November 22, 2009
Login | Register Now

Advertising Age: Your Online Source for Marketing and Media News


More from Ad Age:
Creativity
Ad Age China
Bookstore
Jobs
Ad Age On Campus
Sign up for E-mail Newsletters

Stay on top of the news, sign up for our free newsletters


How Obama Killed 'Election Day' and Became President

Axelrod & Co. Understood Time Shifting and Consumer Control

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Submit to Digg Add to Google Share on StumbleUpon Submit to LinkedIn Add to Newsvine Bookmark on Del.icio.us Submit to Reddit

Pete Snyder
Pete Snyder
There is no doubt that this year presented the toughest political climate for Republicans since Watergate; indeed, this campaign has been an uphill fight for John McCain or any GOP nominee. That said, Barack Obama, David Axelrod and their team deserve a huge amount of respect and credit for running a nearly flawless campaign.

They didn't fight today's war with yesterday's weapons and, most importantly, their campaign was based on a superior strategy. For the purposes of this column, let's forget about the issues, let's forget about the climate and let's ignore message for a moment. The simple fact is that Obama and his campaign chiefs understood two of the most significant (but little talked about) changes of this campaign cycle:
  1. The election timetable fundamentally shifted from being just about Election Day or even the last 72 hours (as was the rule of thumb for decades) to being decided as early as six weeks in advance.

  2. Due to the seismic changes in how voters get and process information that we marketers have seen for quite some time the voter, just like the consumer, is now in control and thus would be open to making his or her voting decisions earlier than ever.
Combined, these two critical assumptions turned D.C. conventional wisdom on its head and helped provide Obama with a major strategic advantage over McCain. Here's how:

Starting with Obama's huge upset in Iowa, the ensuing Hillary-Obama 50-state death match altered the rules of the game. Historically, a handful of early primary and caucus states would decide this thing in about 45 days (usually less than 1% of all voters in the country) and most Americans wouldn't feel compelled to engage until the fall. Instead, the clash of the Democrat titans drove millions of Americans to the polls because -- for the first time in a primary -- their vote actually could make a difference.

The Obama camp recognized that something very different was going on here. It threw out many of the old political adages and assumptions, including the granddaddy of them all, Americans don't tune into elections until after Labor Day. Obama's campaign geared its online and off-line engagement and advertising to build on this unprecedented early interest and mobilized it into an effective ground game to get out their vote.

While McCain came back from the dead after his campaign nearly went bankrupt and all of the pundits wrote him off, his path to the nomination was actually easier and wrapped up nearly three months before Obama crossed the magic delegate threshold. McCain rested, reshuffled his campaign staff, worked on replenishing his coffers and set his sights on the convention and the traditional post-Labor Day blitz.

Obama acted quite differently. Having opted-out of his promise to abide by campaign finance laws (which proved to be one of his shrewdest and smartest moves), he went for broke. His campaign started pouring millions of dollars into opening scores of campaign offices in all 50 states, many in areas that Democrats hadn't contested in decades. In the traditionally GOP-favoring Colorado, Obama set up 59 campaign offices to McCain's 13.

Why did he take this expensive gamble? Because of the internet and rise of social media, this was the first time where it actually made sense to run a 50-state campaign. In the past, each party would focus its efforts in getting out the vote in its respective solid "D" or solid "R" states and pour hundred of millions of dollars fighting it out over a handful of "battleground states."

This time around, everyone counted. And given the power of social media, everyone who has the interest has the ability to influence and mobilize networks of friends. A blue dot in a sea of red could now make a real impact, both vote-wise and dollar-wise, to a presidential campaign. Obama got this and McCain really didn't.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Pete Snyder is the founder and CEO of New Media Strategies. He also is a former GOP pollster and media consultant. Full-disclosure: He voted for McCain.


In an equally risky, yet ultimately effective move, Obama's campaign took to the airwaves during the summer months. Over the summer alone, Obama and the DNC outspent McCain and the GOP by nearly 10 to 1 in Virginia, a reliably red state in presidential elections since voting for Lyndon Johnson in '64. This strategy paid off by shaping early opinions (and thus, polls) about Obama, driving dollars and volunteers into his campaign and forcing McCain to spend precious resources in a state he expected to have in the GOP column.

