Reports
Browse in : [ Reports ]
Note: when you create a new publication type, the articles module will automatically use the templates user-display-[publicationtype].xd and user-summary-[publicationtype].xd. If those templates do not exist when you try to preview or display a new article, you'll get this warning :-) Please place your own templates in themes/yourtheme/modules/articles . The templates will get the extension .xt there.
Title: Back to the Basics: A Lesson in the Tech Revolution's Shortcomings
Author: Katie Merrill
Date: August 26, 2006 1:02:52 AM or Sat, 26 August 2006 01:02:52
Summary:
Body: Shhh. Don’t tell anyone. I’m going to let you in on a little secret as part of our getting-to-know-you process in the blogosphere. Ok, here it is. I am a political Luddite… a technology rebel… a wireless outlier. That’s right. You heard me. I am declaring myself, at least for the purposes of this piece, anti-technology. I am not completely anti-technology of course. I am, after all, writing this entry on my computer. For the launch of a new blog, no less. It’s just that I think that the whole notion that the Internet and wireless technology are changing the way we win elections is… well, a bunch of hooey. Incendiary remarks, I know. And bygones up front to my friends and colleagues in the mobile media, net roots, viral marketing, online activism world. But here’s the thing, I just don’t think any of those things actually win campaigns. At least not yet. And not in California. Article after article is being written about how people are getting their information from more and more media sources. That growing numbers are watching the news on the internet and surfing the web on their phone. And so because of that, campaigns are now fragmenting their messages in narrow slices to the different demographics that get their information off of YouTube, MySpace, text messages, and podcasts. No one however has written about the fact that elections are still won through the same tried and true methods through which they have been won for the last thirty years. The bottom line is that traditional persuasion and voter contact tactics are still the things that make the difference in campaigns. Do I think technology helps campaigns perform those functions more efficiently? Yes. But do I think online ads, for instance, are more effective in persuading voters than television ads? No way. Do I think YouTube is going to make broadcast TV irrelevant as a persuasion medium? Not in the near or even near-distant future. Traditional methods of communicating and organizing in campaigns remain the fundamental building blocks of success. Television advertising, political endorsements, phoning, and walking are still the proven means for victory. Look at the Democratic primary for Governor this year. The Westly campaign certainly relied on the traditional tactic of television advertising to win. No doubt. But because they had little grassroots support and relatively few endorsements, they turned to the promise of technology, ala Howard Dean in 2004, to replace organizational support with virtual conventions, candidate blogs, and email trees. Seemed like a reasonable thing to do, particularly if you believe in the technology phenomenon that’s being peddled by so many. The problem is that no matter how successful those activities might have been, they didn’t translate into boots on the ground on Election Day. Nor did they translate into the meager 121,000 votes (meager for California) it would have taken to win the election. Hey, kudos to the Westly campaign for trying to leverage every medium available to them. But the poor result is a reflection of the same reality that Howard Dean experienced in Iowa, and New Hampshire, and beyond. The intensity of what happens online does not yet translate into equal results offline. Until voting becomes an online activity or the psychology of those who interact with campaigns online significantly shifts, I suspect that it will remain that way. So does this mean that I pooh-pooh all technological changes that have entered the political realm in the last 10 years? Absolutely not. I think that technology has allowed us to do things faster, better, and in some cases cheaper than before. For instance, online fundraising has been a boon for a campaign’s low dollar fundraising. It has saved campaigns tremendous amounts of money on direct mail fundraising and prospecting. It has allowed for more people to hear about and contribute to campaigns than ever before. But it certainly shouldn’t be the heart of a campaign’s finance plan. It shouldn’t even be the heart of a low donor fundraising plan, at least for a statewide campaign. Online voter files have made volunteer phone programs more efficient to run and more easily scalable. Where volunteers once had to get in their cars and drive to the phone bank or walk site to get their voter lists and scripts, they can now download voters in their precinct, make their calls, and enter the information back into the system--all from home. But if you are running an aggressive field program in California, a volunteer-based program using an online voter file will never replace paid phone banks and, if you have the bodies, organized volunteer walks and phone banks to get the job done. But for all of the efficiencies new technologies have brought to campaigns, persuasion--the fundamental job of a campaign--remains the domain of traditional modes of communication. When it comes to winning, persuasion is the name of the game. And today, it doesn’t happen online. It doesn’t happen by e-mail. It doesn’t happen by podcast. The truth is, as fragmented as we have all become, persuasion remains the property of broadcast television, radio, mail, and sometimes phones and walks. For California statewide campaigns, this will remain the dominant axiom, while there are still more people who watch Lost than Snakes on a Plane.
