Need help? Ask!

Big Block of Cheese's post on the CNN.com article, "Fighting for every last vote", brings up a great point that all too many campaigns forget when it comes to recruiting volunteers....ask them!

Bai's article, echoes the same sentiment as he spoke with numerous Bush volunteers during the 2004 campaign in Ohio, ''No one is going to walk up to you and say, 'Can I help George W. Bush?' Dewey Stokes, the county commissioner for Franklin County, told about 100 volunteers at one of these sessions. ''You have to ask. Why are you all here tonight? Because someone asked you. You've got friends, relatives, co-workers -- ask them to help.''

This is very true, campaigns cannot expect voters to volunteer on their own accord. Volunteers must be courted and asked. No matter how great the candidate, how savvy the website, how inspiring the message -- most volunteers in any campaign are asked, many do not step forward on their own. It is important that a campaign must ensure a solid recruitment strategy which incorporate asking volunteers, not just a strategy to persuade them to volunteer.

Furthermore, the use of viral marketing is crucial in recruiting volunteers, online or offline. Friends asking friends to become involved is the most productive way to recruit volunteers. This was the technique employed in the Bush campaign's "Plan", which gave recruitment goals for volunteers and it worked. People are much more likely to lend a hand when approached by someone they know versus someone they don't.

First and foremost, volunteers must be asked!

Emerging Technologies

Last week, the association I work for held a wireless technology fair and reception on Capitol Hill, displaying the latest and greatest in mobile technology from all sorts of member companies such as Nokia, Verizon Wireless, and T-Mobile.

I am not a gadget or toy person to say the least, but talking with some company representatives about emerging technology was fascinating. There are so many innovations in the world of wireless technology, mobile phones that have laptop applications, PDA functionality, and digital and video camera capabilities; all in one sleek handset.

With such technology all in one device is incredible. Building from many political groups and campaigns utilization of PDAs, it will be interesting to observe how further innovations will effect the use of grassroots organizing.

Narrowcasting is great, but...

Reading campaignaudit.org's article on narrowcasting discusses many benefits of technology and its application of narrowcast marketing to individuals. However, campaignaudit.org also brings up some potential perils of narrowcasting.

The main argument is, "one side effect is that one-to-one marketing without transparency of the information presented by the campaigns and 527s to individual voters reduces accountability. Leakage of the message to the general public may be very difficult, if not impossible."

One-to-one marketing in some aspects, allows volunteers to say whatever, because there is no one to supervise what is said in their conversations with potential voters. Broadcast marketing such as television ads, provides some sort of check on any misleading information put out there by groups. In addition, because volunteers narrowcast door-to-door, there may not have as much accountability or credibility to voters because volunteers have a bias and there is no way for voters to fact check what they are told or what they see in videos brought to their door.

Although narrowcasting is an innovative way to market, particularly in a campaign, it does present some problems. Campaignaudit.org suggests, "A lesson from the 2004 campaign may be that we need to call on our leaders to clarify regulation on political advertisements on mobile devices and call for increased transparency of campaign messaging and 527 organizations."

Amway rules!

After the 2004 election, there was a lot of talk on how organized the Bush campaign was on the ground compared to Kerry. Usually it is the Democrats who win the ground game. With all the hype, I had no idea how organized the Bush team was until I read Bai's article, "The Multi-level Marketing of the President."

Bai explained the pyramid organization of the Bush campaign through a narrative about his time spent with Bush volunteers throughout Ohio early in 2004. Throughout the article, Bai compares the tactics and strategies of the Bush team to that of Amway; right down to the organization, goals and incentives, and educational tools employed by both organizations.

It was a rather brilliant idea by the Rove and his cronies straight from multi-level marketing giants like Mary Kay, which brought organization from the headquarters in Arlington, VA right down to the second precinct in Franklin County, Ohio. The hierarchy was quite pronounced and organized. The HQ was at the top, than regional chairs, state chairs, state-regional chairs, county chairs, precinct chairs. All had their own recruitment goals, canvassing quotas, etc.

Moreover, the relationship between national campaign officials and local folks was symbiotic. In the early leg of the campaign the top depended on the bottom for feedback, information, and frame of mind of voters. In the later legs, the top directed the bottom as to the campaign message of the day, etc.

It is remarkable the operation the Republicans installed throughout the 2004 campaign. It was organized, provided guidance and direction, as well as incentives and rewards to do well, much like Amway does, and it worked!

I wonder if this will be the model for future elections and if the Democrats will tap in to the Amway organization?