More importantly, Obama realized that the defined "time" of the election timetable fundamentally changed. For decades, campaign models were built upon the premise that you raised all of your dollars and put all of your infrastructure -- including TV advertising and direct mail -- toward a call to action, driving turnout for 12 hours or so on Nov. 4. In 2000, Karl Rove swore that Republicans would never lose the ground game again after the Bush team took a lead into Election Day and were blindsided by the huge surge in voter turnout for Al Gore. Rove changed the election timetable from 12 hours to the last 72 hours, thus creating the effective and much heralded (or reviled, depending on where you sit) "72 hours program" that has dominated the efforts of both parties for the past three campaign cycles.

As we marketers understand, much has changed over the past six years in how consumers, let alone voters, gather and process information and then make decisions. Voters have more access to information and more touch-points and influencers in their lives than ever before. Oftentimes, this causes consumers and voters to make decisions on brands they like, products they want to buy or candidates they want to support much earlier than they did in years and decades past. The engagement and interest in Campaign 2008 never really subsided; it continued to grow. As a former pollster, across the board I saw the "undecideds" shrink much earlier than in past cycles. Voters were making up their minds earlier than in the past.

Virginia allowed early voting six weeks in advance. By the time Election Day actually rolled around, nearly 35% to 40% of the entire electorate of America had already voted. Because both consumers and voters are now in control, in many places there is no longer an Election Day. It's been replaced by "election month." Obama geared his campaign strategy around these two massive shifts and reaped the rewards. The coup de grace: When the global economic collapse hit over five weeks ago it stopped the clock for the media, making it virtually impossible for a competing story to garner any major attention, thus freezing McCain in time.

This is not to say that Obama and all of his advisers are geniuses and McCain and all of his campaign chieftains are incompetent. That is hardly the case. At times, McCain used brilliant tactics and knocked Obama off balance late in the summer and through the GOP convention. In a strategic sense, however, the McCain camp was out-thought and out-gunned. The campaign had no overarching narrative and was built on an outdated model. Indeed, it was much smaller than the man it attempted to represent.

The much-heralded 72-hour campaign is dead. Election Day is no longer. Voters, like consumers, are now in control.
27 Comments
Subscribe to comments on: How Obama Killed 'Election Day' and Became President
  By Steve | Fredonia, NY November 5, 2008 08:34:35 am:
Hey Beevis, he said adages.
"It threw out many of the old political adages and assumptions"
  By schollnick | METAIRIE, LA November 5, 2008 09:02:02 am:
It was quite a bit more than marketing that enabled Barack Obama to bring it in.

Steve Schollnick
Schollnick Advertising LLC
  By Pam | Dallas, TX November 5, 2008 09:27:19 am:
One fact often overlooked is that this Obama media budget was not a result of advantage. It was a mandate and a precursor of the vote. It was substantially raised by winning support of ordinary people with modest pocketbooks with the balance of Obama's hard work, respect, and smart policy thinking. Small contributions add up. It was viral. The American people are tired of the lies, aristocratic dysfunction and disastrous economic/war policies all fully supported by McCain. It all boils down to Marketing 101. Marketing can't save a flawed product. The consumer will find the truth.
  By dukestory | RACINE, WI November 5, 2008 09:28:58 am:
Obama, as would any Democrat, won due to 6 years of one of the strongest attempts by the Media, News and entertainment industries to poison the efforts of the Bush administration and thereby the GOP. I must give Obama's team credit they used their weapons effectivily. I wish I could launch a product in an environment where my competitor is crushed by the very media they are trying to advertise in.

