Where Do I Fit In?

In class, we saw a video about narrowcasting. Instead of broadcasting to everyone, narrowcasting allows companies to target individuals based upon their demographic profile. Emi posted a link for Claritas, where I could see the demographic groups in my neighborhood (near GWU campus) and it made for some interesting reading.

Claritas identified 5 different "narrowcasting" groups, and it was interesting to see where I fit in.

1) American Dreams

The American Dreams is ethnically diverse: Half of this group is Hispanic, African American, or other. Most individuals are married, white collar workers in the service industry that make an average of $50k per year. They are most likely to buy Latin music, and drive a Toyota Sienna minivan.

2) Bohemian Mix

The Bohemian Mix group is composed of young, mobile urban adults like students. Most of these individuals are single, and shop at Banana Republic, run, watch Friends and drive an Audi A4. They also average $50k per year.

3) The Cosmopolitans

The Cosmopolitans are educated couples in urban areas usually over 55 + years of age. They play the lottery, read a book, watch People's Court, and drive a Lincoln Towncar. In addition, they are homeowners and white collar professionals averaging $51k per year.

4) Urban Achievers

Urban Achievers are single individuals that work in the service industry averaging $32k per year. They shop at Banana Republic, drive a Black jetta, and read Fitness magazine. They rent their home, and are marked by their diversity like the "American Dreams" group.

5) Young Digerati

Young Digerati are urban singles and couples on the technological fringe. They are highly educated, and into all the latest trends. This group is composed of professionals averaging $80k per year. They own a DVD player, read the Wall Street Journal, listen to NPR, and drive a Saab.

So where do I belong?

I am a mixture of the Bohemian Mix and the Urban Achiever, but even then I don't feel like those groups adequately fit me.

I am a single, urban, male, student with a DVD player, eclectic music tastes, and I enjoy running and playing sports. I don't watch the People's Court or play the lottery, nor do I shop/eat at the most-trendy places.

Now how is that useful for political purposes?

Grouping by demographic characteristics might help for commercial purposes, but I fail to see how it can really be applicable to politics. How can you identify how I vote based upon the type of car I drive or whether I rent or own? It seems like a futile effort that reduces us all down to predictable data.

After all, I just might surprise you and do something completely unpredictable - particularly in the voting booth.

Politics in your Face(book)

"We're so cool on Facebook."

I never used Facebook because I graduated before it became really popular at my school. And I didn't use it during the election, but many of my friends did.

For those unfamiliar with the Facebook, it allows you to input all of your interests and connect a network of like-minded people. It was really interesting looking at a circle of my peers and seeing how many connections I really had.

Here are the highlights of Facebook:

Facebook is fun. You can joke with friends and invite them to your backyard BBQ. Or you can use the wierd "poke" feature with your friends.

Facebook is addictive. I sat down and before I knew it, I'd spent over 30 minutes making connections with friends of friends that I knew in college and at other colleges. Some of my friends were able to connect with people that they hadn't seen since elementary school!

Facebook is interactive. You can make your own groups ranging from a wide variety of interests. From music to sports to politics, it's all there. A popular one, or so I am told by my friends at UNC-Chapel Hill, is: "I Go to the real Carolina." [UNC is the real Carolina, not the University of South Carolina.] It can venture into politics as well, as students might join the "Hunger Strike for Cafeteria Workers" or "Anti-Death Penalty" groups.

The Facebook had the potential to really do something interesting, not only for social networks, but also for politics. In fact, a GWU article even mentioned the political potential of this medium as GWU students formed their own political clubs based on a particular candidate or their own apathy. Some students even formed the fake "Sam Adams for President 2008" group because they were so sick of the Kerry / Bush supporters.

Facebook can make an interesting connection to politics, however. All of the information you share with Facebook is their property. Facebook knows if you are conservative or liberal, protestant or catholic, ect... They even own your photos of the wild party you threw last weekend. Imagine a database like that for political purposes! It'd be a goldmine for a political consultant.

Forget this idea of data mining and large databases like Demzilla. The Facebook works wonders because all of the information is inputted voluntarily by the user. What if political consultants could make an interactive, fun system where people would voluntarily input information for the campaign? It could be a network that would allow you to solicit other supporters and express your opinions.

And it might be just enough to win an election.

Luntz: Admirably Destroying Issues

Luntz-Speak at the State of the Union

Tonight in class we watched a video of Frank Luntz at work. Luntz is a Republican pollster and messaging guru. He is hired by many corporate clients (and politicians) to figure out an effective way to market or influence consumers and voters.

