Political Gastronomica : May 2007

« April 2007 | Main | July 2007 »

Political Branding 101: Differences

Just got this forwarded from my friend Azeem in London:

While this may not be standard communication practice, it was far too funny to not present. After so many emails and constant media impressions, just an exercise in understanding how branding works...in layman's terms.

Tags: Branding

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 3:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Gore on the offensive...

Just read this excerpt from Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason". With this passage, I know I will be supporting his ideas:

Fortunately, the Internet has the potential to revitalize the role played by the people in our constitutional framework. It has extremely low entry barriers for individuals. It is the most interactive medium in history and the one with the greatest potential for connecting individuals to one another and to a universe of knowledge. It's a platform for pursuing the truth, and the decentralized creation and distribution of ideas, in the same way that markets are a decentralized mechanism for the creation and distribution of goods and services. It's a platform, in other words, for reason. But the Internet must be developed and protected, in the same way we develop and protect markets—through the establishment of fair rules of engagement and the exercise of the rule of law. The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic. We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Web. We cannot take this future for granted. We must be prepared to fight for it, because of the threat of corporate consolidation and control over the Internet marketplace of ideas.

The danger arises because there is, in most markets, a very small number of broadband network operators. These operators have the structural capacity to determine the way in which information is transmitted over the Internet and the speed with which it is delivered. And the present Internet network operators—principally large telephone and cable companies—have an economic incentive to extend their control over the physical infrastructure of the network to leverage control of Internet content. If they went about it in the wrong way, these companies could institute changes that have the effect of limiting the free flow of information over the Internet in a number of troubling ways.

The democratization of knowledge by the print medium brought the Enlightenment. Now, broadband interconnection is supporting decentralized processes that reinvigorate democracy. We can see it happening before our eyes: As a society, we are getting smarter. Networked democracy is taking hold. You can feel it. We the people—as Lincoln put it, "even we here"—are collectively still the key to the survival of America's democracy.

Tags: Al Gore, Assault on Reason

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 1:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

PDF 2007 - Final Panel : eCampaign Directors Roundtable

Crossposted from Social Engineer:

The final panel of the day has Zack Exley and Mike Turk moderating a panel on this cycle's eCampaign Managers: Joe Trippi from John Edwards 2008; Christian Ferry from John McCain 2008; Mindy Finn from Romney 2008; Peter Daou from Clinton 2008; and Josh Orton from Obama08.

Mike: Discussing how the CIO ended up creating things to move on tech within business. Similar to campaigns - once someone has the insight into managing the implementation of technology across an organization - they have the responsibility of the increased performance through technology.

Zack: DeanTV - back in 2004 was a big deal. how the whole campaign going to ask for money - every big decision was coordinated with the campaign team. Joining the Kerry Campaign, we were in the basement, in a closet - it was not John Kerry talking, it was the "beer" (Ari-Rabin Havt and Zack in their own little hovel in the campaign office - my addition).

Trippi: the issue is about command and control structures. Campaigns have problems decentralizing campaigns. In the Dean Campaign, the Internet team was huddled in a small office. This year, integration of the web team within and throughout the campaign. Some of it is due to the toolset and the opportunities to impact across the landscape.

Four years later, we now have to manage YouTube, Facebook, eventful, MySpace - need to integrate with the rest of the campaign. Have to be involved with the net. Scheduling (though eventful) is being used to pull the campaign into interacting with the web.

Zack: is your job essentially the integration of the new technology within the campaign?

Christian: they are being pulled in. Part of the reason they are involved is because of the goal of the media campaign. Someone who understood how technology integrates well into the campaign (and knows John McCain well). In our campaign, yes - I am in

Mindy: that is my job - that is it integrated. It is incredibly important, that at the very beginning, that from the beginning that they consider what it means to have the web team to be integrated into the campaign effort. Tough to think of things differently.

The challenge is getting the philosophy is that the best way to build a movement is important. There is a challenge, but it is my job that it is integrated.

Mike: integrated might be devalued. I thought that the cmapigns online was because the eCampaign person was buried down low. Discovered that at the senior staff level, even though he sat at the table, he realized that the decisions were often made and the only issue was the implementation of action rather than having the web included as part of the policy.