The GOP made many mistakes by abandoning their brand in favor of political expediency but I find it incredible that McCain was even in the race. The McCain campaign's most brillant counter punch was Palin, she is now a brand and it will be interesting to see what kind of attack campaign they will use against her over the next 4 years. The Palin brand will be developed, strengthen and effective when 2012 campaigns start. The Obama marketeers know this and will start efforts to counter this immediately. It will be an interesting 4 years of political marketing.
  By VINCE | CHICAGO, IL November 5, 2008 10:01:18 am:
The entire Obama campaign was one of destiny, shaped by the
sharpest minds in politics. The reinvention of campaigning using
the new media; something advertisers grappled with themselves--
saw that the product has to be honest and truthful. An underdog to the end, Barack rose up and in his perseverance drew on the
character of his sacrifices-- in his speech he was unafraid to
speak to all Americans. George Bush's failures were a factor too.
McCain was obsolete from the outset. His message worn. Mr.
Obama took America back for Americans, November 4th. Something that was handed to generals and bankers by the Bush Administration
in its endeavor to simply make a profit through the twists of
government;which in retrospect will be his legacy; a failed economic system inherited from vibrant ideas shorn to benefit the
few. In Barack's favor, advertising worked, because it was an
honest message of inclusiveness. Not divisive: the only strategy
a loser has. Internationally, America has its pride back. Let's
build on it and show the world our product/model can work again.
--Vincent Kamin,
Chicago, Illinois
  By DavidCrumm | Canton, MI November 5, 2008 10:03:23 am:
Pete:

Excellent piece today!
I won't argue politics, except to respond to Steve S's note. I'm a 30-plus year veteran of major U.S. newspapers, formerly Knight-Ridder and then Gannett as a senior writer, now retired and founder of an online magazine in my own niche expertise. But, from those decades in the trenches of journalism, I can say: Steve S you are correct that media professionals loved Obama, overall, and often wore their hearts on their sleeves ... errr, laptops. But the jury of scholars will be "out" on this for a long time. Because, the flip side is: Journalists were amazed at how adeptly McCain manipulated and won over the media right up until the Palin announcement turned the campaign into a media joke. I can't tell you how many serious inside-media debates went on about reporters' loving embrace of McCain, his hero status and his now-humorous but for a long time very effective "maverick" tag.
BUT -- HERE's what's so important about Pete's column today. It's this section:
"This time around, everyone counted. And given the power of social media, everyone who has the interest has the ability to influence and mobilize networks of friends. A blue dot in a sea of red could now make a real impact, both vote-wise and dollar-wise, to a presidential campaign. Obama got this and McCain really didn't."
When I retired out of traditional print newsmedia to co-found our new online project (in my own niche of spirituality and values) -- what Pete is describing here one of the single most powerful principles that drove this move and this project.
All the old boundaries of media networking are imploding -- and, now, marketing areas can hardly be drawn on a map. The maps look more like spiderwebs gone mad. A smart 14-year-old kid in his bedroom in Boulder, Colo., may be the node of a network that bounces into the Carolinas, Philadelphia and rural Oregon.
What Pete's writing here -- especially in that paragraph -- is crucial.
Nice job, Pete.
  By CHARLES | WEST ORANGE, NJ November 5, 2008 10:08:28 am:
Pete says Obama's campaign "was based on a superior strategy" and "ran a nearly flawless campaign."

Pam, you suggest he won "due to six years" of a poisoning campaign by the media.

Pam, did you read Pete's article? Did you notice Iraq? Or a 40% stockmarket crash?

This conspiracy theory doesn't play any better against the left than it did when Hillary declared a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Sometimes things are just what they seem--a superior strategy, executed in a superior manner, with help from the economy and a despised president of his own party, are quite sufficient to do anyone in. Additional thoughts of media conspiracies dating to 2002 (when, by the way, all the media were supporting Mr. Bush's "war on terrorism," you may recall) aren't necessary to explain McCain's failure.

And Palin's brand may be strong, but narrow-cast in the same was as Fox News, Royal Crown Cola, Chik-Fil-A and Cracker Barrel are. Except users of NBC, Coke, McDonalds and Arbys aren't turned by their competitors; the same cannot be said of the Palin brand.

It's very hard for an "us vs. them" strategy to get a majority--by definition. But that's what politics requires.
  By mondogrande | Ft Lauderdale, FL November 5, 2008 10:42:15 am:
Obama's logo, slogan, understanding of social media, technology, etc. were flawless. Combine these factors with the obvious (economy,Iraq,housing market et al) and this was over before the fat lady even got off her chair to sing.

Branding a president is no different than developing product identity and Obama's campaign should be a template for future politicans if they have the money to implement it.

http://www.proudtoliveinamerica.com
  By lfgbear | CHANDLER, AZ November 5, 2008 11:07:45 am:
Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain ran abysmal frenetic campaigns. Obama and his campaign were always calm and confident.
But do not underestimate the people's desire to be rid of Republican excess and deception.

