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












"It threw out many of the old political adages and assumptions"
Steve Schollnick
Schollnick Advertising LLC
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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
"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.
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