Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

The biggest question looming in the wake of Barack Obama's historic victory is this:

What the heck is he going to do with all those email addresses?

No one knows exactly how many millions of email addresses the Obama campaign captured during his run for the presidency. But his emotional appeal to the electorate, coupled with a low-cost, instantaneous connection to millions of supporters, has the potential to fundamentally change the way public affairs is practiced in the United States.

Think about it. The U.S. House of Representatives is debating, for example, President Obama's immigration reform proposal. Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, one of Capitol Hill's most strident anti-immigrant voices, gets a half-million emails in support of Obama's plan from her own congressional district.

No industry group, trade association, non-profit entity or even political party has ever assembled such a massive public affairs asset as Obama's list. Millions on the list made the deepest investment one can make in a political campaign – they gave money. They are much more likely to heed an appeal from the new president to contact their member of Congress to urge the Change We Need.

Even an army of lobbyists can't compete with a message from a voter back in the district. The Obama administration's ability to demonstrate that the sender of the email does, indeed, live in Congresswoman Foxx's district and will, in fact, vote against her at the next election, portends a new era of grassroots public affairs.

I've been involved in political campaigns for years. In the days and weeks after Election Day, the mismatched campaign headquarters furniture is shipped off to someone's basement – or carted to the landfill. Files are dumped. And the hard-earned lessons are washed away in a sea of champagne or a trail of tears.

My prediction is the Obama campaign will be different. The campaign has been disciplined in every respect. It will find new ways to use its millions of email addresses. Count on seeing unprecedented grassroots support for the new administration's programs and in ways that no one has yet conceived. Change is on the way.

I am a North Carolina son, born and bred. And today, I am proud to add to my geographic bio.

I live in a blue state.

Anyone who has turned on a TV, logged on to Facebook or even played a video game in the past couple of months realizes that this year's presidential campaign truly does represent change.

I'm not talking about change of race or gender in the White House, but in the way the campaign has been advertised.

Not one to ever hide my political views, I have openly supported Barack Obama since early this year. (There's your warning that I recognize my view of the two campaigns is biased.) However, I feel like there are some undeniable differences in the way the candidates have run there campaign, especially when it comes to advertising it.

For the first time in presidential campaigning history, Obama advertised in video games. Several EA Sports games, including NASCAR 09, NHL 09 and NBA Live 08, showed billboards advertising for Obama in the background.

In 2007, the Obama camp hired Chris Hughes, one of the founders of Facebook, to develop their official Web site. Before agreeing to leave his job at Facebook, Hughes insisted that Obama agree to use the site as a serious campaigning medium. And that they have. The Obama campaign spent $3 million on online advertising in the first four months of 2008 alone, according to the New York Times.

Last week's infomercial released by the Obama campaign was the "most-watched telecast in U.S. prime time on Wednesday, drawing an ‘American Idol'-size audience that easily eclipsed even the climax to baseball's World Series," Reuters reported.

And, of course, who could forget Obama's 3 a.m. text message announcing Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential nominee?

Perhaps this new wave of advertising is because of their target audience, or maybe just because Barack Obama is just cooler than John McCain.

Either way, election coverage is flooding blogs, Facebook, Twitter and practically every other means of communication. No matter where you go, you're constantly bombarded with election news. Forget the 2004 election, where you had to catch up on election coverage during the evening news. This is certainly the year of change.

Having notched a devastating defeat in the NC primary, Hillary Clinton now needs to figure out how to lose like a winner.  She might just find a mentor in our own Clay Aiken.  The carrot-topped crooner turned a second-place "American Idol" finish into a first-rate career move.  Can Hillary do the same as it becomes clear she won't be the top "Democratic Idol" come convention time? 

My advice is for her to stay in the race a little longer, but to soften her tone.  Keep Obama on his toes.  He desperately needs a sparring partner, as his sputtering performances over the last two months make plain.  But don't draw blood. 

Then, once the superdelegates begin their group march toward Obama, Hill ought to graciously withdraw and move quickly into her next incarnation -- Obama campaigner, Senate superpower and globe-trotting diplomat.  Now as for Bill (who's still the coolest Democrat alive), that's a whole other question ...  

This Presidential primary season is wearing me out. I'm tired. Both Democratic candidates are offering attractive platforms of change, but on the surface there have been very few stark differences between them...UNTIL NOW.

Insert the smoke and mirror parlor trick that is the Gas Tax Holiday.

On April 6th I bought a tank of gas for my 1998 Honda Civic HX** at $3.29 per gallon. Yesterday I purchased a tank of gas for $3.54 per gallon, almost exactly one month after the previous. I feel it. It hurts. Something must be done. Is it elitist and out of touch for me to feel that this 'holiday' being proposed by Clinton and McCain is so much hot wind blowing down Pandering Alley?