Notes:
More fields may be available via dynamicdata ..
Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Back to the Basics: A Lesson in the Tech Revolution's Shortcomings
Posted by: CarlsbadDem on August 26, 2006 01:48 PMoops, I totally lost track of how long that comment was getting. I feel like it is probably some kind of violation of etiquette to post a comment that long. Go ahead and delete it if you like, I'll repost it as a diary somewhere and traceback. Sorry!
Back to the Basics: A Lesson in the Tech Revolution's Shortcomings
Posted by: phoblog on August 27, 2006 09:57 PMI didn't even make it through CarlsbadDem's comment . . . so forgive me if I echo or ignore a point made therein.
I tend to agree with the main thought here - no one in Iowa or New Hampshire could really cling to the Net Wins fantasy.
Then again, I think in a "you got peanut butter in my chocolate" kinda way, what the past few election cycles have shown us is that the candidate who can embrace the quirks and fun of emerging technology while still paying appropriate amounts of attention and respect to, say, an actual field operation should be able to clean up.
If 2004 taught us anything, it's that the echo chamber is both all-power and simply what it is: an echo chamber which magnifies the navel-gazing tendencies of media and insider pundits. Those touting the power of the web got their message in front of just the right people from a PR standpoint. They just forgot to take it door-to-door.
Back to the Basics: A Lesson in the Tech Revolution's Shortcomings
Posted by: Julia Rosen on August 28, 2006 04:17 PMI don't need to repeat CarlsbadDem's points about the strawman you put up, what I would rather focus on is what technology does now and the way it will change over time. Warning this will be a long one.
The political world was taken completely surprised in '04 by the tech revolutions of the Dean Campaign. Suddenly these four geeky kids (one of whom was my brother) were the lead story in the NYT magazine and everyone scrambled to figure out what just happened and how they could take advantage of it themselves. That is why we see articles on txting and podcasting being the next revolution. They missed the blog/meetup wave and don't want to be left behind on the next wave.
Ok, let's talk video and specifically DVR penetration for a clear example. Increasingly people (and especially my cohorts) are no longer getting their 2-d fix from broadcast TV. NDN has a phenomenal study on the subject, where these stats come from. Media buyers will need to stay up on these trends and adjust their purchases accordingly. By 2009 over a third of homes will have a DVR in their homes. Right now, research shows about 64% of those who own a DVR skip all commercials. I own a TIVO and I skip all commercials. The only ones that I rewind to watch are the political ads, somehow I don't think I am in the majority. I have not yet seen any demographic information on the early adopters of TIVO, but you have to assume they skew rich and male. Even if just 25% of households own a DVR by 2008, it will have to be a consideration next cycle.
We will increasingly reach a world where political advertising is opt-in. Viral videos will become more important as a way of reaching your supporters. YouTube is an early precursor of what is to come. Just like nobody visits Friendster anymore, in a few years, YouTube will be a relic. But the point will still remain: on demand video is where it is at. Now...you will be able to overlay ads on top of the free videos. YouTube will soon force you to sit through advertising like the NYT and CNet does. Media buying will become more complicated, as you need to find a way of reaching the right demographics. As with any online advertising, you will have the added bonus of being able to micro-target, making your purchases more efficient.
YouTube will not make broadcast TV irrelevant as a persuasion medium, but it and a whole host of other factors will make it a less efficient vehicle to persuade voters. The Republicans are way ahead of us on technology (fundraising excepted, particularly ActBlue). We cannot afford to be left further behind.
Back to the Basics: A Lesson in the Tech Revolution's Shortcomings
Posted by: phoblog on August 28, 2006 09:16 PMI agree with everything you say, with the caveat that I think its also important to acknowledge that tech-wise, things turn on a dime.
The other caveat: I have literally hundreds of channels sitting in front of me right now as well as hundreds of other OnDemand options and the internet - but there's still nothing to watch.
My base question/argument remains: Dean was brilliant to seize emerging technologies, but based on first-hand evidence relayed to me by Iowa Dean staff - there was no field operation. Do you (reader, previous commenter, anyone) think that new tech will *replace* traditional field operations or other direct-contact methods of voter communication - or will it just augment it, reaching a broader spectrum of people in new ways?
I say, at least for the next few cycles, a candidate that botches either side of this new equation is either out or will burn through resources much less efficiently.
