This post responds to: Delany, Colin. 2010. ePolitics.com. “Using the Internet to Win in 2010.” (http://www.epolitics.com/winning-in-2010/) and Delany, Colin. 2009. ePoltics.com. “Learning From Obama: Lessons for Online Communicators in 2009 & Beyond.” (http://www.epolitics.com/learning-from-obama/)
These articles address the compelling ways the Obama campaign made supporters feel valued. Specifically, the campaign sought volunteers’ support through non-monetary engagement and let them know how their efforts fit into the larger election framework.
Obama’s strategists knew how to use volunteers to the campaign’s advantage. “[T]he Obama solution: borrow their brains, and use technology to make it possible.” The Obama campaign shrewdly gave volunteers true prestige in the organization. Delaney explores how the Obama campaign made supporters feel like part of the organization, gave them real weight in decision making (not true .. just actions), and used them more than just as donors.
The campaign provided resources and let volunteers do the work. Again, technology was key, encouraging volunteers to show their support through their Facebook pages. In addition, the campaign provided talking points and “walk lists” so volunteers could campaign in their local neighborhoods. These walk lists were supplemented with an iphone app which volunteers could use to find the nearest house to visit and download talking points.
It’s clear the campaign’s use of its volunteers and of technology will be the model for future, successful advocacy campaigns. With the rise of mobile, location based services and other web tools and resources, the wider public truly can have an influence in their local communities and sometimes even on a national scale. It will be the task of organizations to design successful strategies taking “electronically-enabled” volunteers into account.
My questions: will organizations be comfortable letting their supporters have so much control? How will campaigns monitor and assure sound quality? How will campaigns maintain credibility with increased fracturing of who the message is coming from and with increased proliferation in the message being delivered?
Further, I believe a critical step that must be paired with successful grassroots organizing is a crisis communication plan for messages gone awry.
Delaney attributes to the campaign’s mobilizing success to the use and proliferation of campaign video, an additional aspect of the Obama campaign of which I was previously unaware.
The Obama campaign seems to be using video in the same way we have addressed the concept of the “long tail” as it applies to ads and nanotargeting, as discussed by Josh Kolter. The campaign produced a slew of video content that appealed to different niche audiences, and the public added its own video content. Here the idea is: the more content the better. When your “shelf” is limitless, there is no end to the content you should provide.
“But even the ones that WEREN’T viewed by millions mattered: the internet is an endless sea of niches, and not only was it impossible for he campaign to target every possible interest or audience, they didn’t need to — their supporters were busy doing it for them, and in their own (authentic) voices.”
Delaney discusses another interesting concept, the efficacy of the strategy targeting the opposition with ads, not “pro – Obama” support ads. As Kolter explained : “there used to be one ad that would imply a candidate was unfit. Now there are many smaller ads that imply unfit but do not say so directly. Future campaigns may explore such niche adds further.
In sum, aided by technology, the Obama campaign turned volunteer mobilization into a science.
No comments:
Post a Comment