Using your site to reach voters who are more interested in issues than candidates

I know I'm not going to burst any bubbles when I say not all Americans care about who's running for what; voter turnout stats make that clear.

But if you use your web site well--filling it with detailed information and updating it frequently so it shows up high in search results--people who are searching for information about renewable energy in California (for example) will find your site when they search. Just ask Jerry McNerney, who used the web exceptionally well and upset a seven-term incumbent in California's 11th CD.

In fact, nearly half of the people who find Colorado Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff's blog find it by searching for topics like energy independence, Colorado schools, and health care concerns. That means his blog not only educates and informs people who come by specifically to see what the Speaker is up to, but it also lets people who are interested in specific issues know that he's on the job and getting things done.

Among the many beauties of the web is the fact that you've got virtually unlimited space; you don't have to choose whether to include detailed policy papers, you just need to think carefully about organization and packaging.

Details shouldn't drown out your top-line messages, they should illustrate it. And sound bites should not stand alone; they should be a nicely packaged entry point to richer information.

--Louella Pizzuti

Choose your web site's Editor in Chief with care

If we're to judge based on their use of the web, most politicians learned the wrong lesson from the Dean campaign's use of the web. Just like it's not the reply envelope in your fundraising letter that nets a donation, it was not the donate button that made people donate to Dean on his web site.

A Dean staffer told me the issues pages got more hits than any other part of Dean's web site. I'm not surprised, but I'm guessing candidates with info-light web sites would be.

Your web site is a publication--even if you're only using it as a virtual campaign brochure. (Of course, if your site is nothing more than an electronic brochure, it's not a particularly good publication, but it's a publication just the same.)

Your site's Editor in Chief can mean the difference between a static, stale site that discusses the past as if it's in the future and a lively, informative, inspirational site that collects and packages the great things you've done, the best quips and quotes from stump speeches and supporters, and transforms inquisitive researchers into vocal supporters.

Choose wisely.

--Louella Pizzuti

Marketing Matters

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

If a candidate is stupendous but no one knows it, does it matter that they're wonderful?

I'll leave answering the first question to the philosophical types and pounce on the second: no. If voters don't know who a candidate is and how they'll make things better, they will not get elected.

This is where marketing comes in.

And, although you may not call it marketing, it's what campaigns are all about: crafting and delivering stump speeches, writing op-eds, sending direct mail, calling voters, running ads, etc. So how does this relate to online campaigning? Well, campaigns with meaningful web strategies use the web to extend the reach and amplify the message of everything they do offline.

The really good campaigns make sure their online offerings not only repackage offline experiences, but also make them easy for supporters to share. In fact, the December issue of the Journal of Advertising Research says that common word-of-mouth advertising by regular folks is more powerful than “key influencers.” (Article summary here.) If you're not making it easy and compelling for people to tell each other about your candidate or campaign, you're making your job harder.

--Louella Pizzuti

Who should be in charge of your web presence?

Who you hire to drive your web presence depends entirely on what you want/need to accomplish.

If you are in the camp of campaign managers who see your web site as akin to a yard sign: "something that doesn't do much good but you have to have because the other side does," you'll probably want someone with strong design skills who you can keep busy on higher priority campaign tasks.

If you understand your web presence can be an online campaign office:

• a place where supporters come to get information and inspiration
  
• a place where undecided voters see info and endorsements that help them decide
  
• and a place for meaningful two-way communication

you'll search for someone who understands how to weave threads of every part of your campaign strategy into your online presence.

Most down-ticket races probably need nothing more than mostly-static content that collects all your campaign info in one (well organized) place, that lets visitors subscribe to your newsletter, and provides a donate button. This type of presence leverages the message work you put into your other campaign materials and probably requires no more than a chunk of time for initial setup and bits and pieces of time to update with press mentions and anything else you want to give broader visibility to.

So think hard about what you want your web presence to accomplish before you decide who to hire.

--Louella Pizzuti

McNerney team uses headlines to tell the story

The folks who are running Congressman Jerry McNerney's blog understand marketing and writing for the web. Take a look at the picture above and glance at the headlines in the right column (recent posts).

[Well, until I can get Blogger to display the image properly, I'll repeat the headlines here so you can actually read them. They are: McNerney votes for Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, McNerney helps prevent cuts to lab worker retirement benefits, Contra Costa Times: "McNerney comes through...", Did you know Richard Pombo's "longtime friend" is running against me?, What you want: "Give 'em hell, Jerry!", and McNerney on releasing earmark requests: "I came to Washington on a campaign of openness and ethics".]

Headlines that stand on their own to tell your story are marketing 101, but too many campaign blogs choose cute or clever over compelling. Informative headlines are even more important on the web because people may be subscribing to your feed and only ever seeing the headline. When you can't be sure people are getting the whole article, you better be sure to use the headline to get your top-line message across.

--Louella Pizzuti

Related posts

Congressman Jerry McNerney informs, inspires and raises funds online

Integrating the web wins elections

Who needs a web-savvy communicator, anyway?

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.

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.

