Taxpayers For Truth

I just read Dimmy's post on how it seems like official Congressional websites are almost guaranteed to be better than Congressional campaign websites. I never thought about it before, but this is a fascinating phenomenon.

While use of technology has increased dramatically within the last few years, there are still some candidates that don’t think it is worth the investment to put up a solid internet campaign. I once worked for a candidate who had just about the worst campaign website but had an incredible official website since the state was on the hook for the technology bill. In his book on internet use within the legislative branch, Johnson points out that many on the Hill are using technology to push through legislation while not focusing as much on the internet for campaign use. While government use of the net is helped by the limitless coffers of the government, it does raise some interesting questions. When will we get to a point that it will be mandatory for all candidates to have a strong internet presence? Will the internet trump traditional forms of campaign communication? Are we there already?

Based on Howard Dean’s strong performance using the net, I think that many candidates have realized just how powerful the internet can be as a campaign medium. I still think, however, that many smaller campaigns don’t think that the internet can impact their campaign and they rely on more traditional forms of campaign communication. We are within striking distance of all campaigns taking the internet seriously, especially since it has been proven to be a strong means of raising money (aka paying for itself and then some).

I Love Monarch!

When I was reading the Watkins article on Progressives using technology, I had a few reactions. For one, I agree with DelaBlogger’s post about Watkins obsession with Monarch. I am sure that he is very grateful for having such wonderful technology, but someone has to be on the take in order to love their software program that much.

It is also really interesting to see Watkins take on technology compared to what technology really exists today. He talks a great deal about the Clinton and Dole campaigns in 1996 and things have changed vastly since that time. Not only can sites be used for fundraising and informational purposes, sites are now used to bring supporters together and give them more direct ways to get involved in campaigns. Things have changed so much over the last 8 years and it will be exciting to see what technology will bring 8 years from now.

I also think that things have changed in terms of the reach of the progressive movement on the internet since this article was written. The Dean campaign and the popularity of progressive blogs are just two examples of the strength of the progressive movement and how it is now liberals who outpace conservatives in the use of the web.

Watkins certainly has shown us that things have changed. The GOP will certainly catch back up to liberals in their web-savvy, but it is their strict adherence to message discipline and top-down communication that doesn’t allow party leaders to use blogs or other web forums as a means to reach out to voters. While the lack of message control may have hurt Dean’s chances of making it to the White House, it was also the reason that so many people found his candidacy so appealing.

Is anyone else afraid of narrowcasting?

I just finished reading the Purpura, et al article on narrowcasting and I have a few very different reactions. For one, I think this technology is pretty cool. I think that that it did wonders for targeting in the last cycle and that it will continue to do so as the technology evolves. Being able to know who your supporters are, what messages will persuade them as well as knowing what message will move undecided voters will certainly make targeting more efficient. This type of advancement in campaign technology is certainly exciting.

What does not excite me about narrowcasting is the fact that all of my information is so public. I hate marketers and I hate being bothered by people who want to tell me what to buy, who to vote for, what to believe and where I should be spending my vacations. I am not too sure that I want political campaigns to have this much information on my consumer patterns for use in trying to persuade me to vote for a given candidate.

Advancements like this are a double edged sword in that it helps some people while burdening others. Campaigns will need to use this technology appropriately so that it does not lend itself to advance in your face marketing tactics. Only time will tell is politicos will show restraint in narrowcasting.

Democrats for Incompetence

I just finished reading the Verini article on Kerry's lackluster campaign organization. While everyone now knows that the Kerry campaign was in a state of disarray from start to finish, it was interesting to see Verini's point of view as a volunteer to the campaign. Verini says that Kerry's team was did not establish a real rationale for the Kerry candidacy and instead brought together a coalition of people who just hated George W. Bush.

While it is clear that the Kerry campaign lacked message discipline throughout its ranks, it also appears that Kerry could have used the internet better the act as a persuassion and mobilization tool rather than just using it as a fundraising tool. Bush was effective in reaching out the younger voters through the internet. The Bush team got the fact that this would be the medium to which many of their young supporters would respond. Kerry, on the other hand, lacked a coherent internet strategy and lacked any sort of synergy between his use of the internet and the campaigns ground operations.

Verini's experience only underscores the Democratic Party's need to pull their act together when it comes to online/offline synergy. Maybe Governor Dean will be successful in using the internet more effectively for Democratic candidates than the junior Senator from Massachusetts was a year ago. Only time (and more Democratic loses) will tell.

And You Think Marion Barry Had Problems....

