Howard Dean

There's an article at http://www.campaignsonline.org/reports/blog.pdf which reviews the use of blogs by the contenders for the 2004 Democractic nomination. Obviously this is a bit out of sequence with posts of the last few day.

However, I thought it was worth mentioning because it focuses on the impact of Howard Dean's online campaign and how effective it was. Of course, Dean lost out to Kerry and, as was noted in the article I posted on 13 March, even in the analysis of the use of online communications in the Bush v Kerry contest, it seems that the internet did not detemine the outcome.

However, both these articles as well as the current developments in the race for the Democractic nomination which have been disucssed over the past few days, online politcial communcations is here to stay.

I also need to mention a point from the 'Presidential Elections' book referred to yesterday. It takes us back to the issue of why people don't vote. It seems that many of the reasons behind low turnout in the UK (discussed earlier this month)also apply in the USA.

The one interesting difference is the processs of registering to vote which in the US seems to be a lot more complicated than in most European countries. Once again we come back to the point that low turnout does not necessarily mean lack of interest or lack of support for the system in general.

Futile Search

It’s proved impossible to get any printed academic research on the impact of new media in the 2004 Presidential election, the first election in which the use of email and internet was widespread.

I think researchers will continue to struggle with the pace of change. By the time they get round to analysing something, technology has moved on. Just look at the current use of MySpace and Second Life by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton respectively. In 2004 I had never heard of either delivery channel.

The speed of change is reflected in the Presidential Elections book which I have added to the reading list today. The book has a chapter on campaigning which also includes a couple of pages under the heading ‘other media’. Can you guess what they mean by ‘other media’? Well, VHS tapes and 1-800 numbers!!

When you say it out loud it feels like you are talking about some long gone era but we are talking about the Bush v Gore campaign, not Kennedy v Nixon!! Examining the impact any of these new media channels has on engagement or activism is going to be a perennial problem because the minute most of us have understood what on earth the latest tool does it’s superseded by something new.

I suppose political communications will just have to keep using these tools though because it can’t be perceived to be out of step with current developments, regardless of whether anyone has a clue about what impact it might have.

Complicated World

I just wanted to mention something else that came up in the political communications lecture yesterday. One of the student presentations looked at the campaign of Barack Obama and his MySpace campaign. The student giving the presentation talked about the fact that all those who are interested or supportive of Obama are busy adding him to their friends list. Of course, only those who are committed will take the step of adding him to their friends list. But, just like the Hillary Clinton Second Life campaign, it is something that will get coverage in other media and very possibly raise the candidate’s profile among both online publics and those using traditional media. The problem for politicians and the internet is that if you want to avoid politics altogether you can. Using MySpace and Second Life could be a way round this problem.

Other issues we discussed yesterday are the fact that the internet is swamped with information making it an impractical tool with which to reach people. The internet is not like TV. It is like a library with a few books that are read frequently and many others that are just stuck on the shelf. Also new taboos have grown up around the internet. Sending direct mail by post is not a problem but sending unsolicited emails is. These are just a few really but the upshot of it all is that although the jury’s still out it seems the internet and new media will just help political activists to better co-ordinate rather than to engage voters.

Moving on to other matters, I’m trying to get hold of some more detailed information on how behavioural targeting works. This will help me to assess how effective it can be for political communications. Hopefully, we’ll hear something soon.

Ignorant Bliss

Another day and another discussion about new media and democracy crops up. In fact the issue was the subject for my political communications lecture this morning delivered by Simon Goldsworthy. The first point raised was the issue of bewildering variety and speed of change when it comes to new technology and media. How can anyone be expected to keep up and use this technology in any strategic way?

The pace of change is so rapid that academic research on its impact can not keep up. Furthermore many of those who put themselves forward as experts are merely marketing their own particular product. It is very difficult to get a clear sense of what is going on out there. By the time research on blogging or podcasting comes out, we’ll be on to the next thing.

Politicians like PR people like to portray themselves as being on top of these new developments. They love to be associated with modernity. The reality is that most senior politicians, and most senior PR people, actually haven’t got a clue. This all leads to sweeping general ideas that new media is going to perform wonders for PR and for politics without any hard evidence to back this up. It’s just that as everyone seems to be saying this technology will be great, so these people don’t feel like they want to question it and look out of touch.

Essentially politicians don’t really understand new media. They get swept along by the hype in to believing that it offers some great new hope for a new public sphere which will create a more engaged, more informed democracy. They're ignorant bliss will undoubtedly be shattered.