Personally, I would have preferred someone who had some experience fixing problems on a national and international scale but Obama is the brand the Millenials want to buy and this aging Boomer can accept that, because they, just like Obama, need to get to work on building their future.

B.L.Lindstrom
http://SoIWroteThisBook.com
  By NORBERTO | SAO PAULO -SP November 5, 2008 11:12:01 am:
Halo marketers! It is very simple. Mr.Obama talks what he feels.
And he is going to try his best! Look at his family history. He is a true fighter, and is convincent.
Congratulations from Sao Paulo, Brazil
  By tnicoletti | São Paulo November 5, 2008 02:45:23 pm:
Pretty interesting article, with many relevant facts behind Obama's victory. But I still believe Obama's greatest weapon wasn't really his. If George Bush hadn't been the current president, this would have been a much tougher game to play...
  By THOMAS | NEW YORK, NY November 5, 2008 03:15:38 pm:
Excellent, insightful piece. I'm very jealous that I never thought of the "time shifting" parallel myself -- it's a brilliant observation.

As for the comment about Sarah Palin becoming the face of the Republican brand, we progressive Americans can only hope; if true, it will be a long, long time in the wilderness for the GOP.

Finally, the statement about the media "poisoning" perceptions of the Bush Administration really bugs me. Can you "poison" perceptions about the morality of torture? About revealing the identity of a CIA agent? About using the Justice Department as a political tool? About the response to Hurricane Katrina? I could spend paragraph after paragraph offering examples of the truth that damns this spin.

Even with the relentless drumbeat of right-wing rationales from the highest rated radio program in the country (Rush), the dominant News Channel (Fox) and the largest paid-circulation newspaper (WSJ), the American people were still able to think for themselves and decide that George W. Bush was a miserable failure, a disgrace to the office of President and the personified tipping point that (hopefully forever but probably not) drove a stake into the heart of the neoconservative movement. He cannot leave the White House soon enough, and I shudder at the thought of what he and his profoundly corrupt and cynical team will try to do in the next 76 days.
  By ED | NEW YORK, NY November 5, 2008 03:36:46 pm:
He definitely had superior marketing strategy, but he also has better policies.
  By jvillano | New York, NY November 5, 2008 03:52:44 pm:
Douglas Story: Obama, as would any Democrat, won due to 6 years of one of the strongest attempts by the Media, News and entertainment industries to poison the efforts of the Bush administration and thereby the GOP.

So McCain's loss had nothing to do with nearly 8 years of catastrophically bad Republican public policy and implementation, right? It was all the media's fault, right?

I knew the rationalizations for this landslide loss were coming, but boy that was fast.

Or as they say...

"Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed."
  By nirmiet | ST. MICHAEL November 5, 2008 04:12:22 pm:
Perhaps the early interest in your elections was due not so much to the Obama / McCain factor, but the SP factor instead. Not SP as in the SPF 30 sunblock one may apply while lying on one of our beautiful beaches. The SP I refer to is Sarah Palin. This SP factor worked great.....for Obama!
  By Acehorseman | Petersburg, TN November 5, 2008 07:01:26 pm:
Great advertising and strategy, perhaps, but no one is questioning the millions in illegal campaign donation, openly violating the FEC rules to pay for it all. Oh yes, the ends justify it all. Let's move along, put it behind us. Obama has the distinction of being the first criminally financed campaign and not much else. Pathetic.
  By Bullgumbo | Sacramento, CA November 5, 2008 07:28:37 pm:
So...candidates are elected on the basis of the efficiency of how their campaign machinery works. That is a reasonable take on this situation. However, how does that excellent campaign machinery keep the bad guys over there from making a return visit here as the outgoing president was able to accomplish? The new messiah wants to eviscerate the Patriot Act - one such change will be to prohibit wire taps - leaving us more exposed to mischief from the bad guys. I admire what GWB was able to accomplish in protecting us, providing common sense and high values to the Supreme Court and he will be missed by those that consider themselves patriots.
  By dsides | Hudson, WI November 5, 2008 11:41:04 pm:
"Having opted-out of his promise to abide by campaign finance laws", while shrewd and smart, is also politically deceitful. Let's see how often he "opts out" of other campaign promises in the years ahead.