I have seen this article posted on some other blogs in the last couple of days. I have to tell you, I really love this story. Forget about the irony in the fact that West was outed after fighting tooth and nail for anti-gay legislation. Forget about the fact that West see’s nothing wrong with offering internships and jobs to young men he was meeting in the chat rooms as a means of making friends. Now West, who fought against giving protections to gays who lived in his city, feels that he should be protected from public scrutiny because his comments were taken out of content and not meant for public consumption.

You really have to wonder how West has the gall to say his privacy rights are being violated. One thing I have learned in this class and in the GSPM program is that you will always be held accountable for any written or verbal communication that comes from you or people that associate with you. In the primitive days of blogging, we learned that many candidates were afraid to be associated with any negative comments that anyone may post on their blogs. Politicians are still hesitant to partake in online activities as they, similar to West, may feel that their comments could be taken out of context. West should know better and do his constituents a favor by coming clean about the whole ordeal, take responsibility for his actions and move on with the City’s business rather than trying to cover his backside.

RSS versus Email

I just finished reading the article about web feeds being a better means of campaign communication rather than email newsletters. I think that Gahran brings up a lot of good points specifically relating the campaigns not being about to get emails to subscribers due to Spam filters. As someone who has subscribed to email newsletters and not been able to get them due to Spam filters, I can definitely see how a feed would work better.

The one argument that I would make against the usefulness of feeds is that this technology isn't in wide enough use to be effective in getting the message out. While I anticipate that many more people will learn about and use feeds within the next few years, making sure this is effective will be completely dependent on the user having this technology set up. It will definitely take a few more election cycles before campaigns can completely stop using email newsletters in favor of using feeds.

Who Needs Politics When You Have Sociology...

When I was an undergrad, I took a lot of sociology classes that talked about this new age of technology (modernity) and how it has brought a whole new host of problems into society. There are many sociological theorists who that that modernity has made our society efficient to a fault and that our lives have been made more complex by things that are meant to make life simpler. When I read this article, I immediately thought about this concept. Credit cards are just one way in which financial transactions easier and less cumbersome for people who want to buy things. With this enhancement to technology, however, have come a host of security and privacy issues, particularly with the internet making information more accessible to the public at large.

This concept of modernity can also be applied to political campaigns. With the professionalization of the political management industry as well as enhancements to campaigning technologies has come a host of new problems. Many campaigns are not able to afford sites, blogs and other new campaign tools. The ones that do use technology don’t always know how to use it properly, (see my blog about the Kerry campaign) which in the end may end up alienating some voters. While I think that technology has made life easier for political professionals, I think much of the technology is still too new to have many of the kinks worked out. Spoken like a true sociologists, I believe that technology has made life better and more complex all at the same time.

Usability and the Bush victory

I just finished reading Nielsen's article on Bush and Kerry's email newsletters and I think he makes some really interesting points related to the campaigns internet strategies. While Kerry focused most of his efforts towards fundraising in the final week of the campaign, Bush used the internet as a GOTV tool and was able to bring his campaign to victory. While I had never really thought about it before, I can definitely see how Kerry could have capitalized more on web use rather than alienating his supporters with annoying fundraising appeals down the home stretch. This seems like poor planning on the Kerry campaign's part as it would seem like the campaign should have been focused on turning out support rather than trying to get more money so late in the campaign. This should be a lesson to future campaigns in that the net needs to be taken seriously as a turn out tool and that strategic thinking needs to go into how a campaign operation heads into the end of a campaign.

Online or Offline

I just saw this article online about many newspaper readers preferring online papers to reading news sources off line. The article talks alot about how online news sources maybe hurting sources like newspapers which have seen circulation drop in the last few years. While I will always like reading a newspaper more, it is hard to deny the convenience of reading the paper online and reading about news as it happens.

Our class has focused a lot on new technologies and how politics will need to adapt around changes within the new media. Do you think that print news will become irrelevant in the next few years? Will political campaigns need to shift their attention to setting up online advertising? Is the print media dead?

The Whole Campaign Picture

Last night's class just reinforced for me how important the media mix can be to a political campaign. In all of the classes I have had so far in the GSPM, it has been beaten into is how all mediums you are using for paid media should reinforce each other especially with a campaign web presence. I was really interested to hear Emi's comments regarding how she has it built into all of her contract's that the website must be on all television advertising. I think that this is a really smart idea that I probably would not have thought of previously. I don't think that many candidates would make the connection that their website should be a persuasive tool that will hopefully persuade people well enough to contribute to the campaign. Many candidates are still stuck in the mindset that the web is not important and that mail, TV, radio and print are the only places to which you should spend money. Last night's class proved that the web's financial impact cannot be overlooked and that it is to the detriment of the campaign if they do not have a vibrant web presence.