Second Life

Strangely enough there was an item in this evening's London Lite covering the issues this blog is dealing with. On Page 14 there's an article about Hillary Clinton's decision to set up a virtual campaign on Second Life. It seems it's a full scale campaign 'complete with helicopter, cavalcade and posters'. The site has 4.5 million users which is a fair chunk of voters and well worth the effort.

I suppose we can safely assume that the coming US Presidential election will continue to build on the 2004 contest in its use of new media in order to target the online masses.

I think though that this will mainly serve to keep people whose media habits have changed from newspapers and TV to internet in touch with politics rather than to engage any new voters.

The most interesting line in the article I posted earlier today was that the online campaign in 2004 did not affect the eventual winner. That may change in the future but it won't mean that more people are voting.

Bush v Kerry

Here's a nice round up of the respective email campaigns run by Bush and Kerry for the 2004 election and written just one day before polling. It is a clear illustration that American politicians clearly believe in the potential of the interent to engage with the public.

But to be on the receiving end of this campaign an individual has to register with a party. Therefore it only affects those people who are already interested. Admitedly signing up for an email list is a very easy thing to do and there is a good possibility that people with only a passing interest would sign up. This would give parties a good opportunity to turn general interest in to activism.

However, there is no way these campaigns would have reached those with no interest in politics or those who feel completely disengaged from the process.

Anyway, here it is ....

http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/4499.asp

Email Marketing and the 2004 Election
By G. Simms Jenkins


With one day left before we all hit the polls, marketers can learn a thing or two from how the Bush and Kerry campaigns have used email.

As we approach the endgame of this heated presidential election, both candidates are using email marketing to improve their standings in the polls. To most companies, Email Marketing is a major communications platform, and in this election, the business-like campaigns have used email marketing in a capacity most CMOs would admire. Indeed, both campaigns went as far as to tell me that email marketing was critical to their success and a major component of their overall efforts.

Email marketing has been an integral force for both campaigns from the very beginning. The Kerry campaign chose email as the medium to announce John Edwards as Kerry’s running mate. Both parties have also used it as a major fund raising tool -- Kerry raised over $80 million during the primary over the Internet, with email a major part of that effort. The campaigns have also used email as a way to confront critics -- Bush’s Campaign Manager leveraged an email to its database to challenge Kerry’s Campaign Manager after an accusation from the Kerry campaign. Though the two campaigns have been compared and contrasted on many different levels, I will take a different approach and analyze their use of email marketing.

Though email marketing won’t win or lose the election for either side, a review of what's working for each candidate might be helpful for marketers in the context of email marketing best practices.

Personalization

The Bush campaign collects more data upon its mandatory registration and uses first name personalization on all emails. The Kerry campaign only personalized if the registrant opted to become a campaign volunteer -- a process which required submission of the registrant’s first name (regular email subscribers were not offered an opportunity to provide their first names, only their email address and zip code). Kerry should consider collecting a bit more information upon sign up -- even optional fields would help fill out their database and enable more customized messaging.
Advantage Bush

Branding/Value Proposition

While both candidates’ templates have a standard red, white and blue logo with the stars and stripes as their masthead above the fold, the rest of the email message often looked like a form letter. One Kerry email was an exception with a call-to-action button for contributions as a deadline neared. Interestingly, a similar looking Bush email came out the next day. However, largely the pieces looked like electronic copies of form letters lacking clear and articulate purposes or desired actions behind each email.

Note: I received HTML emails so I have not commented on text versions.
Advantage Kerry

Strong Subject Line

One Kerry subject line was “Polling Update.” Not an inspiring way to get recipients to open a message with six days left in a tight campaign. Bush’s folks faired better with more attention grabbing subject lines: “John Kerry's Attacks: Ripped from the Headlines!” and “Let the Voters Choose, Not the Lawyers.” I was surprised to see one email from John Edwards with the subject line “Next Wednesday Morning” that I almost deleted as spam before I saw the sender’s name.
Advantage Bush

Clear From Line

One of my biggest beefs was the ever-changing musical chairs of who will send today’s email. One can debate the merits of saying the email is from Bush or Kerry when they probably didn’t press the send button or write the copy, but there was little consistency in whom the messages were ostensibly from. Maybe each party thought that this was a way to increase their frequency, but how many know who Ken Mehlman (campaign manager for Bush/Cheney) is or have Mark Mellman (Kerry/Edwards pollster) in their personal whitelists? A late email from John Edwards certainly grabs your attention, however.
Slight Advantage Kerry (due to Edwards Email)

Targeting/Segmenting

In the final week of the campaign, Bush’s campaign sent a targeted email to me (as a Georgia resident) where it focused on the Georgia operations of the campaign and steps I could take to influence undecided voters in my home state. Kerry’s campaign did not use segmenting in Georgia, missing an opportunity.

