Alex White » obama

Essential reading: 10 Lessons From Barack Obama’s Online Marketing Strategy

Alex — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 04:11:29 +0000

There’s no doubt that Obama’s online and grassroots campaigning infrastructure is second to none, but what can the rest of us without hundreds of millions in funding do to learn from his campaign achievements?

Over at the “Web Profits” site, Alex Cleanthous has gone through “10 Lessons from Barack Obama’s Online Marketing Strategy“. This detailed and comprehensive post goes through the main take-aways for unions and other progressive organisations who want to campaign online “like Obama” (without the budget). The principles that Cleanthous goes through are widely applicable and even campaigns with a limited budget can take most of Obama’s lessons to heart.

The Strategy

Barack Obama’s strategy hasn’t changed much since 2008… build up a database, grow social media followers, encourage donations, and build credibility and trust through ongoing and sincere communication. The main difference in his campaign this time around is that he is focusing only on Facebook and Twitter to connect with people through social media.

The most important thing to take away from this article is that the process of achieving success online is the same in every market… even when running for President! Here’s the strategy:

Develop an effective website that drives action

Drive visitors to your website using marketing and advertising

Build a relationship with your prospects through email marketing & social media

Expand your reach through mobile

Implementing all of these steps together is the key to success

I suggest you go across and read the entire article – there’s a lot of detail and it’s worth it, even for relatively experienced online campaigners.

Win The Future with Obama SOTU T-shirts

Alex — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:47:15 +0000

I sometimes work on little side projects, and this is the latest: Win The Future.

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address used the comical phrase “Win The Future” – and also “Our Generation’s Sputnik Moment”.

Help Obama – Win The Future

Get your t-shirt and wear your sputnik moment loud and proud.

“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment,” Obama said. As a result, we need to fund “a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the space race,” with particularly strong investments in biomedicine, information technology, and clean-energy technology. In the same section of the speech, he likened this funding effort to “the Apollo Project,” which later put a man on the moon.

And from Obama’s SOTU Address:

But we have to do more. These steps we’ve taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession, but to win the future, we’ll need to take on challenges that have been decades in the making.

These catch-phrases are worthy of going on a t-shirt.

Get Your Sputnik Moment T-shirt here

Pelosi, party discipline and policy

Alex — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 05:59:17 +0000

There’s an article in Politico about how the Democrats are spending up big in marginal congressional races this year on behalf of Democratic congressmen who have run ads against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi reporting progress on health care reform with with Democratic House leaders.

As control of the House hangs in the balance, Democrats can’t afford to play favorites with their money down the stretch run to the midterm election.

So they’ve spent money on recalcitrants, rankling the ranks of Pelosi foot soldiers who endorsed controversial components of the Democratic agenda only to find that loyalty isn’t much of a factor when determining where to spend precious campaign resources.

“The thing that really irks me is the Bobby Bright s—t,” said a Democratic strategist who has worked on numerous campaigns over the last several cycles. “What’s the point of giving money to a guy like Bobby Bright who would probably take a good deal from Republicans and switch parties after this whole thing is done anyway?”

But the money game isn’t about who played nice and who didn’t. It’s about who can win — and who among that set needs the money.

“All this is a numbers game right now,” said an influential Democratic lobbyist who is on everyone’s fundraising list. “What can we do to keep the majority?”

There’s no better example than Bright, who keeps his distance from Democrats not only on roll calls — having cast hundreds of votes against his leaders — but who likes to sit in a comfortable leather chair on the Republican side of the Speakers lobby outside the House chamber.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dumped its million-plus ad buy against Martha Roby, Bright’s Republican rival in Alabama’s 2nd District, just as he was airing a commercial declaring that he won’t vote for Pelosi for speaker.

Now, I hear a lot amongst progressive circles in Australia that the party discipline system in Australia is corrosive to democracy – that Labor’s binding caucus, which forbids on pain of disendorsement, a party MP from crossing the floor, is somehow bad. The famous Howard-era Liberal Party discipline is often also cited, although there are no formal Liberal Party rules forbidding Liberal MPs from crossing the floor on any vote.

