Persuasion on the Internet: Positives and Negatives
Its no surprise that I don't believe the internet should be used as a campaigns primary method of persuading voters in an election. However, there are some cases when it may be effective. Any voter who is reading a candidate's website is likely one of 3 things: A supporter reaffirming their beliefs, a truly undecided voter doing their research on the candidates and issues, or an opponent's supporter doing opposition research or commenting cynically. The group we want to focus on is of course the second.
As I mentioned in class, there is no way to force a voter to a candidates website and there is no real way to ensure repetition of your message. However, the positive is that anyone viewing a website is highly engaged and is likely going to vote. Therefore repetition is not necessary as they will return when seeking more information.
The problem lies in that this type of voter is such a small proportion of the undecided voter population or the party's base voter that needs to be turned out. Anyone checking through candidates websites is most likely going to vote. Those who aren't as engaged are the ones that a campaign really needs to target through repetition. They need to see the commercial 10x before the message sinks in. They need at least 6 mail pieces to form an opinion and have the name and message instilled in them . .. and they often need the 3-4 Get out the Vote phone calls to remind them to get out to the polls. So the moral of the story is have a good website, be persuasive on it, engage the engaged voter. . .but don't' let it cut into your budget for traditional media and field work. Those who do so. . .will do so at their peril. While you are trying to persuade 100 undecided voters, your opponent will have turned out 300 of his base vote who wouldn't have voted otherwise.
As I mentioned in class, there is no way to force a voter to a candidates website and there is no real way to ensure repetition of your message. However, the positive is that anyone viewing a website is highly engaged and is likely going to vote. Therefore repetition is not necessary as they will return when seeking more information.
The problem lies in that this type of voter is such a small proportion of the undecided voter population or the party's base voter that needs to be turned out. Anyone checking through candidates websites is most likely going to vote. Those who aren't as engaged are the ones that a campaign really needs to target through repetition. They need to see the commercial 10x before the message sinks in. They need at least 6 mail pieces to form an opinion and have the name and message instilled in them . .. and they often need the 3-4 Get out the Vote phone calls to remind them to get out to the polls. So the moral of the story is have a good website, be persuasive on it, engage the engaged voter. . .but don't' let it cut into your budget for traditional media and field work. Those who do so. . .will do so at their peril. While you are trying to persuade 100 undecided voters, your opponent will have turned out 300 of his base vote who wouldn't have voted otherwise.
2 Comments:
I think the Internet's use in modern day campaigning is a rapidly evolving field that we simply cannot ignore. As the world changes traditional campaigning techniques will have to change. You say it would be to a candidate's peril if they chose to take money from their traditional budget and use it towards creating a more advanced Web site, but I do not neccessarily agree with that statement.
I do not agree because campaigns are being forced to change and use new techniques. Cell phone use is rising and many of today's young voters do not even have a land line so how are we supposed to mobilize them though poll calling or gotv efforts? While I do agree we cannot abandon traditional methods, we do need to grow with the times and that means altering campaign allocations a bit and realizing the potenial other techniques have. That does not mean putting all of our eggs in one basket though.
The internet, specifically a web site, has the power to be the main center of communication for a campaign. Traditional media venues do not have the same form. In many campaigns that have a huge internet focus, the internet is their organizing device.
Beyond just the functionality of the web site, a campaign that uses the web site as a centralizing power feature the web site URL on all logo material, in some cases, I have seen it take the place of a slogan. Instead of "for a better New Jersey," as the campaign slogan, you can kill two birds with one stone and make the web site ForABetterNJ.org.
Post a Comment
<< Home