Narrowcasting

I understand the value of narrowcasting in political campaigns; however, I am now grappling with the idea that narrowcasting may actually perpetuate divisiveness in America. The Frontline clip shown in class tonight offers a great example of how one of the political parties targeted a specific demographic of the population and successfully aroused them to take action on an issue that was affecting their state at that time. The particular issue really straddled ethnic lines, so to target one particular ethnic demographic to take a stand on this issues was really divisive. Apply this example to any really controversial issue and we as a nation have a more divisive electorate than a united one. Strategically, narrowcasting is a brilliant strategy for victory, I mean, what candidate does not strive to win any campaign they are in? Narrowcasting is a method to help candidates activate their ideological bases in the hopes that those supporters offer up a majority of votes once the polls close on Election Day. As a fledgling political professional, I value the effectiveness of this tactic, but I don't value tactics that may create social divisions, for deep social divisions just take away from our politics. I enjoy a great heated debate, but not at the expense that the opponents are disrespectful of each other even after debate has concluded. Political civility must not be sacrificed for a few extra targeted votes.

And then of course there are the issues of privacy -or the lack thereof - associated with narrowcasting.....

Is offline GOTV going to become obsolete?

Will the internet and its many uses in political campaigns ever fully replace traditional offline GOTV efforts? I personally do not think so. Frank Watkin's article does a great job of describing how computer technology may be applied to a political campaign - in the case of his example, an Illinois congressional campaign - specifically, how this technology can be used to target potential voters. In my experience on the campaign trail, I have seen such targeted techniques used in campaigns. They are quite fascinating and effective. Even James Verini and Matt Bai offer up descriptions of the Bush campaigns effectiveness utilizing technology and marketing techniques to get out their vote on election day in 2004. There is no doubt these techniques are important, but they must exist in addition to offline activities as well.

For example, the well disciplined and organized Bush effort in 2004 would not have been a reality if it were not for the actual people on the ground month and weeks before Election Day. Victory would not have been a relality without actual people on the ground implementing the targeted approaches these new technological advantages provide for modern campaigns. I also do not think that Americans will ever really tolerate not being personally and physically involved in the election of their leaders. If classic GOTV techniques were ever to become the exception to an American political campaign, rather than the rule, something of the campaign would be lost. While these new technologies will help in voter targeting and marketing for campaigns, the classic campaign characteristics of workers passing out literature, volunteers going door-to-door and candidates making personal appearances and pleas for support at local events and locations, will and should never die.

Efficiency of Podcasts and Vlogs

After viewing John Edward's vlog and podcasts in class the other day, I was left to wonder why this form of communication is so interesting to candidates and their campaigns. The actual dissemination of the message is slow, plus one opens themselves up to the possibility of not logistically being able to respond to each and every video message uploaded to a site. Granted, a campaign may display a message on a site stating that due to overwhelming popularity, the campaign is unable to answer every video message. However, in this day and age of instant communication and instant answers, this method seems slow and less efficient than maintaining a blog or other web messaging system that allows for a more speedy response to constituents. The whole idea of sending videos back and forth to others just seems time consuming. Politicians most likely include the feature to intrigue any visitors, rather than inform them. On the other hand, I can understand the value of a podcast. It enables constituents to listen to the candidate or elected representative's message at a later date, or at another location. Again, I can't see how this type of information transfering can satisfy those who crave instantaneous answers.

Day off

Online/Offline Synergy

In one of my last posts I briefly mentioned online/offline synergy; in fact, it was also the topic of lecture in class. It was interesting to read in Nielsen's critique of the two presidential campaign newsletters how the Bush campaign scored a 38% for Get Out The Vote messages versus Kerry's 29%. Additionally, Bush ranked 54% for Issues/Events to Kerry's 14%. I also mentioned earlier that the 2004 campaign should be defined as one that was heavily influenced and defined by the massive grassroots efforts on the ground in key states. I have no doubt that the numbers illustrated in Nielsen's study aided the offline grassroots efforts, it also illustrates great synergy between the Bush campaign's online and offline operations.

Campaign newsletters

According to Jakob Nielson, both the Kerry and Bush campaigns did a horrible job of providing a usable online newsletter for their supporters. He criticizes both campaigns for neglecting a perfect method of energizing their repsective bases and thus spreading their individual campaign messages to other faithful and undecided voters. While I agree that having an effective web strategy is important in this day and age, I am less critical of both campaigns for their decisions to spend their money on other electoral purogatives. According to Nielsen, the Washington Post's own election newsletter scored higher for usability. The evaluation was done using the 127 guidelines for e-mail newsletter designs.

