Thanks for stopping by! Hey, why don't you do what all the cool kids are doing and subscribe to my RSS feed? You know you want to, so go ahead, be bad, be very very bad... :) Thanks.
I had a little bit of a deja vu moment earlier. I was having a political discussion with a friend over IM today and we were talking about possible presidential candidates for the 2008 election. My friend who is also “in the industry” talked about how many of the presidential hopefuls are really grabbing onto “engagement marketing” techniques like MySpace, YouTube and their web sites. I responded to him that yes, the candidates are using some of these technologies, but they are far from even coming close to engaging anyone.
Following my discussion, I was going to post an article on this when my Google Reader popped up with a post from Robert Scoble whose thoughts are very much in line with my own. Bottom line is that these candidates can use all the new and cool widgets out there, but the only way to truly engage with their constituents is by opening a two-way conversation.
Even though Barak Obama launched his exploratory committee though YouTube and John Edwards has a MySpace page, no-one has yet engaged with the people on these social sites not to mention the blogosphere. Politics and business have a lot in common here. It seems that neither understand or want to actually listen to what people have to say.
The first candidate to actually engage in a two-way conversation online the right way will see attention that all the media dollars in the world could not buy. Though I question whether that will happen or not.
Here is my Sunday question of the day. If you were running for president and truly wanted to engage people online, how would you do it? What would be your tactics? Where would you start? I am going to put some ideas together as well and post my thoughts this week.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Technorati Tags: presidential candidates, engagement marketing, MySpace, YouTube, Robert Scoble
I do agree that national candidates have little chance of actually communicating two-way. But I wonder if the local candidate, like a mayor or councilman, could?
Steve, great point. A more local politician could really utilize some engagement tactics as his footprint is much smaller and easier to manage.
Cord
Right on, Cord!! While Steve is correct in that it may be virtually impossible for a national candidate to do one-on-one, you’re bringing up an excellent point. The use of YouTube makes total sense, but I’m betting the candidates and their consultants will see it as another means to place informal infomercials that say little about a candidate’s deep views. We’ll get the same ‘good schools, a strong defense, and hold the line on taxes’ stuff.
What would I do? I’d also have an extensive online advertising campaign in which I’d place ads (some with video, but with a lot of detailed policy ideas) on interest oriented and demographically targeted sites. Sites like Marketwatch.com (tax policy), Thirdage.com (social security issues), iVilliage (education). You could ad sites like Agriculture.com, BlackVoices, Gay.com, Chrisitianity.com, etc.
That strategy there is less two way, but it is designed to give deeper info than just one line crap we often here.
I’d also try to improve on Howard Dean’s 2004 effort using blogs and MeetUps, and then engage them for, if not one on one, but one to small groups.
I’ve kicked around these ideas for years…spoken at events about it. But the political industry sees advertising as 99% for TV - they get paid on TV buys. When it comes to the Internet, the consultants usually see it as a fundraising mechanism.
Jonathan Trenn
Jonathan,
I agree with what you are saying, but I think I would make it even less complicated than that. How about doing online discussion groups? Allow people to login to a webex and people can ask questions to the candidates live. Also they could give their own feedback and thoughts and see if the candidate actually listens. The key is two way conversation. Thanks for your comments Jonathan
Candidates have done this sort of stuff and will continue to do it. And it’s needed. My only concern is that if you have a candidate running for national office, you may have 30,000 people trying to ask questions.
Or you may get what we’ve seen with the Bush Administration…the candidate speaking in front of a pre-selected group with pre-selected individuals asking pre-selected questions, in which the candidate gives pre-selected answers. Everything is on message. To a tee. To a damn tee.
I’m not against the idea of a WebEx, but I could see the same scenario. The bastards. ; )
If you want to see an REAL innovative guy, take a look at this: http://pashdown.org/
Pete Ashdown was the Democrat candidate for US Senate against Orin Hatch (R- UT). Hatch won big time - he’s a strong candidate that is pretty competant in a very Republican state. But Ashdown impressed me with his use of a campaign wiki and more.
Oh, one more thing…I blogged about him at http://digitalstreetjournal.com/?p=28
Thanks Jonathan for the feedback. I agree with you that politicians are always going to try to stack the deck. I just believe that the 08 election is going to be the first time in the history of this country that we have the technology and the power to keep these guys honest or at least more honest than they ever have been before. We have a voice and some skin in the game. I guess we will see. Thanks again for your continued great feedback.
Some links for you:
George Washington University has the premier think tank of politics and the internet, The Institute of Politics, Democracy, and the Internet. http://www.ipdi.org
They have the annual Politics Online Conference, which is a great event. I’ve spoken at it. This year, it’s in March. http://polc.ipdi.org/ Check it out.
Check out http://www.PersonalDemocracy.com Sort of a ‘big idea’ version of what you do. They’re having an event,
http://www.personaldemocracy.com/conference/2007
Thanks Jonathan, will absolutely take a look.