The argument is that if only we had the US-style system where parliamentarians could vote however they wanted, we would be much better off in Australia, and have better policies enacted. Furthermore, under this system, MPs would be able to vote how their electorates wanted them to on issues like same-sex marriage, climate change carbon prices and so on. (Most of the people who espouse this view, from my experience, are Greens Party members or supporters.)

Having a binding caucus and party discipline means that progressive MPs are forced to vote against their conscience in favour of bad policy. Witness, for example, the policies on same-sex marriage or the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (back in 2004).

What we see in America however is something rather different to this ideal.

Of course, Congressmen and women, and Senators of both Republican and Democrat parties, are able to vote how they want. In reality, this means they are held captive to they system of corporate patronage that runs the US political system. US politicians are bound by powerful and/or cashed-up lobby groups to vote in the interests of big business – invariably conservative in nature. On social issues, US politicians are pressured by wealthy and conservative minority groups who run smear campaigns (or threaten to) if the congressman or woman votes in a certain way.

What we see far more often in the US is that conservative congressmen and women, and Senators, vote in a bloc and the pressure is piled on the small “l” liberals.

Democrats regularly vote against Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on “core” Democrat policy such as health care and job-creating stimulus measures. The only Democrats doing this are the “blue dog” conservative Democrats. And there is no consequence.

While the likes of Bobby Bright, Bill Owens and Joe Donnelly run ads against progressive Democratic House Speaker Pelosi, the Democratic machine pumps millions of dollars to save them.

Even though there would be almost no difference if the Democrats lost those districts to a Republican – since those Democrats vote with the Republicans most of the time.

If we had the US system in Australia – specifically for Labor – we would see more often than not, the conservative groups within Labor voting against progressive social policy, more often than progressive Labor members voting against conservative policies.

We have already seen this in conscience votes in issues like decriminalising abortion in Victoria, or allowing same-sex couples to adopt or access assisted reproductive technology.

In fact, Labor’s party discipline system does more good than harm, as it forces those reactionary elements of the party to accept progressive policies that they otherwise would oppose if given the option.

I am told that the Greens Party has no system of discipline. This means that conceivably, a Greens Party senator could oppose the party’s policy on one issue or another. There would be no consequences for that Greens Party senator – and in all likelihood they would continue to receive preselection.

NSW Greens Party senator-elect Lee Rhianon has already foreshadowed disagreements with Party leader Bob Brown. Without party discipline, nothing stops any Greens Party senator from deviating from Greens Party policy on a “matter of conscience” – even to the detriment of the Party’s official policy. The Greens Party rank-and-file members who voted for the policy would have no recourse against that senator.

No party discipline creates a free-for-all, where votes can be effectively purchased through donations or threats of local smear campaigns – a far more dangerous proposition than one where MPs are bound by the party policy taken by that party to an election.

The importance of design for political campaigns

Alex — Tue, 25 May 2010 00:27:32 +0000

Everyone refers to the Obama campaign as benchmarks for so much in political campaigning, so forgive me while I do the same. Below is a video from the99percent, a think-tank in the US that has a series of talks, lectures or seminars that they video and put on the web. There’s a lot of really interesting stuff on their Vimeo channel, so check it out.

The video below is of Scott Thomas, the design director for the Obama campaign. It’s worth watching if you’re involved in a political campaign, because it underscores the importance of solid, quality design as part of the political, election process. Scott talks about how getting a consistent design across all communications channels was a major part of his role with his counter-part, the art director.

The design of the Obama campaign is widely considered to be excellent, and a real benchmark for political campaigns to aspire to. Scott talks about how much of it was done on the fly, but underpinning it all was the goal of consistency, so that emails, direct mail, leaflets, yard signs, stickers and so on were all the same.

Check out the video:

Scott Thomas: Designing the Obama Campaign from 99% on Vimeo.

(Aside: Yes We Can, the book I reviewed last week, was designed by Scott Thomas.)

The recent UK election is a good example of why design is important – good because it was of a high standard and because it is not the Obama campaign.

Both the Tory and the UK Labour designs were very visually distinctive. And with a geographically smaller electoral field, and with greater centralisation for the design key materials (e.g. billboards, posters, how to votes, etc), both Tories and Labour were able to have very consistent designs – consistency online and print.