However, Kerry’s campaign used email as the primary driving force to get a large turnout for a Clinton-Kerry appearance in Philadelphia. Bush’s campaign also recently delivered via email maps and driving directions to supporters’ local polling places, which is a great use of geo-targeting with a strong and clear call to action.
Tie

Frequency

On http://www.georgewbush.com/, the registration form clearly articulates the expected frequency of emails and the type of content you can expect to see.

However, the Kerry registration process leaves you with no idea whether emails will arrive monthly, daily or what specific content will be featured.

The Bush campaign was more aggressive in terms of frequency during the final week of the campaign. While one may see this as overkill, I would argue that during the final week, one email per day is appropriate and could even be essential. If you are ever going to increase the frequency and urgency of messaging, email is the right tool and the final week before the election is the right time.
Advantage Bush

Viral Marketing

Kerry’s email pitches did not offer any “forward to a friend” option. In contrast, the Bush team made it very clear and easy at the bottom of all its emails to forward to friends and family using an embedded viral tool. When friends and family can often influence one’s political decision, this is a critical time to be using viral marketing.
Advantage Bush

CAN-SPAM Compliance

Bush’s emails do not contain a physical address, arguably the easiest part of CAN-SPAM compliance. Despite politicians’ non-commercial emails being exempt from the law, Bush has an opportunity to help implement something that he signed into law this year. Exempt or not, it is a simple best practice to follow by anyone using email marketing.
Advantage Kerry

Use of Footer

Bush campaign emails include in their footer a way for people to opt in to future messages in the event the email was forwarded. Another small yet nice touch was a disclaimer that the email from the Bush campaign was not sent at taxpayers’ expense. Kerry has some legalese on contributions and their tax consequences, which would probably be better suited for the contributions page, not within the body of the email.
Advantage Bush
Email Marketing Criteria Winning Candidate
Personalization Bush
Branding/Value Proposition Kerry
Strong Subject Line Bush
Clear From Line Kerry
Targeting/Segmentation Tie
Frequency Bush
Viral Marketing Bush
CAN-SPAM Compliant Kerry
Use of Footer Bush


Both campaigns have certainly realized the power and efficiency of email marketing. Michael Turk, e-Campaign Director for Bush-Cheney ’04, said, “Email is a critical component of what we do. We have more than 7 million subscribers to our email list and reach out to them with information, calls to action, and to actively engage in volunteer activities. The ability to deliver that kind of targeted information to voters does not exist in other media.”

Though both candidates could stand to improve their email marketing execution, it is clear that they view it as a vital element of their campaign strategy. I feel comfortable saying that Bush’s camp has a very slight advantage over Kerry in terms of email strategy and execution. Though I can’t predict the winner of this year’s election, I can say that we should expect to see increased usage of email marketing in both national and local politics as candidates continue to recognize the value of this timely, highly personalized, low-cost medium.

G. Simms Jenkins is Founder and Principal of BrightWave Marketing, an Atlanta based Email Marketing and Customer Relationship Services firm. He has extensive relationship marketing experience on both the client and agency side. Jenkins has led BrightWave Marketing in establishing a large client list, including marquee clients like GMAC Insurance, CoreNet Global and The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. BrightWave Marketing has become a leader in the Email Marketing outsourcing space by using their expertise in strategy, design, list management, segmenting, delivery and analysis. Jenkins has been recognized by many media outlets as an Email Marketing and CAN-SPAM expert. Prior to BrightWave Marketing, Jenkins was Director of Business Development at two high-tech start-ups and headed the CRM group at Cox Interactive Media, a unit of media giant Cox Enterprises.

A Perfect Example

A great example of one of the aspects relating to declining turnout came up today. Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron gave speeches to push their green credentials. It's a classic example of politicians having the same ideology but different (perhaps) ideas on how to implement the changes they wish to see.

The lack of ideological difference and fight for the middle ground have often been highlighted as a factor behind declining turnout and the battle between Mr Brown and Mr Cameron looks sets to continue this pattern.