkeys banging away on keyboards WILL produce quality.
Guest article! David Newland — screenwriter, producer and former National Geographic web video guy — watched last night’s debate with the eyes of a man who’s seen (and created) more online video than he’d probably like to remember. He has both debate analysis and practical advice for future questioners.
YouTube Debate Questions and Video Production
The debate is done and I am happy. Now, a few caveats up front. I am of mixed opinion about whether this was a one-time stunt, or if user-submitted videos will become a fixture in politics, and yes, the YouTube submissions were filtered through CNN, so we may have seen only the best produced videos (a brief glance at some of the non-chosen videos on YouTube seem to bear this out).
But still, people actually produced quality amateur videos.
I had expected to see question after question in the “video confessional” mode ala Lonelygirl15 and a million other YouTube videos — a person sitting in front of their computer, in a face-warping close up, with a junk background. Videos that burn my eyes and strain my ears. And yes, about half of those videos were like that.
But the other half showed production values. They showed effort and thought, and as amateur video submissions, that’s what I’m looking for. A 50% success rate? That’s pretty good. We are not only a media-savvy culture, we are apparently a media-producing-savvy culture, too.
Some quick highlights from the candidates’ strategies to leverage the debates to build their supporter bases, connect with voters and foster online community:
Kucinich wins for best use of his own video clip: Text “P-E-A-C-E.” SMS list-building exercise, anyone? The kids’ll love it. Bob Dole bonus moment: repeating it twice in person.
Chris Dodd unveiled a comprehensive debate exploitation strategy, also soliciting questions via video and offering some behind-the-scenes footage. And, he promises answers to some of the top-rated debate questions that DIDN’T get asked.
Picking up fans during a July debate is nice. Building your list of potential donors? That’s golden.
So, as promised, I missed the first presentation of tonight’s debate, but with all of the live-blogging going on, I feel like I might just could skip the rebroadcast of the real thing (only kidding, but man, a Tivo would kick ass right now). I’m sure this puppy is being dissected at high speed all over blogland, but let me point to some quick highlights from the world of rapid typing. Spencer Overton has gone out on a limb at techPresident — live-blogging in front of an audience of tech/political types? No pressure. Danny, Shira, Heather Andrew and the other mainstream media kids over at National Journal have outdone themselves as well, with two separate threads running, one on Hotline On Call and the other at Tech Daily Dose.
As someone who generally writes essays rather than stream-of-consciousness pieces, I’m fascinated to watch these on-the-fly articles spring up. Writing them must be like trying to shoot a bird on the wing, knowing each time you draw a bead that dozens more will fly by in the meantime. The time for perspective will be laternow.
The folks at National Journal’s Technology Daily have really poured some resources into their debate coverage today — besides reprinting some excellent Tech Daily pre-debate stories on their Daily Dose site, they’ll also be live-blogging the event itself. I promise not to plagiarize — intentionally, at least. The site currently features articles about the debate’s degree of innovation (including a quote from A Familiar Online Politics Writer as well as some rather blunt opinions from the author of Cult Of The Amateur), a look at some tech-related questions that have been submitted, details about how the candidates will be trying to use the medium to their advantage, and of course, this little gem from Red State Update:
Remember, it’s not a real debate unless someone’s top comes off — that’s just common sense.
Here at e.politics world headquarters, I tell ya things are HOPPIN’! We are PLUMB FIRED UP! Tonight’s the REVOLUTIONARY, GONNA CHANGE EVERYTHING presidential debate, sponsored by CNN and YouTube — with questions submitted by YOU, the great unwashed masses….
Okay, okay, it’s another presidential debate, basically in a town hall format, but with questions submitted by video rather than in person. A game-changer? When you think of it as a town hall, probably not. And as has been widely discussed, CNN is still vetting the questions, so there’s always a chance that we’ll end up with the same Washington-consensus questions that dominate the regular debates. But Jeff Jarvis quotes debate moderator Anderson Cooper as saying about the questioners: “These are people that are very passionate about this topic. I want to make sure that this debate honors them, and honors the time they took to make these questions.” So perhaps we’ll get some good questions and some video presentations that really take advantage of the medium — responding to Jeff’s piece, Troy Scheider says that the debates, “while still far from perfect, are an encouraging sign folks are trying — and that we’ll find that new sweet spot eventually.”
The e.politics “team” (me and the cat) will miss the live broadcast — I’ll be at a previously scheduled dinner and she’ll be napping — but my colleague David Newland will be watching from the safety of his new home, Los Angeles. He’s been a web video producer at National Geographic as well as a screenwriter and an all-around video guru, and he’ll be evaluating the video questions from a film-guy’s point of view. I’ll catch the rebroadcast at 11 and take in the whole spectacle from an online communications perspective. Together we shall be an unstoppable force. If you’re looking for more, besides Jeff and Troy’s pieces, Josh Levy’s Daily Digest at techPresident has links to some good preview articles.
Everybody step back: it’s time for a little self-plagiarism. This afternoon I wrote a response to a question on an email forum about how to use the blog search engine Technorati when you’re marketing and promoting websites, and I figured it’d be neighborly to pass it along to you all as well. Think of it as recycling.
Most of us use Technorati to find out how popular we are, of course. If your ranking is high enough, you get to sit at the cool kids’ table in the lunchroom…
Two articles in today’s Post (which I read sitting on my front stoop on this most perfect summer Sunday morning) illuminate very different ends of the spectrum of online political activity.
First, a front-page story profiles Greg Letiecq, local Prince William County, Virginia blogger and political activist, who helped write that county’s new anti-immigrant policies. Though described by critics as a “schoolyard bully” and a practitioner of “yellow journalism,” Letiecq sees himself as an heir to the political pamphleteering tradition and as someone not afraid to pull punches. I agree with the guy on, well, just about nothing, but I have to be impressed with the way he’s translated opionion, attitude and an eye for local news into real political power. Though I searched his site in vain for much evidence of the “media-savvy” “video, photos and snazzy graphics” cited by reporter Nick Miroff.
Next up, Jose Antonio Vargas, the paper’s designed online politics guy, travels to California to hang out at Google, the center of the technology world — and a popular stop on the presidential campaign trail. In town hall-style meetings with big groups of company employees,
The candidates learn about products such as Google Earth, a satellite imaging program; get an introduction to what’s referred to as the company’s Googley culture; and discuss a wide range of topics (atheism, Russian relations, Internet access in Africa) in hour-long sessions that can seem a long way from Iowa and New Hampshire.
One problem: Googlers seem to expect substance, not sound bites (they’re so needy). McCain, Hillary, Edwards and tech favorite Ron Paul all stop by to say howdy, though Paul’s global warming skepticism was not well received by an audience more sympathetic to other parts of his libertarian mindset. More on Google’s political influence.
In an online discussion today, Bill Pease with Convio wrote a great overview of how email messages get marked as spam and how you can avoid having yours consigned to that awful fate. Basic message: just as in high school, a Bad Reputation means trouble. Bill’s kindly allowed me to reprint his comments, so let’s geek out on email for a few minutes.
Here’s my take on various spam scoring systems:
1) Unless your organization’s email content regularly involves
commercial-sounding language (e.g., you are selling products in an
estore, or promoting services provided by affinity marketers),
content-only spam scoring systems are of relatively limited utility.
Content characteristics are generally a minor component of the
commercial or ISP filtering systems that control access to most of your
supporters’ inboxes. Given that, there is not a lot of ROI on the
effort required to tweak messages to avoid the key words or graphical
features that content-only systems identify as “spammy.”