Back to the Basics: A Lesson in the Tech Revolution's Shortcomings
Posted by: Julia Rosen on August 28, 2006 10:16 PMNothing can ever replace person to person voter contact. It may happen and does happen in different ways using technology. People send around emails to their friends. They use MoveOn's phone bank to talk to voters in other districts. Or people simply forward on a blog post. In the end we are talking about methods of communication.
I think that the candidates who can use technology more efficiently will have an edge on the competetion. It isn't about the amount of money, but how you use it. Just look at this review of Arnold's website over at Personal Democracy Forum. (Angelids and Westly reviews are there too)
I think that when you talk about web communications you have two audiences 1) regular voters 2) activists. You need to find ways to engage both people. While the activits need to have the tools, the voters need to access the information.
Deans campaign taught us a lot about the usefulness and limits of technology. Many candidates are learning from his mistakes, but still have not found the right balance.
Ratings
Back to the Basics: A Lesson in the Tech Revolution's Shortcomings
Posted by: CarlsbadDem on August 26, 2006 01:37 PMAs Katie Merrill has already guessed, this is a piece that very much invites (or, incites?) responses from the blogosphere types.
Most of what I want to say, is covered merely in saying what kind of response this will be. I will not be arguing that what Merrill has written is wrong, so much as simply missing the mark, or, to put a sharper point on it, irrelevant.
First, everyone acknowledges that use of the internet and other networked technologies in politics is just barely beginning. Naturally, then, not all the benefits, or even applications, have been realized. So statements like this:
and this:
to me carry just a whiff of, say, a 1920's Henry Ford telling fledgling airplane-makers that he's "anti-airplane" because travel is still done through the same "tried and true methods" of Model T and trains. True, and yet, not really the point. People are more interested in looking ahead to where things are going, than where they are.
Another way the piece misses the mark, is in arguing a strawman, points that even the most enthusiastic and optimistic tech boosters do not believe. Here's a good example:
I've read Markos and Jerome's book, Crashing the Gate, and read several blogs, including DailyKos, daily. I've never seen anyone suggest that text messaging replaces precinct walking in 2006 elections--or 2008, or ever. In fact, there are near-constant reminders and pressure to engage in volunteer and fundraising efforts. To resurrect the car/train-airplane analogy, who can argue but that the world has dramatically changed as a result of air travel? That we still walk on foot and use cars and trains, that we don't go to the grocery store on a hovercraft and go next door on a hoverboard, these points are tangental and silly/irrelevant, respectively, when discussing the transformative importance of air travel.
Evaluating a new technology strictly by a rubric of how well it replicates an old way of doing things is unfair to the new technology in two respects: the new thing looks bad when it doesn't do something the old does, and when looking solely the scope of what the old can do, you are blind to things the new can do that the old can't. We've already covered that technology will never fully replace a strong body-based ground GOTV operation. What can technology do, that the existing campaign paradigms can't?
This is mostly what I hear kos and company talking about, and this is the exciting part. This piece takes a very narrow view of the task of persuasion, I suppose the natural view of someone who is paid to accomplish a specific task in a relatively very short time frame. But the real power of new technologies as I see it is re-shifting the entire course of the nation's discourse to the left, through media-watchdog activities, research, and so on. By moving what the collective conscioiusness considers the "center," we do Merrill's job for her, before her contract even begins!
Merrill repeatedly emphasizes the importance of feet on the ground, bodies, volunteers. Where does she get these volunteers? Working on local campaigns, it has been my observation that the real core of volunteers were median age 60-something. People who were radicalized and trained in the trenches of the civil rights and other big movements of the 60's. Where will the next generation come from? The younger folks I did meet, were largely rounded up on the internet. Blogs in particular are where people come who have a little interest in maybe an issue or two. They are quickly drawn into a community where their existing progressive views are radicalized, and as they are educated they draw closer to party line on many others. (e.g. they go from nature lovers to environmental voters, women's rights activists and labor enthusiasts). People who we'd be lucky to have just showing up at the polls are radicalized to the point where they will actually donate and volunteer. I can't tell you how many people I've found on dailykos who, like myself had opinions on issues but zero loyalty to the Democratic Party as such. So many times I've heard, "in 2000, if McCain had been the nominee, I would have voted for him," or, "I did like a lot of what Nader had to say," from people who are now slavishly Democrat.
Maybe that doesn't "change the way we win elections"--in fact the contribution is much more fundamental--it makes winning elections possible. And who knows what will happen when these technologies really develop.
#