I took economics in college. Even if I had not, I would still smell a rat. Who's going to pay for this? According to Clinton, Big Oil is going to cough up the $8 billion in the form of a windfall profit tax. Never mind that there is no precedent for this tax. Never mind that this tax has not yet even been proposed, but rather is part of the bundled proposition set forth by the Clinton campaign. What if it doesn't pass? Who will pay for it? Both of those questions were rhetorical. It will not pass - it's been tried and has died before. I will pay for it. And you. In the short run, we'll simply play middle man between China and Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, 18.4 cents worth of Federal highway dollars will be getting sucked down the ol' drain for every single gallon of gas purchased during this proposed holiday. This, during an election cycle focused in part on the dire straits of our national infrastructure.

Using today's pre-Memorial Day price as a benchmark, trimming that 18.4 cents off the top - and rounding up, of course - puts the price of gas at $3.36 per gallon. Sounds dreamy, I know. Now imagine the siphon on demand that will be created by the knowledge that, once the 'holiday' is over, the prices will catapult back to an adjusted level. People will line up at the pumps to top off their tanks. Demand goes through the roof. OPEC is not going to increase production just because we decided to take a break from reality. The reality is, profit margins for Big Oil will skyrocket.

I'm hearing the argument that the anticipated household savings of $28-$30 over the course of the 3 month tax holiday is tangible to working Americans, and that anyone opposed to the plan is out of touch with the middle class struggle. I disagree. Ten dollars is a non-issue in all but the most restrictive of monthly budgets. In the case of those most restricted household budgets, blowback will in some way or another generously offset that monthly ten spot. If this is allowed to play out, we will all be out far more than $30. I have not seen anything resembling a perfect way out of this mess we've gotten ourselves into. But come on - can't we at least try to keep our feet on the ground as we try to work through it?

My thoughts to this point have been overtly, unapologetically political, so let me end on a marketing communications note. No matter how bad an idea this is...no matter how much of a gimmick you may or may not believe it to be...I believe this proposed holiday is a marketing maneuver that will deliver for Hillary Clinton, in the form of primary votes in Indiana. People are frustrated over gas prices, and regardless of the facts of the case, this marketing tactic gives the good vibe of John Q. Public reaching out and touching his government.

 

** Stay tuned for my upcoming article on the choices we make as consumers of petroleum. My 1998 Honda Civic HX is 10 years old, with 158,000+ miles. I still get 37mpg city, 41mpg highway. I'm not trying to be smug or arrogant. But seriously, what the hell? 

I attended a fascinating lecture by CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider last night at UNC’s school of Journalism and Mass Communications.  While the title of the lecture was “The Role of Media in Politics,” the discussion focused more on the role of public opinion and how the mood of the times shapes the political debate and ultimately decides who gets elected.

Schneider opened with a quote from former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. "There are only two things you must know to pursue a career in public life. You must know yourself, and you must know the times."  As someone who analyzes polls for a living, Schneider identifies “knowing the times,” as the key to political punditry.

Public opinion saved Bill Clinton’s political career. When the Monica Lewinski scandal hit, the media declared Clinton finished. A poll was taken, and Clinton’s already high approval ratings went up 10%. Two-thirds of Americans believed he should not be removed from office, even though the same two-thirds agreed he lied under oath. Overnight, conventional wisdom shifted, and the media was now talking about the “comeback kid.”

When it comes to public opinion and presidential elections, Schneider coined a concept he calls the “law of missing imperatives.” It asks the question: what do the voters want that they are not getting from the incumbent? In 1968, American politics, especially the Democratic Party was in turmoil. Violence and unrest were prevalent, and the country seemed to be coming apart. So voters elected Richard Nixon, because they viewed him as a strong man who could bring order. He was also a moderate republican in the middle of the political spectrum.

In 1976 after the Watergate scandal, Americans felt lied to and betrayed by their president.  Polls showed the American public wanted morality. Along came Jimmy Carter who famously stated, “I will never lie to you” and won the election. Four years later in 1980, Carter had earned a reputation for being wishy-washy and indecisive. In response, the country now yearned for a strong decisive leader, and Ronald Reagan fit the bill.

We can apply this logic to each presidential election cycle. In 1992 Americans saw George Bush Sr. as out of touch with regular everyday people. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, played saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show and specialized in empathy. His ability to connect won him the White House. Most recently, in 2004, John Kerry ran on the platform of a strong ex-military veteran, someone capable of taking on the role of commander-in-chief. According to Schneider, Kerry read the times wrong. People felt like they had a strong commander-in-chief already and weren’t looking for someone to fill that role. While this type of analysis does oversimplify things and paint very broad strokes, there is some truth to it and it illustrates the importance of public opinion.