Me and Viral Marketing, Part Deux

In my post yesterday, I talked about how I used the Purpuro's concept of viral marketing in a student government election that I was apart of. As per DelaBlogger's request, I am going to talk about why and how you would even want to use a website for such a small scale election.

At GW, student government elections are a yearly ritual that bring all of the crazies out of the woodwork. As a crazy person in my own right who got into the fray of a student body Presidential election, I knew that I had to have a website that did a few things:
- Gave students more information about my campaign
- Reinforced the message that I was campaigning as a non-hack student government outsider
- Gave my campaign an inexpensive way to promote itself

With all of this in mind, my web team (aka one of my friends who was willing to work for beer) was set on creating a site that had a certain visual appeal that would reinforce the outsider message. Although he had experience with developing nicer websites, I wanted it to look kind of sloppy and rag-tag.

Once it was set-up, I had all of my friends and their friends and their friends post a link to the sites on their IM screenname. Since college students rarely attend class and sit in their dorms rooms downloading free music and checking IM's all day, we all though that this would be an effective way to get the word out and for people who were interested to take a look at some of the things that I stood for. The site was also promoted through a listserve of about 200 people whose emails I had collected throughout my time as an undergrad. We also had the website on all posters, handouts and told people to visit through word of mouth. While I have no count as to how many people saw the site, I did get comments from people about getting endorsed by the number 5. Overall, the website ended up being an effective way to give people more information (persuasion) as well as creating a new opportunity to market my candidacy, yellow trucker hats and all.

Me and Viral Marketing

I really enjoyed Purpuro's article on Viral Marketing. The ideas the Purpuro brought up were very similar to alot of the ideas that are in the book The Tipping Point. In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell says that marketing is about creating a buzz and creating word of mouth communication that spreads quickly to the masses. Purpuro uses the same premise of creating good word of mouth marketing in order to get support and raise funds.

Although this may seem like a funny example, reading this article reminded me of a campaign that I personally was involved in as a student. When I was an undergrad at GW, I ran for student body president (this website may make its way onto the worst website ever list). When I had made the decision to run, I has just finished reading The Tipping Point and I was very intentional about doing things that were going to create a word of mouth buzz around campus. I knew that the other candidates in the race were going to ran the same types of campaigns and that I had to do something different to cut through the clutter of what are incredibly competitive elections (Yes, GW students care about politics. Go figure). The slogan of the campaign was "Say No To Politics" and the message was that this campaign was about being different, being fun and taking to overly political climate out of student government. By having a message that cut against the grain of student government hackery, we were able to get good buzz around campus and get people involved who were sick of the overly political student government and wanted to do something about it.

While I was not victorious in the end, using the viral marketing principles got people involved in the process who ordinarily wouldn't really care about such an election. Purpuro says that a compelling message will create a good word of mouth. Having an effective message certainly helped my effort in creating buzz and it certainly helps others who are running for office.

Cooperation on the Internet

I just finished reading the article from Business Week about mass collaboration and the internet. The main case study of the article was a company called Skype that is an internet phone company that does not have servers and instead depends on the connections of its customer base in order to have a phone network. The article also talked about other companies that depend on customers and competition in what some would consider to be an unorthodox relationship between business and consumer. I was very interested to hear about these arrangements as when I think about big business, I think about organizations that are trying to gain power, consolidate power and not rely on anything but its own resources in order to grow a business.

Campaigns have begun to use collaboration when running their campaigns. Through the use of blogs, campaigns have created online communities where supporters can talk about the issues of the day as well as talk about field events where they can get involved to help their candidate or cause. Online collaboration has brought political campaigns to the people and will help make campaigns more bottom-up rather than the traditional top-down structure that the majority of organizations subscribe to. I think that campaigns are constantly evolving due to new technology and that they will be more likely to change than traditional businesses that are set in their ways.

Will the growth of new technology change traditional business models so that there is more cooperation between supplier and consumer? Will this new trend of cooperation and collaboration spread throughout other non-technology business sectors? Does any of this really matter?

Brace Yourselves

It seems that every day there is another story in the news about the internet. Whether it is focusing on privacy, decency, security or any number of other issues, it seems that our society has moved online. With all of these issues in mind, is it just a matter of time until the internet starts getting more scrutiny from the government? While members of Congress have already gone after decency in the media and decency on the internet in particular, the recent spike in security related issues will undoubtedly lead to someone taking this up as their pet issue. The internet community has proven that it is capable of solving and evolving as issues come along. I would argue that federal and state governments need to continue to stay out of the realm of the internet and let this medium continue to monitor itself.