Is it really that shocking that the campaigns didn't invest as much time and money into their online newsletters as the Washington Post? The Post is in the business of news....it seems more logical that the publication spend more time and money perfecting its news dissemination techniques. This is not to say that the campaigns are not in the business of news either. Indeed, they do have to disseminate their news effectively as well; however, the campaigns were (rightly) waging grassroots campaigns utilizing hundreds, even thousands of volunteers going door-to-door disseminating messages - I know, I was one of them. Campaign '04 should be defined in history by its aggressive on the ground grassroots activity on behalf of both parties.

Online newsletters are great means to energize bases and support grassroots activities, but in the case of the most recent presidential election, I feel it should be understood why the campaigns most likely spend their money as they did and consequently received a low rating by Nielsen. Both sides were already heavily energized in preperation for a race that was, again, believed to be very close; it was appropriate for both campaigns to continue to energize those supporters with on the ground grassroots investments, rather than through online newsletter improvements. I think it was a brilliant strategy, and obviously a winning one for the President's campaign.

Additionally, presidential campaign websites are traditionally operated by committee, thus they are already at a disadvantage if one were to compare them to their corporate counterparts like the Washington Post's newsletter. Corporate newsletters are most likely developed using a more streamlined operation, so is it any wonder why they would receive a higher rating by Nielsen?

What is it?

The other day I pondered the question of whether a site that did not allow comments to be posted was, in fact, a blog. After some additional thought I have come to the personal conclusion that they are not true blogs without that crucial - and traditional - characteristic. While a blog is a shortened name for "web log" and generally a log is only written in by one person without any separate feedback, the online definition for a log has become one where feedback is intended. Thus, if an on-line log does not allow for feedback, it does not fit the traditional criteria accepted by those who maintain blogs that comments must be capable of being posted. The alternative definition could be argued strongly, but I think the majority who participate in blogs would disagree and since they are the ones that maintain these web logs (i.e. blogs) their definition and their methods of using their blogs should be the accepted one.

Online Strategy

While developing my objectives for the Strategic Plan, it occurred to me that my assigned organization needed to drastically alter their site in order to wage an aggressive grassroots campaign. Why the organizers of the site and leaders of the organization did not feel that their particular issue was in need of such a strategy is beyond me. My site is not a candidate site, rather an issue site. So, while the organization wishes to gain members like candidates wish to gain votes, there is no end to this organizations campaign on some fixed date in the future. Rather, the controversial issues attached to this organization must be introduced to potential supporters over a long period of time. That being said, the site should be geared for long-term objectives. It exudes the classic mistakes that we have discussed in class, from having small links that aren't easily visible to not taking the opportunity to advertise support, such as op-ed pieces and articles. The link outlining these positives is as non-appealing to a visitor as the site's donate button.....a button I have advised the organization to display prominently. In order to wage this long-term and campaign of persuasion for the hearts and minds of Virginians, money will be required. The online objectives of the organization are heavily influenced by the offline objectives. This sounds common sensical; however, one does not truly understand this phenomenon until given the chance to offer strategic advice - as we are being given for this class. The synergy we discussed in class must be balanced and flowing freely between the online and offline objectives. I am begining to understand and see how the balance will allow for success or failure.

What is a blog?

To my surprise yesterday, I found out that a colleague of mine at my firm will be sharing her experiences from the IPDI conference held at our illustrious institution. The specific topic of her discussion.....blogs. I know we were asked to discuss more about blog application to political and issue campaigns, but I had to write about this. It was interesting to see my fellow colleagues - some of whom have never even read a blog - ask questions of our IPDI conference participant about what they may be used for and what was the point. I chimed in when I could and entertained my colleagues with bits of information I have read and learned from our course. On participant asked a very good question. Can a blog be called a blog if there is no ability for others to comment? This was a simple question, but it caused me to contemplate. What is the fundamental definition of a blog? If others are not allowed to comment - thus creating dialog - how is a blog any better than a website? Additional questions concerning the control of negative information from critics on personal or campaign blogs was touched upon. Again, another great point to ponder, especially when developing my own strategic plan for class. Would it be better for my hypothetical client to not have a blog? If there is any semblance of censorship being conducted on blogs, the purpose of the blog would be defeated; although, at the same time, no one wants inflammatory comments on their blog. How does one deal with this dilemma?

