Two steps forward...one step back
Woah Woah Woah. Let's slow down here a second cowboy.
After 8 years of relative obscurity, the Internet is finally being taking seriously as a potential factor in political campaigns.
Critics say it will never have the reach or audience of television. The demographics scew too young, to rich, and too white for it to truly be a "revolutionary" tool, unless their is some sort of middle class yuppie uprising being plotted in Starbuck's across the nation that I am unaware of.
However, after the "success" of the Dean campaign in demonstrating how online fundraising can propell a mediocre candidate into the frontrunner, only to be torn down when everyone realizes he was in fact just a mediocre candidate, yet everyone acts all surprised, the Internet is now the new "It" girl....move over Jessica Alba.
From one mediocracy to the next, John Kerry then picked up where the screaming left off and used to Internet to raise $30 million more ($82 million) in online donations than Al Gore raised TOTAL ($50) just 4 years prior (The majority of Gore's money came from Federal matching funds).
Chuck Defeo and Karl don't call me Shirley Rove took the Internet in another direction and used it as a massive top down organizational tool...seemingly counterintuitive to the decentralized nature of the Internet it apparently worked.
It's hard to argue with the fact that Bush won an overwhelming majority against all odds. His Internet strategy must have been the difference, because he was underfunded, understaffed, lacked a strong message and had no name recognition. As history shows, it is very difficult for an incumbent president to win reelection during war time.
In case you missed it, the entire above paragragh was meant to be sarcastic. A million and one different abbreviations for laughing yet the power of the Internet has yet to develop a proper outlet for expressing sarcasm.
Ok, so why all the negativity? After reading the article by Larry Dignan I must say it has become slightly tiresome to hear the pontifications about how the Internet is going to change our political system in just 4 years.
The idea that by 2008 or 2012 an Independent candidate will be able to turn the major parties on their heads if they can harness the power of the Internet is just absurd.
As the article does admittidly point out, certain foundations would have to be already in place for there to even be a remote chance...we are talking Timbucktu remote here...for an Independent candidate to come out of nowhere.
First, they will need name recognition. It would have to be someone with instant credibility. Find me a man on earth with instant credibility and I will show you millions of people who disagree...Fox news anchors not withstanding.
Second.....Show me the money! Argh, even I feel dirty having just quoted that god aweful line but....it's true. So, we need a man with instant credibility, high name recognition, and lot's of money.
Third...a built in database. It takes time to build a massive email list with the potential to reach voters or petition signers in all 50 states in a limited amount of time. A viral marketing campaign would also take tremendous amounts of time to develop effectively. These lists will undoubtably need to be purchased, if they do exist, and that takes the Jerry Maguire above.
So, if you have a man with instant credibility, tons of money, high name recognition, and a built in database network...um, then why the hell would he even need an Internet campaign?
Ross Perot had some crazy ideas...and even crazier amounts of money. Did he shake things up? Sure. Did he ever have a chance of winning? Nopers. As James Carville stated, it was the "most expensive act of masturbation in history."
The point is, and yes there is one, that Ross Perot did it the old fashioned way. Bush's narrowcasting, while made possible by new technologies, is ultimately an old fashioned marketing technique. The Internet is a remarkable conduit, but it is not a conducter. It is a powerful tool, but it is not the carpenter.
Perhaps it is a good thing though that some unknown Independent candidate may see the potential of the Internet and try to harness it's energy to knock the two major parties off their high horses...when he falls on his face maybe we will then realize that it takes a strong message, time tested marketing strategies, and good old fashioned organization to win an election...but by that time we will be projecting the potential of how robots and hovercrafts will revolutionize the 2016 elections.
After 8 years of relative obscurity, the Internet is finally being taking seriously as a potential factor in political campaigns.
Critics say it will never have the reach or audience of television. The demographics scew too young, to rich, and too white for it to truly be a "revolutionary" tool, unless their is some sort of middle class yuppie uprising being plotted in Starbuck's across the nation that I am unaware of.
However, after the "success" of the Dean campaign in demonstrating how online fundraising can propell a mediocre candidate into the frontrunner, only to be torn down when everyone realizes he was in fact just a mediocre candidate, yet everyone acts all surprised, the Internet is now the new "It" girl....move over Jessica Alba.
From one mediocracy to the next, John Kerry then picked up where the screaming left off and used to Internet to raise $30 million more ($82 million) in online donations than Al Gore raised TOTAL ($50) just 4 years prior (The majority of Gore's money came from Federal matching funds).
Chuck Defeo and Karl don't call me Shirley Rove took the Internet in another direction and used it as a massive top down organizational tool...seemingly counterintuitive to the decentralized nature of the Internet it apparently worked.
It's hard to argue with the fact that Bush won an overwhelming majority against all odds. His Internet strategy must have been the difference, because he was underfunded, understaffed, lacked a strong message and had no name recognition. As history shows, it is very difficult for an incumbent president to win reelection during war time.
In case you missed it, the entire above paragragh was meant to be sarcastic. A million and one different abbreviations for laughing yet the power of the Internet has yet to develop a proper outlet for expressing sarcasm.
Ok, so why all the negativity? After reading the article by Larry Dignan I must say it has become slightly tiresome to hear the pontifications about how the Internet is going to change our political system in just 4 years.
The idea that by 2008 or 2012 an Independent candidate will be able to turn the major parties on their heads if they can harness the power of the Internet is just absurd.
As the article does admittidly point out, certain foundations would have to be already in place for there to even be a remote chance...we are talking Timbucktu remote here...for an Independent candidate to come out of nowhere.
First, they will need name recognition. It would have to be someone with instant credibility. Find me a man on earth with instant credibility and I will show you millions of people who disagree...Fox news anchors not withstanding.
Second.....Show me the money! Argh, even I feel dirty having just quoted that god aweful line but....it's true. So, we need a man with instant credibility, high name recognition, and lot's of money.
Third...a built in database. It takes time to build a massive email list with the potential to reach voters or petition signers in all 50 states in a limited amount of time. A viral marketing campaign would also take tremendous amounts of time to develop effectively. These lists will undoubtably need to be purchased, if they do exist, and that takes the Jerry Maguire above.
So, if you have a man with instant credibility, tons of money, high name recognition, and a built in database network...um, then why the hell would he even need an Internet campaign?
Ross Perot had some crazy ideas...and even crazier amounts of money. Did he shake things up? Sure. Did he ever have a chance of winning? Nopers. As James Carville stated, it was the "most expensive act of masturbation in history."
The point is, and yes there is one, that Ross Perot did it the old fashioned way. Bush's narrowcasting, while made possible by new technologies, is ultimately an old fashioned marketing technique. The Internet is a remarkable conduit, but it is not a conducter. It is a powerful tool, but it is not the carpenter.
Perhaps it is a good thing though that some unknown Independent candidate may see the potential of the Internet and try to harness it's energy to knock the two major parties off their high horses...when he falls on his face maybe we will then realize that it takes a strong message, time tested marketing strategies, and good old fashioned organization to win an election...but by that time we will be projecting the potential of how robots and hovercrafts will revolutionize the 2016 elections.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home