Other than that subtle insightful shrug, your take on the Big O campaign is spot on. Proof that an extremely well-funded ad campaign with a consistent and repetitive message will have impact on desired targeted consumers. Advertising works. So does careful research. They didn't miss a potential avenue for making an impact - everywhere on the web, every channel of delivery possible. And hungry consumers bought into it (well, 56% did).

Tactics that all marketers can learn from.
  By presidentdon | Lancaster, CA November 6, 2008 04:58:22 am:
Being elected is only part of the game, performing to satisfy the voters is step Two. Obama now claims he may not be able to do his job, until he is reelected for a second term. Sorry I will give him 180 days to reestablish Middle Class Jobs, stop foreclosures, and restore our economy. If Don Cordel had been elected, this would have been a given. Obama was elected by the Media, very few TV commercials elected him. McCain was constantly ignored by the Media, day after day reports about Obama meeting the public, was not even reporting. NOT one Independent candidate received any coverage. That is not fair reporting. If Middle Class jobs are not restored in One Year, our nation will continue to die. More Globalization will end our nation. Stop imports, save America.
  By Seth | NY, NY November 6, 2008 09:18:32 am:
If you recall their first debate, I'm still not sure McCain knows the difference between strategy and tactics. That's kind of important.
  By Jeff | Rexburg, ID November 6, 2008 11:27:45 am:
Pete,

Thank heavens for your article! For awhile there, I thought the American people were just ignorant or had lost their minds. I couldn't figure out how the citizens of this country could elect a highly under-qualified person with no administrative experience, shady associations and socialistic economic policies as President of the United States. Now I see that it was just the results of brilliant minds and a flawless marketing strategy. I feel a whole lot better.
  By TOM | NEW YORK, NY November 6, 2008 01:01:34 pm:
The real genius was getting the nomination.
Beating Hillary took consumer shifting and time control. Or was it the other way around?
Poor Hillary: winning Michigan and Florida and they meant nothing compared to caucuses in Idaho and Guam.
  By parksa | Kansas City, MO November 6, 2008 01:05:46 pm:
This analysis of the campaign and the ensuing feedback is interesting reading. Evident are the conspiracy theories, but the obvious recoiling from Bush performance, the utilization of social media and building support one-by-one rather than strictly through affinity groups supports my thought that "target marketing" - which may be deliver efficient media-buying metrics -is exclusionary by definition.

Obama's campaign generated a "movement," one that captured the imagination of individual voters. One had only to witness the 75,000+ crowds at Obama rallies in Kansas City and St. Louis, and then the Grant Park gathering on election night to recognize that Obama's campaign leveraged the effective advertising mantra - Ogilvy's, I think: Identify the Big Idea (change) and then Clearly Communicate it in an Arresting and Memorable way.

He surely did that.

Arthur Parks - Kansas City
  By Lisa | Dallas, TX November 6, 2008 01:23:28 pm:
I am also convinced that Obama was elected by the media since practically all of mainstream media was in the tank for him. What if McCain or (God forbid) Palin where the ones associated with Ayers, Wright, ACORN etc? Do you think the media would give them a pass like they gave Obama?? I think not.
  By Dan | San Angelo, TX November 6, 2008 04:18:13 pm:
Pam/Pete...Pam writes: "One fact often overlooked is that this Obama media budget was not a result of advantage. It was a mandate and a precursor of the vote. It was substantially raised by winning support of ordinary people with modest pocketbooks with the balance of Obama's hard work, respect, and smart policy thinking. Small contributions add up. It was viral."

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? Who can be wrong when the end result is known and theories foul and fair are flying like MacBeth's witches, with abandon, brooms akimbo
"through the fog and filthy air?"

1) National media outlets were, over a year-long period, with empirical evidence, touting Obama and dissing McCain/Palin with no one to counter their hero-worship but lone bloggers whimpering in the cyber-wilderness...

2) Multi, multi-millions in small donations flew into Obama's coffers from every illegal corner of the world...do the math on $25 times 40-50 Million contributors...