Election? What Election?

Does anyone know that there is a primary in the Commonwealth of Virginia this Tuesday? If you are like most people, you probably didn't know or didn't care that the Commonwealth is in the throws of a gubernatorial election. As a recent transplant to the Commonwealth, it is somewhat baffling that no one seems to have any clue about this election and that I haven't seen signs, field events or anything else to remind people to go out and vote next week.

I think there are a few reasons as to why this election is getting little press. For one, it is only a primary. Also, the party nominees have essentially been predetermined due to the vibrant party politics that take place throughout the state. With this in mind, it can be assumed that both major campaign (Tim Kaine on the left and Jerry Kilgore on the right) are saving their resources for what promises to be a nasty and bitterly fought general election.

This primary could be a good example of why having an effective internet campaign can change the complexion of an election. A number of recent campaigns have shown that having an extensive internet operation can lead to an increase of buzz throughout traditional media sources. As I craft my strategic plan, I will need to think about ways to create a buzz around the Northern Virginia GOP website and carry that excitement into the rest of their organization. After all, it could be the lack of online presence between Kaine and Kilgore that explains why this campaign does not seem to be generating a lot of press.

I still don’t get why people aren’t tuned in and why this doesn’t seem to be getting the press that it deserves. Of course it will get more attention as it gets closer, but I think this is just another example of people not caring about politics and the media ignoring things that really matter in favor of things like the Michael Jackson trial which really have little consequence on people’s lives.

Interesting Article

I was reading the Post today and there was this very interesting article about the use of biometrics instead of credits or cash when people make purchases. Not have to carry a wallet, cash and credit cards would certainly make life a whole lot easier. As someone who is constantly misplacing my cards and giving myself panic attacks about where I put them, this would definitely take a load off of my mind.

All of this said, it is still a bit concerning that the we maybe moving in this direction. With all of the internet security compromises of late, doesn't it seem really easy that someone could find all of you information and compromise your identity? Are we ready to make a moce to technology like this? It seems great and all, but we may want to make sure all of the kinks are out of the system before this comes into wide use.

Paging Dr. Dean

Well, it looks like the good Doctor has gotten himself into a pretty big mess. I woke up this morning to see Howard Dean being grilled by Matt Lauer on the Today Show over his recent comments about Republicans. This story is getting tons of play in papers and on TV and I have also noticed that a lot of bloggers have started to form opinions on the Dean debacle as well. The fact that party figures like Joe Biden and John Edwards are distancing themselves from Dean is really not helping the Chairman's cause. To add to the problems, Dean is defending himself rather than admitting that he may have gone a little too far with his comments.

Having taken a course in crisis management, I would probably have to advise Dean to back off of his comments and not sound so incendiary every time he makes public comments. As a good Democrat, I am all for calling out the opposition and calling the GOP into question. I don't appreciate, however, the Chairman of the party becoming the center of all this attention because he just doesn't know when to shut his own mouth. What do you think? Is Dean his own worst enemy? Can he work to gain the respect of establishment Democrats?

Why Is This News?

I was looking at my hometown paper this morning (The Boston Globe) and I found this article talking about John Kerry's grades at Yale. While this is an interesting gossip tid bit that Kerry wasn't the smarty-pants that he shows himself to be as a Senator, I was a little curious as to why this is an actualy news story.

I am currently taking a class in Running for Office through GSPM. When I see news articles talking about what someone did 40 years ago when they were young and didn't know any better, it really makes me question why any sane person would want to put themselves under this much scrutiny? Is the media driving good people away from running for elected office? Does the public really care about these kinds of things? Is this newsworthy espcially considering all of the other things (war, famine, disease, shall I continue?) that are going on in the world today? Where are our priorities?

The emergence of the internet seems to be both a blessing and a curse to those that are in politics today. For campaigns, it has simplified fundraising and made information sharing with the public incredibly easy. For those in government, it has served as a tremendous resource by which to do research and help streamline constituent services. On the flip side of the coin, it is a boundless medium where gossip, accusations and innuendo often show up. People in politics no longer have the luxury of hiding information as it is not common practice to fully disclose everything to news sources which use the internet to give people news. I would venture to guess that this Kerry story may not have been much of an issue in years past, and the "need to know" culture that the internet has created can probably be blamed for that.