He does it through appealing to emotion saying "“80 percent of life is emotion and 20 percent is intellectual." By manipulating the language and verbiage, we can twist the negative into the positive.

Estate Tax = Death Tax

Tax Cut = Tax Relief

Global Warming = Climate Change

Luntz is doing some brilliant things with language, and I think his work is admirable. But can we really say that he's helping political discourse? By packaging politics under these vague terms, he's basically tricking people. (These are the same people that most consultants "claim" to want to educate about the "issues" of the election.)

Everyone agrees that we want healthy forests, which conjures up good images of a wilderness area. Very few people want logging on public land. If you're going to pass a bill to allow logging, tagging it with the word "healthy" will aid in developing public support. Thus, Luntz names policies under the names that everyone can agree with like "Healthy Forests Initiative."

He was instrumental in the 1994 Contract with America in which he claimed that at least 60 percent of Americans supported the Contract's policies. The problem was that Luntz's policies were so vague that almost all Americans found them favorable. In fact, it's amazing that Luntz's wording didn't give 100 percent agreement from the American people. For example, what person is going to say that they want to deprive any American child of a quality education? Or that they believe in dirty drinking water?

"[Words are] like fire," Luntz said. "It can be used to heat your house or burn it down."

Right now, I'd argue Luntz is burning it down.

Owning the Campaign

I was interested to read The Marketing of the President article about Howard Dean's grassroots internet organizing and it brought up a common theme of this section of the course: Campaign Ownership.

We've already seen how the Amway model or top-down model worked for Bush, but the Dean campaign was the anti-thesis of the Amway model.

Dean's campaign empowered volunteers to register voters and caucus for Dean. All over the country, groups acted in "cells" (as the article put it) to help Dean win the nomination. From letter-writing to making signs or posters, the Dean campaign used many traditional campaign methods. But they did it in a different way than had ever been done before. Dean used his blog and the internet to keep track of the "cells" working on his behalf throughout the country. They also allowed other supporters to link up and meet, free from the traditional heirarchy of the campaign. And most importantly, it was interactive.

Joe Trippi, Dean's consultant, said that the campaign wanted people to feel ownership of the campaign so they did not censor remarks on blogs. The Bush campaign (Amway model) censored some of the internet content on their blog, which would have made it dull and dry. Dean's blog, however, was probably more interesting to read because it lacked censorship. It allowed competing ideas to flow freely - either for or against Dean. Where else in the history of politics could you effectively offer your opinion to the higher-ups if you did not agree with a policy? Or even call out the candidate himself if you wanted? The "Blog for America" made it all possible.

While many consultants would look at Dean's model as "managed chaos," their internet team did a remarkable job of empowering their volunteers. By establishing a sense of ownership in the campaign, Dean forever changed the way that the internet will be used in elections.

The Amway Model

In two articles for class now, I have read that the GOP relied on the Amway model to run their campaign operations. Having been exposed to that sort of "pyramid scheme" through some of my friends, I am curious as to why this worked for the Bush campaign.

In the 2000, Republican consultants acknowledged that were handily defeated in the "ground game." This Democratic staple tactic involves turning out large numbers of supporters on election day through massive GOTV efforts. In the 2004 campaign, Bush consultants Karl Rove and Mark Mehlman enacted a 72 hour plan to ensure that the GOP would be competitive in turning folks out to vote according to Karen Tulmuty's article.

In addition to GOTV operations, the Bush campaign also adopted a campaign heirarchy similar to the Amway model. In a top-down structure, almost every field decision was coordinated in the Bush headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. This stands in stark constrast to the Democratic strategy, which relied on well-financed 527 organizations like America Coming Together (ACT) to turn out the vote. There was no message synergy, however, as 527 groups could not communicate with the Kerry campaign due to campaign laws and they could not mention Kerry by name. ACT could only tell people to "vote for change."

Amway rewards you for hooking your friends and getting them to spread the word about the company and their products. The Bush campaign was very similar. They "empowered" volunteers to seek out individuals who needed to be registered. The campaign shifted volunteers to various tasks from phone banking to letter writing to calling talk radio.

And like any successful "pyramid scheme," the Bush campaign rewarded volunteers. It might be a signed picture of the President or a shot for the best seats at a Bush campaign rally, but it was enough motivation to get volunteers out.

The Amway model, coupled with their own 72-hour GOTV plan, enabled the GOP to beat the Democrats on their own turf: The ground game. And in 2004, the ground game made the difference in battleground areas that determined the winner of the Presidential election.