Book Review: “Yes We Did” by Rahaf Harfoush

Alex — Sun, 16 May 2010 22:46:04 +0000

Yes We Did: An inside look at how social media built the Obama brand

Over Xmas, I purchased and read “Yes We Did: An inside look at how social media built the Obama brand“, by Rahaf Harfoush, a volunteer new media campaigner on the Obama 2008 election campaign.

This 185 page book promises to give an insiders account of how the Obama campaign used social media and social networking sites to turn Obama’s presidential campaign into the most successful in history. The blurb offers “strategic insights organizations can apply to their own brands” and how “email, blogs, social networks, Twitter, and SMS messaging” were used to elect “the world’s first ‘digital‘ President.

Before you get started, here are two important links:

Rahaf’s blog: The Foush; and
Techpresident: the essential website on all political tech news.

The good

Overall, Yes We Did is an excellent account of working inside the Obama campaign. Harfoush mixes the book up with part narrative, part reflection and part interview with other key players in Obama HQ. As you read, you can’t help but feel a bit of her excitement as she moves to Chicago to work on the campaign, or when she participates in phone link ups with David Plouffe and Obama himself. Similarly, you can see the evolution of the campaign: it is a living thing that learns and adapts to changing circumstances.

In particular, Harfoush’s lessons are worthwhile, and are carefully presented. Most of the major digital elements are in the book: the use of email, neighbour-to-neighbour contact, the creation of my.BarackObama.com, the role of videos and more. Each chapter has a summary of the lessons and tips, followed by more detail.

While many people may focus on the use of social networking, I think the most important chapters are those focusing on email, and the use of analytics. The ability for Obama’s campaign to “iterate” – to repeatedly make minor improvements and customisations to their communications (website and email) is in my view one of the most powerful elements of the campaign. Certainly as important as using Facebook or blogs.

The bad

This is not a warts and all look at the campaign. Harfoush is clearly an Obama devotee, and there is not a lot of details about when things went wrong. Often the most interesting and powerful looks at campaigns are how they deal with mistakes. For example, the Obama campaign mess-up with the MySpace fan-page creator is not really covered. Harfoush was a volunteer, so to some extent it could be that she was not ever involved in handling a crisis, or being a decision maker. However, few of the interviews cover negative aspects or mistakes.

Similarly, while solid, the advice given is fairly generic – most of it is available on countless other websites looking at using different online marketing or engagement techniques. Admittedly, a lot of what is out there is based on “what the Obama campaign did”… which leads my to the next downfall.

The Obama campaign had enormous budgets. While the online elements were nowhere near as well funded as television ads, the campaign was a multi-million campaign, with a large web team. This makes it difficult for smaller campaigns to follow through with most of the advice, simply because they do not have the manpower. The Obama campaign captured the imagination and passion of tens of thousands of people who volunteered and donated. Few campaigns will ever replicate a tenth of this mobilisation.

The verdict

“Yes We Did” is an excellent addition to your online campaigning bookshelf. If you’re involved with any kind of online campaigning, whether for a non-profit, union or political candidate, it is well worth reading. It is a solid foundation for building a checklist (or wish list) of online activities and engagement tools, and highlights some important lessons to do with engagement, fundraising and mobilising supporters.

You can buy a copy of “Yes We Did” from Amazon.com.

Lessons from the (Modern) Prince, Part 2: Timing of reform

Alex — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:22:05 +0000

Following from my previous post on the lessons that Machiavelli’s The Prince can give us today, I thought I’d discuss the timing of policy reform. This is applicable, in my view, for most policy makers, especially political policy makers, and for large reforms. This series of posts is part of Project 52 – one post per week throughout the year.

Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer.

Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter VIII

In keeping with my nod to Antonio Gramsci, the prince in this example should be thought of as the political party, rather than an individual. The prince is not the leader (i.e. not Rudd or Obama, etc). The “usurper” in the quote above equates to a political party who has just won government over the former prince. The “injuries” are the prince’s legislative and other reforms.

“… the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily…” The newly elected political party’s first task is to identify its legislative program. As Machiavelli remarks, it is best for new princes to implement their changes (injuries) as soon as possible. This is of course difficult, as the new government will not have the detail and knowledge base to immediately introduce its new bills to parliament.

