I've got a lot to say about how the Democratic candidates used the web to amplify their debate performances, but for now I'll point to the John Edwards campaign. If you recall, the day after the last debate, they were still touting the "upcoming" debate on their home page and their blog "coverage" was completely uninfluenced by the campaign.
Compare and contrast their performance this time:
If you've read very many posts here, you already know I believe campaigns should use technology to serve/amplify their messages. But, because the strategy for each campaign is different, I haven't written much about using the web to inspire/facilitate offline activity. Until now.
The John Edwards campaign is using Eventful (a web site that lets users "demand" a visit/performance/whatever) to let supporters demand a visit from John Edwards himself. That's reasonably interesting in a use-of-technology way.
But whether by design or by great good fortune, the town that's currently in the lead (by a very wide margin) is Columbus Kentucky, population 229. The organizer's pitch for his town:
Columbus, Kentucky is a small town in Western Kentucky that boasts a population of 229 people and is about a 50 minute drive from the closest McDonalds. Like many rural communities across the south, job loss in the face of rising healthcare costs and education costs have crippled the economy. We want to see John Edwards come to real rural America and address the problems we face and hear his plan for revitalizing small American communities like ours!Does this plea fit into the Edwards campaign playbook or what? From the comments:
Politicians hardly ever get to see how small town and rural Americans actually live. This would be a great experience for not only John Edwards, but for the many Democrats who live in Kentucky and are interested in the future of our country.If Columbus wins, the trip to Columbus will provide lasting value to the Edwards campaign. My guess is that this visit will get plenty of media coverage, that the campaign will (quite visibly) hear from oft-ignored voters, that the people who see Edwards in Columbus will enthusiastically report to their friends, and that the event will provide a great deal of fodder for the Edwards web site. Value? Extremely high. Downside? I don't see one.
In a US News and World Report article titled "The Internet--It's a potent new tool, but no one's sure how to use it," Kenneth T. Walsh writes:
As Barack Obama made clear last week, candidates have discovered ways to raise millions of dollars in contributions from the Internet. The question is what they do with this potentially powerful tool beyond raking in cash.I couldn't agree more with the conclusion Walsh draws--that the candidates who best leverage the web will win, but I question his premise that no one's sure how to use the web. Not to make too fine a point of it, but those of us who've spent the last decade using the web in the business sector understand how to use it and where to focus.
Gone are the days when online politics was the fiefdom of the young. Nearly one third of all Americans now read and share campaign news online, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, and three quarters of them are over 30.
Online news consumers also are generally well educated, with half having college degrees, and affluent, with 44 percent reporting household incomes of $75,000 or more. They are thus attractive to campaigns not only as potential donors but as likely voters. The advantage in 2008, it appears, will go to the candidates who can best leverage the Internet to introduce themselves, draw media attention, organize supporters, and broaden a campaign's base of volunteers.
There's a lot to like about John McCain's web presence but I'll restrict myself to discussing how they're using the dynamic nature of the web to discern and deliver what visitors want.
When you hit McCain's home page you can't help but notice his message (excellent), but what's really interesting is how they're using petitions, polls and free offers to deliver info of interest to visitors.
They've got a petition against pork barrel spending (that nicely conveys McCain's position on pork even if you don't click through). If you click to "sign" the petition, you're thanked and given links to more info on pork spending. They're probably also adding your email address to their list. If they're really clever (and it looks like they are), they'll be targeting messages to these petition signers.
Same idea, different implementation on their poll asking "What percentage of the world's oil reserves do you think resides here in the United States?" Presumably they took the poll approach because they knew that the results would surprise most Americans (and because people enjoy testing their knowledge this way). When you get the poll results you also get lots more energy info. I'd be curious to see if they customize the info they display depending on whether or not the answer was correct (or close). Whether or not they do, it's something your campaign could do. Again with the email address harvesting along the way.
Both the petition and the poll are much more respectful ways to get email addresses than an email splash screen before visitors get to the heart of your site.
And finally, they have a navigation tab called "Undecided?" Brilliant. They've taken info from other parts of the site and packaged it for folks who have not yet declared an allegiance. Most sites end up looking like they're designed exclusively for supporters; the McCain campaign's approach not only acknowledges the existence of the curious, but makes it easy for the searchers to find the info they seek. When designing your site, keep in mind the many different categories of people who will be visiting and figure out how to satisfy them quickly and completely.
--Louella Pizzuti
As I watched last night's Democratic debate I saw no clear winner, but comparing candidate web site coverage, I declare Richardson's campaign the hands-down winners.
Candidates with debate coverage on their home page
The good
Bill Richardson, debate photo with caption: "Strong Debate Performance" followed by "Governor Richardson showed once again that he is the candidate with the boldest vision and strongest record to lead America forward." [This was not at all my take on the debate, which makes front paging this an even smarter move; the Richardson campaign clearly understands the value of spin and the reach of the web.] Blog: video clips (no clip transcript or recap).
Dennis Kucinich, excerpts from press release, positive remarks from Donna Brazile, and a link to a transcript (text only). [Excerpts from his blog are the bulk of his home page; not recommended, but it does keep his front page up-to-the-minute.]
Joe Biden, good one-liner overshadowed by photo/spin of previous debate.
The bad
John Edwards and Mike Gravel both refer to the debate as if it hasn't happened yet. Whoops.
[edited 7/2 to add: most of the home pages noted above have changed by now.]
How'd the others do with their blogs?
Chris Dodd was the clear winner. His campaign posted a video (with transcript) of his best answer.
Hillary Clinton: encouraged supporters to chat/cheer during the debate then wisely edited the original post to excerpt positive press quotes.
John Edwards: lively group commenting during debate; no campaign perspective.
Barack Obama: one post buried in fundraising pitches.
The ugly truth
This kind of web coverage is not the best money can buy, but it's the best money is buying. Politcal use of the web has become much more prevalent since 2004, but the message is still mostly lost in a tangle of technology.
--Louella Pizzuti