Between articles like this and the around the clock coverage of Michael Jackson's health condition, it really makes one question whether are soceity is going straight into the gutter.

Technology in Third World

I just finished reading the article about SMS technology and how it is used at health clinics in Africa. The article basically says that nurses and doctors who are out in the field use wireless technology to pull up patient histories as well using the technology to communicate with other health professionals for assistance. It is truly amazing to me that many areas that use this technology don't have the medicine or the tools that are necessary to be effective health care providers. In South Africa where there is a massive HIV/AIDS epidemic, most health care providers can't keep enough of the medication that many of their patients need in order to live. I guess this begs the question of where are the priorities in this situation? Why is it that we are placing more of an emphasis on using technology when we could be putting resources into paying for basic necessities?

What's Up With Dean?

Dean seems to be getting alot of bad press lately, with many Democrats saying that they are disappointed with the Chairman's performance thus far. In this morning's Washington Post, John Edwards is quoted as saying that he did not agree with Dean's anti-Republican statements to a group of liberal activists and that "The chairman of the DNC is not the spokesman for the party. He's a voice. I don't agree with it". This morning I also saw Joe Biden criticizing Dean by saying that he does not speak for him on many issues. Still more people have recently criticized Dean's approach of meeting with liberal, base Democratic voters rather than courting moderate voters like the Republicans have been doing recently. What's up with Dean? Can he continue to afford to alienate the Democratic base? Why is he making comments that he know's will get him into trouble and make people back away in their support of him?

When you think about it, the internet has been the life and could be the death of his career if he continues to speak out of turn. Dean emerged as the front runner in the Democratic primaries by way of the attention he received for his online operation. It was the exctiement on the internet that brought thousands of supporters to rally around his cause. Now, blogs and internet news sources have been running full force with the current Dean story and they are the ones that are really keeping this issue alive. Dean is a good case study in the benefits and downfalls of the internet in that he shows how it can bring people together while also showing how the omnipresence of this medium can also hurt one's credibility when the news may not be so good.

Big Brother

I just finished reading the article on the end of privacy. It talks about how Sprint has developed new technology so that managers can track their employees whereabouts saying that it helps with company productivity when your supervisor knows where you are and what you are doing. While technology like this is really cool and helpful to the business sector, it is pretty scary to think that we are heading into a time where people feel comfortable giving up their rights and freedoms all in the name of efficiency. It is true that one of the aims of society is to improve and show progress. Progress, however, should not come at the price of individual liberties with governments and corporations thinking that they have the right to track and monitor their employees' and citizens' every move.

Conyers Article

I just finished reading Sylvester Brown’s article addressing John Conyers complaints about the main stream media. Conyers was recently upset about the fact that traditional media largely ignored a British report that the US and Britain conspired to attack Iraq one year before the war began. Brown writes a tongue-in-cheek response to Conyers saying that times have changed and the “new media” doesn’t care about real news and only focuses on events like the Michael Jackson trial and the runaway bride story.

Reading this article really got me to thinking about how Conyers is right and there really has been a change in the content of news since the inception of the new media. More people now know the state of Donald Trump’s marriage rather than the state of international diplomacy. What is particularly disturbing is the fact that we are in the middle of a war and it is getting relatively little attention unless there is death and/or violence involved. Is the new media to blame for the substance-less phenomenon occurring throughout the press or are other factors at play?

Should New Mediums Be Regulated?

I was very interested to see Professor Ireland's post regarding the "e-hearings" on Capitol Hill and it got me to thinking about the fact the new communications like the internet and satelite have yet to receive the scrutnity that traditional mediums like television and radio receive. There are many that think it is only a matter of time before the government steps in and starts regulating decency in the new media espeically with Howard Stern's move to satelite and with the amount of conservative groups that have been calling for cleaning up the internet. I, for one, am against any sort of new media regulation and think that it is not right that conservative special interests are getting their agendas pushed through on these issues. I also think that traditional media is too censored and that it is begining to impede on free speach.

What do you think? Does the FCC belong in the realm of new media?

Can the Web Really Persuade Undecided Voters?

I found last night’s discussion about websites and persuasion to be very interesting. I am not confident, however, that political websites are really all that persuasive. It seems reasonable to assume that people who seek out political information on the internet are politically active and have solid opinions of political issues and candidates. While websites have the ability to sway undecided voters, undecideds would have to be motivated enough to go online and seek out the information rather than having it served to through various forms of mass media typically used for campaign persuasion.

It is true that the internet can be a persuasive tool. It would appear, though, that the internet is more likely a tool used for reaching the political elite than with gaining clout with the masses.