A wise prince (political party) therefore prepares its bills and other legislation for major reforms before the election. This is evident for example with Jeff Kennett, whose ministers secretly formulated legislation that was passed through parliament within months of winning government in Victoria, while the Labor party was still in disarray.

It is for this reason also that wise princes should make their changes as soon as possible. The deposed prince (the former government and new opposition) are demoralised, disorganised and ill-equipped to handle a disciplined, powerful prince. They likely do not even have a leader (as we saw after the 2007 election, it took a while for the Liberals to elect a new leader).

The new prince also has the benefit of claiming a mandate. Thus, they benefit from a supportive public, a media preoccupied with the “honeymoon period”, and a disorganised opposition.

“… and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits.” All of the controversial legislation should be weighted at the front of the new prince’s reign. Things like health care reform, carbon pollution reduction, tax changes, and so on. Meanwhile, the benefits, such as tax cuts, increases to welfare and benefits, or improvements to the pension, can be introduced throughout the parliamentary term. All of the “pain” is experienced at the start, the unsettling period is over quickly, and any displeasure from the electorate can be restored through the beneficial changes throughout the rest of the four years.

“… neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs.” This is a problem that the Obama and Rudd have found. Because they have spent a considerable part of their first terms “listening” and “consulting”, they have spread out the injuries.

The subjects in this case is not just the electorate, but also the “nobles” – the powerful entrenched business interests, such as the carbon lobby, private health insurers, and the rest of the Business Council of Australia members. While they may have been supine at the start of the prince’s reign, they grow in boldness and anger as the new government slowly introduces its legislation. Their interests are mostly for no change. By giving them time, they can plot and plan against the prince – building opposition in parliament and the community. The prince is therefore “compelled to keep the knife in his hand” – and be constantly publicly fighting and defending throughout the parliamentary term. This fighting distracts the populace from focusing on the good things.

As Machiavelli says, people remember the wrongs commmitted against them far more than generosity.

Finally, given the Australian electoral cycle, the earlier major reforms are brought in, the most the Australian people and business can become used to the changes. Hopefully, by the time the election comes around again, the new changes are ingrained and now considered part of the natural order of things, making it difficult for future “usurpers” to undo the reforms.

The Democrats will be victims to incumbency

Alex — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:16:09 +0000

There’s been some discussion about whether the Democrats will be victim to the over-cooked expectations of Obama supporters and energised conservative Republicans:

First, the background: the party of the president in office essentially always loses seats in the mid-term elections (2002 was a post-9/11 one-off), a tendency likely to be reinforced in 2010 by the fact that so many Democrats rode the Obama wave to win marginal districts in ’08. Plus, this year many progressive activists are turned off by what they perceive to be a failed healthcare reform bill, while others oppose Obama’s expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Add into the mix on the other side a fired-up movement of Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin fans and you have what looks like the recipe for a massive Democratic defeat in eleven months.

My view is that, given the still-parlous state of the US economy, the Democrats will be a victim of incumbency. This is certainly my analysis of the victory by Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell – who beat the incumbent Democrat.

This is not a resurgence of the Republicans, but a reaction against the failing body-politic of the USA. Disenfranchised Americans will try to punish whichever party is in power – not just the Democrats. The Obama campaign, while lauded as a “digital revolution” and a shining example of grass-roots, bottom-up empowerment, has not translated into decentralisation of decision-making. Normal people are still locked out of the policy making process in Washintgon and in their home states.

The ten percent unemployment (much higher in many areas) doesn’t help.

I also agree with Colin Delany from TechPresident that the Tea Party movement won’t necessarily equate to success for the Republicans. The Tea Party movement is largely an astro-turf movement, but even where there is a real ground swell, the Republicans are still an integral part of the broken system that the Tea Party-ers are rallying against:

…the Tea Partiers may have energy, but they primarily seem to employ itÂ against other Republicans, particularly those in the party establishment,Â even when they’re not squabbling amongst themselves. Many mainstream Republicans will face ideological primary challenges in 2010, forcing them to spend scarce resources early on and to take positions that could box them into a corner in the Fall. And with the RNC short on cash, individual candidates can’t count on the party bailing them out even if they do manage to shrug off the rightwing rabble.