Online Fundraising

How will future FEC regulations affect the effectiveness of online fundraising? It makes sense when it is suggested that with the increased curbing of large campaign donations, smaller ones will be made more frequently and most likely be done on the internet. So, online fundraising is not just about providing a means for supporters to donate to your campaign (i.e. providing a secure server, making the donation page attractive to the user and user-friendly) but also as a means to sustain the networks of people that will be necessary for your organization to connect in order to maintain a campaign's fluidity given the increased number of smaller donations. Republicans are succeeding at out raising the Democrats because they are doing a fine job of maintaining their networks of people who make small donations. Obviously, the internet has assisted in this endeavor, for according to Professor Cornfield in the Toronto Star in October 19, 2004, "The Democrats have been out-networked on small donations by the Republicans for 30 years." Of course the internet was not around 30 years ago, so apparently the Republicans have adapted their traditional fundraising techniques and strategies to the internet, for they are still out-raising the Dems.

The Internet is an Agreement

I've been finally catching up on my class readings and I came across Doc Searls and David Weinberger's article World of Ends. They describe what the internet is. I have pretty good idea what the internet is, but their analyses are quite interesting. Specifically, I like how they have compared the internet to that of an agreement. Before reading this passage, I never thought of the net in such a way, but it makes sense to me. Because the internet is owned by no one and since it is a collection of networks allowing bits of information to pass through it, those who wish to participate in it are really "agreeing" to participate in its structure. All this agreeing among its users is what make the internet operate the way it does - it makes sense. While the authors did state several tings that I already knew or assumed about the net, their metaphors are quite though-provoking.

Smoking Gun Editorial

I read Michael Kinsey's editorial in The Washington Post today. I like how Kinsey suggests how the media was reporting that the war in Iraq was basically "inevitable." So why are all these bloggers now claiming to have a "smoking gun?" I remember the media covering the talks that took place between the U.S. and Britain prior to the war. Maybe this is the phenomena that Sunstein was referring to in his article. Perhaps these bloggers are so filled with ideological discontent (fueled by their constant blogging with each others and others of equally critical ideologies) and they are so insistent on criticizing the President that they will resort to using old news to do it?

At the same time, there is no doubt that some blogger spearheaded the effort to push this old news as a new "smoking gun," but Kinsley nicely pointed out the tardiness of the bloggers accusations. Therefore, this is a great example of how Sunstein's arguments may be a little extreme and how Jenkins is more accurate in his analysis. With Kinsey's alternative analysis, no one is receiving news in a vacuum. A reader who only receives his or her information from one source of media (i.e. blogs) is doing themselves an injustice, as is evident by the old information being presented by some bloggers concerning the Downing Street Memo.

Smart Mobs

I was surprised to find out that anti-war protesters are beginning to use mobile technology more often to coordinate their movments and plans. A CNN.com article describes how protesters are using text messages and other digital technology to spread their words around the nation and the world.

In Europe, text messaging is being used to coordinate movements to avoid law officials and nearly 2,000 protesters were able to converge upon the U.S. base in Germany shortly after the Iraq war began.....all due to mobile devices use for contact and coordination.

I was also additionally surprised to read that text messaging has not yet been accepted on a grand scale for coordination purposes among protesters in the U.S. One would think that the U.S. would be breeding ground for these new activities, but Europe is well ahead apparently. With a longer history of protesting, perhaps it is befitting that Europe take the lead. The author goes on the state that incompatibility between U.S. cellular networks is to blame for the lack of texting.....Ironically, the very thing that anti-capitalist protesters - like the ones in Seattle - are protesting is hampering their abilities to communicate effectively....capitalism itself.

Competition has provided U.S. consumers with several different choices of cellular networks, which, according to the author, is causing the reduced rate of texting for protesting purposes in the U.S. Capitalism is also the reason such devices are now more affordable than they were several years ago - which the author mentions as well - allowing these protesters to be able to afford and use such technology....it should be noted.

Mob mentality?

I just read a article in the June issue of BusinessWeek that highlights the internet and includes many relevant discussions of the internet and its influences on society, economics and politics.

The article basically discusses the development of the internet and highlights many of the positive changes that have occurred because of its development; for instance, the article offers up the example of a small British start-up and how the company was able to successful compete in a trillion dollar industry. The internet allowed the company to save money, thus keeping the organization competitive against its much larger rivals. There is no doubt that the net has brought positive change. However, the article does discuss the notion of a "mob mentality."