3) Obama as a "product" didn't win due to brilliant "packaging" as asserted by the author of this article as well as various posters to this site. Unless one is a clear-thinking student of history, one might miss the fact that the "Nazi" product was offered/sold to the German people exactly the same way with the same tactics, (disinformation, media bias and propoganda in its hydra-headed forms.) Eager German citizens voted Hitler's party into the Reichstag in 1933. From that Nazi plurality, Hitler demanded that President Hindenburg appoint him Chancellor, making him a virtual dictator in a "Democratic" Germany.

4)As a 40+ year advertising/communication professional, I sincerely assert that the US voter was presented with a lousy potato chip (ie., totally unprepared for market viability) which had been propagandized as ambrosia of the gods. And the salty snack generation, with no balancing attempt by national media outlets, blindly kicked down the doors of the polling places.

Eric Hoffer was right in his book "The True Believer": Causes are interchangeable while the sheep (voters) are simply looking for greener pastures and benevolent shepherds.

Louis Farrakhan, that stalwart American, called BHO "The Messiah" and a hoodwinked voting majority swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

Dan P. McCurdy, Sr. | Sherman, TX
  By daryl orris | Minnetonka, MN November 7, 2008 10:08:13 am:
Dear Dan,

"From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
But as the riper should by time decrease,
His tender heir might bear his memory;
But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes,
Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making famine where abundance where lies,
Thyself thy foe, to thy self too cruel. (...).

William Shakespeare

"20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? " I concur. But Pam and Pete's observations are still correct, and it is a valid assessment.

What amazed me was the during the campaign how much of Obama was canned, tried and true rhetoric he had used successfully throughout his ascent (PBS-Frontline). Moreover how it resonated with people without question. I thought the major errors were on McCain's part especially by not announcing his government in advance. Forcing Obama to name his administration. Not doing so, and by not detailing specifics for the war, economy, and other issues, allowing the future to be painted in broad strokes by Obama did more to lose the election than Obama's superior strategy/advertising. McCain could have queered the strategy by forcing his hand in specifying his administration, forcing Obama to do likewise.

Your Hilter analogy was clever, although a stretch unless Obama wants to throw-out the Constitution or make significant amendments to it. But it was history and those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. The point of learning from Obama's strategy and tactics are well within the point: "They didn't fight today's war with yesterday's weapons and, most importantly, their campaign was based on a superior strategy."

Then: "Due to the seismic changes in how voters get and process information that we marketers have seen for quite some time the voter, just like the consumer, is now in control and thus would be open to making his or her voting decisions earlier than ever."

While it has been noted that the election was not won entirely by new and young voters, it was these methods and the information itself that ebbed the tide for McCain and made people shift to Obama; that and the economy with McCain's ineptness in dealing with it. When fewer people call themselves Republicans then Democrats there seems to be an inherent advantage for the Democrat. But the strategy I saw was matching Obama against an experienced-formidable-foe and leveraging his youth and ability to appear presidential as the key to his success.

So, Pam and Pete rightly stated what they saw. But if you believe in advertising and message strategy, Obama had these two advantages working for him. Advertising won the election and the Obama model will be duplicated again and again. Modified for the current situation to be sure, but once again it has proven strategic-marketing coupled with good advertising, wins! Realistically, an inexperienced black man with no management or leadership experience -- not even ever elected Dogcatcher, was elected to the highest office in the world. Strategic-marketing and advertising won the battle, not technology.
  By skyemon | Nyack, NY November 7, 2008 11:32:05 am:
It's hilarious to read all the comments about how the liberal media swayed the election. Bush's reign was a complete disaster, and McCain managed to suck completely on his own. The right-wing base was ALWAYS going to vote for McCain, yet that's where the maverick chose to go, when he could have easily won the election had he gone for the independent vote. And Palin - what can I say? She's the sweetheart of the rightwing base. I sincerely hope she runs in 2012!! Please God, let her be the Republican nominee!!

This just in from Jon Stewart - Palin has been tagged and released back into the wild.

The Republicans still can't believe that no one gave a damn about Ayers/Wright/Acorn. Get used to it. Hannity & Company are now completely irrelevant.

-skyemon



Stay on top of the news and stay ahead of the game—sign up for e-mail newsletters now!



Advertising Age: Your Online Source for Marketing and Media News