The Democrat’s biggest problem will be to turn out their disheartened supporters, and to convince Americans that they should retain control of the Congress.

More on the Senate by-election at Larvatus Prodeo.

Republicans struggling, near bottom

Alex — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:04:10 +0000

I have previously written that the US Republicans are cannibalising themselves, that they are struggling to find a leader, and that they have no clear strategy for combating Obama and the Democrat machine.

Now, with the Democrats hammering the Republicans over Rush Limbaugh, some Republican representatives are acknowledging that they nearly as low as they can get:

“You think you hit bottom, and it can always go lower,” said Republican pollster Whit Ayres, who said his party’s best hope is that President Barack Obama overreaches. “The Republicans just entered the wilderness – we’re going to wander around there for a little while before coming back stronger than ever.

“I have no idea where the bottom is just like I have no idea where the bottom is on the stock market,” he said.

“It probably gets worse before it gets better, though I’m not sure how much worse it could get,” said Tom Rath, a New Hampshire Republican leader and former state attorney general. “The first chance at redemption is 18, 19 months away, and we’re going to have to gut it out here for a while.”

Another party wise man, Fred Malek, told POLITICO the party now sits at its “nadir” – though he, like others, said its best hope is to wait for the economy to tarnish Obama.

“Our leaders’ arguments are falling on deaf ears today, but they are sound. It’s just a matter of time before this becomes Obama’s recession,” he said.

Karl Rove, who has written on this problem, has a different view:

KarlRove It’s Dem strategy – misdirection — Dems don’t want debate on stimulus, omnibus, budget, pork, so trying to argue with Rush.

His view is that the Democrats are using Rush as a straw man to draw attention away from Obama’s spin.

With no clear Republican leader to attack, the Democrats are forced to target the conservative shock-jock:

Richard Viguerie, the direct mail pioneer who helped create the modern conservative movement, was more scathing in a press release Wednesday.

“The ‘Rushification’ of the GOP is the natural and inevitable result of the fact that those who are supposed to provide leadership — Republican elected officials and party officers — are doing little to bring the party back,” he said. “Nature abhors a vacuum, and there is no vacuum in nature as empty as the leadership of the Republican Party today.”

Negative campaiging works

Alex — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:32:06 +0000

Negative campaigning works.

Negative ads are also generally are more ‘honest’ than positive ads – they generally reference their sources. They are more likely to energise supporters into taking action – even Obama’s campaigning to potential volunteers use the scare-tactics of Rove, Cheney, Bush and ‘more of the same’.

It especially works when you are behind in the polls against a popular candidate.

John McCain and his Republican allies are “readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama’s character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat’s judgment, honesty and personal associations,” several top Republicans told the Washington Post.

They are only effective however, if they tap into something that the populace are already concerned about. Negative ads will miss the mark if they make outrageous, unrealistic or incredible claims.

McCain’s campaign is engaging in a massive negative campaigning spree. Unfortunately its attacks on Obama’s character are misplaced. On the whole, Americans are not scared of Obama. Most character issues were addressed during the primaries.

McCain’s negative campaigning has also overwhelmed his positive message, and has made his campaign look overly negative, with no clear narative or vision. This hyper-negativity can turn off voters, particularly the all-important independent voters that were McCain’s biggest supporters, sending them to Obama or depressing their vote altogether.

Turn-out-the-vote: the final hours

Alex — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:18:08 +0000

After all the half hour ads, direct mail and phone calls, US elections boil down to getting out the vote.

Obama has been able to spend enormous amounts of money on his “ground war” (as compared to the “air war” of television ads). Obama offices outnumber McCain offices in battleground states by as much as 2:1.

There are a number of tactics to get out the vote, but it basically boils down to door-knocking, and using the data gained over the course of the campaign to target voters effectively. After all, you don’t want to take opposition voters to the polling booth.

That’s right, despite all the sophisticated tools and techniques that US presidential campaigns use, it boils down to one-on-one conversations between a canvasser and potential voter. The databases and targeting are just aids to get campaigners in front of the doors most likely to vote for the candidate.

Campaign money simply allows candidates to employ more staff, train more volunteers and more effectively target potential voters.