In the past, my rhetoric has paralleled that of a grand supporter of the internet and its influences on society and democracy. Indeed the net has increasingly made business and other means of production more accessible to the people. Just as the article states that the Industrial Revolution put the means of production into the hands of large corporations that could "achieve economies of scale," it also states that the internet has allowed more of current production to be put into the hands of the collective people. However, on top of that, the article does asks the subtle question of how such collective thinking could lead to "mob thinking."

This concept was quite intriguing to me. While I think the internet is a great tool for bringing people together, can it bring too many people too close together? It must be stated that the author is also quick to point out that such collective thinking will not "build railroads, grow wheat.....or write great novels." True, individulism will not completely die, nor will human feats(like writing the great American novel) vanish from out society, but while the net allows more people to have more consumer power at their finger tips (obviously that is beneficial to people) do the author's discussions on "mob mentality" have any merit?

"New News"

I think that Sylvester Brown Jr's article in the Post-Dispatch is way too cynical. Sure, it appears that the MSM does seem to cover such "frivolous" stories as the Michael Jackson trial too much, but to basically state that all news nowadays is completely influenced by forces that care more about ratings, rather than informing the public, is too far. While I don't think those forces are non-existent, I still do believe that journalists have a true desire to inform the public of important issues. Brown's accusations that current journalists are "...today's blabbermouths and bloggers," does a disservice to the journalistic profession by lumping together, in the same catergory, true journalism professionals with those who care more about ratings than an informed public.

Guest speaker

I enjoyed hearing from Johan Seiger last night in class. Not only is he knowledgeable in the subject-matter we are studying, he disseminates the information in a way that allows new-comers (like myself) to understand it - or at least begin to understand it.

I particularly enjoyed his discussion on strategy. His work in New York, provides us with excellent real-life and current strategic examples. The pyramid description he conveyed was most helpful. While I always had ideas of how to organize a campaign, the concept of a decentralized operation was intriguing. I understand the value of a decetralized campaign, and appreciate it. I am interested in seeing how I may apply my notes (both mental and written) from last night to my own strategic plan in class.

Blogs & News

Yesterday, I was surprised to hear two veterans of journalism state in my Political Communication class that they have received important story information from blogs. One of the panelists went on to state that one particular blog "broke" the story he was working on concerning a Florida Congresswoman. The blog apparently published some documentation that was not previously published by other outlets. He also went on to state that blogs have their place and are another means of determining what people are thinking. While I fundamentally believe this as well, it was refreshing to hear it from a well-known journalist. Blogs can and have been used to obtain legitimate and compeling news stories....and ideas.

Book revival

Last week we talked about how the internet will affect democracy. Professor Ireland brought up an example of how books at one point in history were thought of as threats to the status quo. It is interesting that an editorial in the New York Times states that spending on books has gone up 8 percent and that people are spending more on books than DVDs and movies, etc. This is an excellent example of how Sunstein's argument - that the internet will negatively affect democracy - is flawed. Jenkins is right, people are not in "vacuums." They do receive their news and information from other sources.

Thomas Friedman's column

I read Thomas Friedman's column to day in the New York Times. I really agree with his statements. I think the French - and Europeans in general - are seeing their welfare states falling apart around them. Many have speculated that the French refusal to ratify the constitution was largely due to fear of new immigrants arriving in the country, as well as fears that the treaty would errode the welfare state. I agree when Friedman states that it is bad for "France and friends to lose their appetite for hard work."

EU Constitution

Todays New York Times article states that the Dutch rejection of the EU constitution "furthur undermines Europe's ambitions to play a stronger role on the world scene." I have one question....why?

15 nations have yet to ratify this constitution, including Great Britain - which is a major power. While the French and Dutch rejections are set-backs to final ratification, is this constitution really dead?

David Brooks mentioned in his column today that Europeans "look to the future with more fear than hope." Maybe this rising fear is causing many across the pond to be overly worrisome about these two elections.

Sunstein's article

I recently read Cass R. Sunstein's article on whether the internet is really good for democracy. I found his argument quite intersting; however, I do not take such a hard-line view on the internet's affects on democracy. Sunstein makes a good point when he illustrates how the internet can be a vehicle for people to limit themselves to points of view with which they do not agree, but it is rather extreme. Jenkin's view that no one really lives a news "vacuum," if you will, really takes the teeth out of Sunstein's argument.