Mr. Schneider went on to talk about this year’s crop of candidates. One of the most unique things about Barack Obama is that he is an African-American politician who does not come from the civil rights movement. His perspective isn’t one of racial grievance, as others have had, and he’s not making it a part of his campaign. Obama is also running as an outsider, someone not tied to special interests or “politics as usual” in Washington. Schneider believes that Obama is in tune with the times and is aware that people want to be united. They are tired of the rampant partisan politics perpetrated by the Bush administration and are looking specifically for someone to bring them together. (Ironically, before being elected president George W. Bush said, “I’m a uniter, not a divider,” and then spent the next eight years doing the exact opposite.) Hillary Clinton is running on her experience. She delivers, Obama inspires. That is why the race for the Democratic nomination is so close. Both options are attractive.   

Mr. Schneider pointed out that while this election should be a sure thing for the Democratic Party, it is not. John McCain also offers a uniting policy. He is viewed as outside the Bush administration and has acted bi-partisan in the past. In order for the Democrats to win, they must paint a McCain presidency as if it would be Bush’s third term.

A dynamic speaker, Mr. Schneider was insightful and confident about his topic. If there was one take-away from his lecture it is that politicians must know their times and ignoring public opinion will cost them.

Earlier this week, I published a commentary  piece in The News & Observer that attempted to capture the commoditization of the political process in the term ‘branditics.' 

In a nutshell, branditics is the fusion of branding and politics that often results in over-simplified messages, bigger-than-life promises and, if the current administration is any indication, a brutal hangover the next morning. 

You may be able sell politicians as brands, but at some point successful candidates have to lead by negotiation and consensus - and that's where being boxed into a brand can cause trouble. 

What does New Hampshire add to this picture?  Well, an oldie but goodie has roared back onto the branditics stage - John McCain driving his Straight Talk Express. 

But the big news is that the fierce back-and-forth of the primary so far is working against branditics.  Obama, Clinton and Edwards will hold each others' poor, sore feet to the fire - making sure there's substance to back up the style.  Ditto the Republicans, who will probably be playing a tough game of catch-up all the way up to election day.      

Experience is proving to be a key issue on both sides of the aisle in the '08 presidential elections.  I've noticed throughout the pre-caucus melee that experience has been talked about far more amongst the candidates themselves than in my supermarket or my local watering hole. Those with have attacked relentlessly those without, and those without (or with less) have set their jaw and refused to be shaken. Wednesday's events in Pakistan have thrown a curve ball to the candidates, putting their foreign policy credentials under the microscope with little time for them to prepare their statements.

Clever strategists have armed their people with back doors and sidesteps and comebacks and Ooooooooh no he DIDN'T! answers for every attack. Noone wants to take a stance on anything! It's all about who's experienced enough to make the best decision, should that decision need to be made anytime in the next four years. Consequently, we are getting a bounty of absolutely riveting political drama. CNN has turned SportsCenter; I can tune in on the half-hour to get a fresh highlight montage of one-liners, sound bytes and eloquent-yet-completely-bewildering-and-incomprehensible question dodges. Taking advantage of the free press, this week the presidential candidates have offered more of the same.

Huckabee apologized to Pakistan for the assassination. A small misstatement; his good intentions were obvious and sincere. But the blogosphere is sparkling with questions of his ability to manage policy issues. Zoinks! It's common knowledge that he has little foreign policy experience. But if you heart Huckabee...it's probably not going to rock your opinion of the man. It's fun to laugh and point, but honestly, in a few days it'll be forgotten, and his charismatic thing that he's working will shine through again, and it's back to the races. You can't not like the guy, you know?

Clinton...okay, touché, Hillary. She's hit a little smooth patch with this one. She's mostly letting the experience she gained with Bhutto during the nineties speak for itself.

Giuliani had what seemed to me a small, muted Howard Dean moment, blurting out that blame was with 'the Islamic terrorists' and soothsaying ominously that the same could happen in OUR cities unless...

Obama did his thing, too. I don't even remember what he said, but it was beautiful. And he really, really meant it. 

All of the candidates released statements of sadness and concern for the family and loved ones of Bhutto, and concern for the region in general. It is indeed sad, and we should be concerned. Benazir Bhutto was a [re-]rising star in Pakistan, with a promise of diplomacy and moderation that has left a void in it's absence. The candidates were correct and responsible in offering their condolences. But beyond that? Pure opportunistic theater. Those with direct or indirect foreign policy experience with Pakistan positively wiggled with excitement (I am imagining my little dog Maddie being wagged by her spastic tail after seeing me for the first time in 8 hours) at the opportunity to show it off. Those without barely broke stride in falling back on their individual strengths, lulling me into tranquil assuredness that their lack of experience won't be a problem.

I can't speak for others, but for myself, I am trying to really get a sense of who all of these people are, and how they are. Voting records are important to me, but not nearly as important as the character of the candidates. A person with strength of character will vote to make the right decision, and it may not always follow party lines. I see right through all the finger-pointing. I'm barely paying attention to the watered-down droll anymore - talk to me in six months. But you better believe I'm tuning in for my highlights. Da da da. Da da da...