Memo to Obama Transition Team: Take Politics 2.0 into the Whitehouse

The blogosphere is buzzing with speculation and suggestions for President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team to take its netroots into the White House.  Many who see social media as increasing democracy and participation in public affairs are afraid that the Obama victory will be the ironic end to political opennes his campaign helped build.

Joe Flood, writing for e-politics, gives an apt description of the regulations restricting government 2.0 taking place.  He lists the following challenges for social media’s place in the White House:

1. Limited use of cookies
2. Bans on PHP
3. Bans on certain operating systems.
4. Firewalls

Thank you, Joe for laying out the legal and cultural challenges laying ahead for the Obama administration.

Brian Solis, writing for Techcrunch, makes the argument for an Obama administration to carry on social media practices in the White House and supplies some suggestions for making this a success.  Brian calls this the “two way street” where “people shouldn’t only have a voice during an election time; listening and responding should be an ongoing practice and process of any office.”

Some suggestions Brian provides:

1. Presidential address on YouTube
2. Creating a social network, Change.gov
3. Complimenting weekly radio addresses on BlogTalkRadio

I recommend reading the full post to see all of Brian’s suggestions.

In short, the Obama presidency provides an amazing opportunity to make politics 2.0 a priority in governing, not just campaigning.  The Obama campaign set up a wonderful promise of giving people access to his campaign, message and inspiring the netroots to take action on his behalf.  If that does not continue, there will be a tremendous backlash against the Obama team – and a return to political disillusionment for many – if Obama defaults on his promise of change.  In short, the culture of openness and transparency must continue in the White House.  This change governing cultured enabled by the social web is the new one of Obama’s greatest promises.

Politics 2.0 Panel at the Medill Alumni Club

It was a great pleasure to speak on a panel last night sponsored by the Medill Alumni Club and Google’s Chicago office (held at Google). The topic was Politics 2.0: Exploring the Impact of Digital Media on the Presidential Election.

The presenters, Peter Greenberger from Google and Lee Brenner of MySpace Impact, gave some great insight into how their companies’ products are enagaging the electorate and changing political races.

Given the expertise and national stature of these presenters, I decided to focus on the local angle. I gave an overview and somewhat of an analysis of my experience as a digital strategist for Daniel Biss‘ Illinois State Assembly campaign. 

You’re feedback is most appreciated!

Data Showing Local Candidates Need to Blog

I’ve previously advocated the need for candidates to get blogging in a local election. The case is simple. Traditional media that many candidates target to deliver their message and their supporters, happens very little…or not at all. So why continue to look to traditional media to make the case?

Everybody is a publisher now and blogging is so pervasive and persuasive, that according to a new Technorati-sponsored poll, the “lines between blogging and mainstream media have disappeared.”

E-marketer CEO Richard Jalichandra went on to add:

“Blogs are now mainstream media. We’ve certainly seen that with the number of professional, semiprofessional and passion/enthusiast bloggers who are creating real media experiences. At the same time, you’re also seeing mainstream media come the other direction to add blog content.”

For local candidates, or any local public affairs issue, this means that we have to look past traditional media as the ONLY medium to cover our story. Instead, blog. Make connections. Comment on other blogs. And have fun.

This is the way to build an audience using Web 2.0 technologies. And just watch, traditional media will come to you to cover your story.

It’s a phenomenon we’ve seen throughout 2008 – online success has translated into traditional media hits.

Email Lists and Targeting

Many say that email lists are the lifeblood of a political campaign.  I can understand why.  Email is the primary communication between a campaign and supporters (either advocates or those marginally interested).  But, when email is not used effectively, does it come back to hurt a campaign?  I think it does.

Author Mary Lou Roberts makes the right point that often campaigns will hold events and even ask for input from audiences in order to build email lists.  She wrote about a recent email she received from the AARP suggesting that the organization would submit every question their audience wanted to ask the presidential campaigns.  It’s a clear ploy to get people active, share with their friends and result in a deeper email list for the AARP.

Julie Germany, Director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University told me something similar last year.  At the time I was shocked to see an email from the Clinton campaign asking me to submit the most pressing issue for me.  Not that I was expecting to receive a personal email from Hillary but I at least expected an automatic reply message from the campaign thanking me for the submission.  But, clearly, they weren’t interested in that.  They were more interested in capturing behavioral information about me and hoped that I would share that email with friends not on Hillary’s email list.  The problem is that they never used this behavioral info.

But the big question is, if campaigns can capture these email lists, is it effective to blast emails out all the time without regard for the audience?  I think not.  Campaigns can do themselves a favor by asking the audience questions and actually using the responses they get to segment their email lists based on behavior!  The private sector does this, campaigns ought to smarten up as well.

Earlier this summer, I attended a campaign event for Debbie Halvorsen, a congressional candidate in Illinois’ 11th district.  I registered and paid my contribution through Act Blue.  This online transaction called for my email .  It’s surprises me that today I received, not one, but two letters from the Halvorson campaign soliciting me for funds.  As a “supporter” I’d like to be listened to and clearly their direct mail piece doesn’t indicate they are listening.  If I used Act Blue to register for an event and make a donation, doesn’t that mean I’m more likely to respond to online communications rather than direct mail?

Let Social Media Increase Access

During my final year at Northwestern University’s Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) graduate program at the Medill School of Journalism, I was fortunate to work with Professor Clarke Caywood on an independent study focusing on social media marketing and the 2008 Primary Elections.  A major part of my thesis stated that new media marketing effectively made direct access between candidates and voters possible for the first time on a wide scale.

Seth Godin just wrote an insightful blog entry “Old Marketing with New Tools,” which argues technology that is supposed to make communications with customers easier, often leads to more impersonal communications that drive customers away from us.

I think Seth is totally right on.  In the public affairs world, our clients have been trying to speak directly with voters, constituents or community members for time immemorial.  Social media technology has allowed us to do that better than ever.  However, public affairs is often so concerned with scale (how many people can I reach) that we forget to keep our customers engaged (not always happy) through thoughtful and personalized communication.  We miss opportunities to earn peoples’ trust that way.

However, what social media technology does is allow us to connect directly and personally with our base.  Instead of worrying about how many people I can connect to, let’s focus on the quality of those communications.  Yes, it may take more time to personally think about and respond to people’s inquiries.  But ultimately, this is how trust is built and value is realized with constituents.