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.

Candidates and campaigns that consult and engage communications professionals in addition to technology pros will have the edge until having a web-knowledgeable communicator in the political realm is more commonplace.

--Louella Pizzuti

Which matters more: what happened or what people believe happened?

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

Obama campaign exploits technology but obscures message

The Barack Obama 08 campaign is using the technology well. Take a look at how they have both video vignettes and audio clips from donors on their front page--in support of their end-of-quarter fundraising/donor push. The videos are straightforward, edited with a light hand and appear to be unscripted; excellent job. But the page as a whole? Not nearly as impressive. I'm sure the page will change, but right now it's impossible to tell what Barack Obama's message is by going to his home page. Let me say that again:

It's impossible to know Barack Obama's campaign message by looking at his home page.

The page is split in two vertically--and "Be Inspired, Be Counted" (the fundraising pitch) consumes the left side. This includes links to three videos, a rotating audio clip (with text excerpt), a (presumably) new-donor name/location crawl, and updated stats about how many people have donated this quarter.

Sound busy? It is, but it works both visually and in getting the "donate now" message across.

But what about the Obama-curious? What's here for them? Nothing. To get any actual information about Barack Obama and what he stands for, you have to click through at least one page deeper. The people in charge of Obama's home page understand technology but they're losing the casually curious visitor.

Don't make this mistake on your site; technology is important--even imperative--but technology should exist in service to the message, not to obscure it. See also Letting your IT person write your web copy is like letting the phone company write your fundraising scripts.

--Louella Pizzuti

Should politicians blog? You're asking the wrong question.

The right question is, "should politicians publicize what they're doing?" (Let's assume we're talking about elected officials who honor the public trust.) The answer to that question, I hope you'll agree, is a resounding yes!

So then it's just a matter of deciding how you deliver the message.

Press releases?
Definitely! But sending them to press outlets puts you at the mercy of the publication--if they don't print, your constituents don't know. At the very least, take this material and publish it on your blog as well.

Direct mail?
Possibly. Direct mail's expensive and disposable recyclable, but maybe you have a compelling need to get things directly to the homes of your constituents. You'll still want to make it available on your web site or on your blog for people who discarded your letter without reading it and for anyone who's just curious.

Online?
Of course! No distribution costs and a permanent, searchable archive of your accomplishments. And if you do it right, news outlets will learn to come to your site to get information and background for stories they're writing. How much is that worth to you and your future campaigns?

--Louella Pizzuti

Letting your IT person write your web copy is like letting the phone company write your fundraising scripts

The medium is not the message. The message is the message. And putting your campaign's message in the hands of the person who's designing or delivering your web site is a big mistake. What you say and how you say it on the web is at least as important as how you say it in person, in your ads and in direct mail.

Why do I say at least as important? Because your web presence sticks around while people's memories fade and direct mail and ads get recycled.

Your web site can collect and amplify everything you do--from town hall meetings to parades to debates and door-to-door visits. But only if you treat it like a communications investment.

--Louella Pizzuti

What politicians miss about the web, and how I can help

Most campaigns barely scratch the surface of what the web can do for them. They probably have a web site--which means they definitely have a Donate button--but they generally think of their web site as a technology expense instead of a communications investment. Campaigns almost never invest the resources required to use the Internet as an online campaign office: broadening the reach of their messages, inspiring and informing undecided voters, motivating and empowering volunteers or supplementing/highlighting press coverage.

And, as someone who's been immersed in "new media" since the early days at Apple Computer, I'm most perplexed by campaigns that virtually ignore the people who've taken the time to seek them out on the Web. I suppose it's because they can't see the people they're ignoring (or worse, frustrating), but even Web sites with free stat trackers can count them.

Why withhold information from people who actively seek it out?

After hearing a recent segment on the Jim Lehrer news hour, I think I understand why politicians lag behind the business world in embracing Internet technology. Most politicians simply don't have access to people like me who have over a decade of experience using the Web to build relationships and contribute to the bottom line. (Eleven years ago, when most political folks didn't even have email addresses, I was the editor in chief of Apple's webcast of the Atlanta Olympics. Since then I've continued to help businesses expand their reach by building relationships online and off.)

Along with my long history of using the web to communicate, I have a track record of getting voters to cooperate. I was the campaign manager for a state house race in rural Colorado and the counties that followed my plan for voter outreach boasted 97% active voter turnout. I understand technology but, more importantly, I understand "normal" voters and can get them to act.

I can help make your web presence an online campaign office rather than just a billboard. More importantly, I'm offering something new--a way to build relationships with voters instead of just a way to market to them. (I market to voters as well, but the marketing sticks because the relationship exists.) Twenty years from now, my approaches will be commonplace, but now they can level the playing field and make a real difference for the right candidate. (And twenty years from now we'll mock the web laggards in the same way we laugh at the folks who wrote off tv because "no one will want to sit in one place to see something on a screen.")

Interested in hearing how I can help your campaign succeed? I'm available for everything from one-time consultations to complete campaign immersion.

--Louella Pizzuti