Zack: being on senior staff at Kerry did not mean we were where and when the major decisions were being made, rather we were about implementing the decisions.

Trippi: best example was the "We, the people" - the culling came from the web team and the senior staff, which got the fund raising, then the scripts, then the team already built up the effort - then ran it in Washington, DC. It was the senior staff being influenced by the web team and outside efforts. You see it with Obama and with Hillary and the way they announced. There is an impact. Problem with the members of the campaign not understanding the issues within the campaign.

Mike/Zack: Hillary video - how did you get her to make that video?

Peter: the trajectory has been absurd. Now that the Internet touches on so many parts of a campaign, that it is impossible to avoid the Internet. Now there are people that consult on how to do this (Josh Ross from Mayfield Strategies). Not always three people making decisions on everything.

In terms of this video, it was very direct and personal - she chose to make light of the National Anthem video. Internet decisions is at the top - there is real buy-in at the top of the campaign. Came on board as "blog advisor" in 2006.

Josh: I was not involved in a presidential in 2004, when I got to the Obama Campaign - by tone, action and attitude, we just slipped into the stream of the campaign. Hope, Action Change - the rest of the campaign see the tools that we have, and how the people are using them. Not just a segmented, isolated par tof the campaign. People are now asking questions about I do not know what the experience was in 2004, but it must be different.

Trippi: in 2003, everyone was laughing at the Internet. Half of the senior level thought it was crazy. In our own campaign, we had to explain why we had to put up a blog. Now, the candidate calls and asks - when are we doing a video? There is a major change from before.

Zack: Can the enthusiasm be a "curse"?

Peter: People used to come to the Internet group at Kerry and ask for us to fix their computer.

Trippi: Warner's SecondLife announcement - while it was a great exploration and risk taking, when avatars were changing clothes and suddenly naked, it was a bit of an embarrassment.

Mindy: as many have written in the papers, this is the "Year of the Internet Campaign". Sometimes it is good (people dropping by with ideas) and sometimes it is bad (too many things overwhelming the tasks), could possibly set us up for failure.

Josh: Another positive, it forces everyone to very quickly, especially if you do not know what another department is doing, you have to learn very fast. Now you have to integrate to make things happen.

Peter: It really is revolutionary what is going on - the transformation of politics. Trying to work your way through the use of all of the tools and how to use them. 20-30-40 years from now, this will be seen as the time when things changed politics.

Christian: what drove this was the ability to raise money on line. When we won the NH primary in 2000 and raised 1M, then everybody bought into the web campaign.

Zack: danah boyd gave a proposal on how to do the digital handshakes - why shouldn't the candidates make direct contacts with each of the constituents.

Peter: Hillary blogging on firedoglake, on her own (my addition: did not clearly answer the idea behind danah's suggestion)

Trippi: we had Howard do that - but he was not comfortable as a blogger. We did not have "walls" back then. In the eCampaign manager's role, the "to-do" list is getting unbearable. This time, you can get inundated with each department asking for things to do on the campaign.

Zack: at the present time, candidates are going to be spending time on call-time and shaking hands. Will we see candidates spending blocks of time on the web?

Peter: we will have a live webcast - beauty of the online media an technology. In the end, it is individuals on a one-to-one or one-to-many.

Mike: campaigns tend to look at things regarding extending the moment. What they tend to do, they tend to "extend" the moment.

Peter: there is no difference between internet people and other people. It is the level of connectivity. If a high-dollar donor donates online, are they an Internet donor?

Josh: can people on the campaign understand the abstraction of an Internet team? Unlike it was a couple of years ago, it sticks out much more.

Trippi: we ad a problem with is the "authenticity" of the candidate. We could have someone write on the wall, which is more than likely a staffer. is it really the candidate or someone else.

Zack: we are not "feeling" Obama.

John: there has to be a balancing point - you lose something you gain something - no matter what you do. There will be people organizing to "Take Back the Senate". Is it a zero sum game?

Mindy: we are all working for people running for President for the United States. Do we really want this to have the candidates making the time to email be online. Do we really want them speaking to everyone?

Open To Questions: Matt Stoller: do you believe that candidates have less perceived control over the message. If that is true, does that mean there is a shift of power away from the President? Is power flowing away from the Executive Branch?

Trippi: the big shift is to the bottom - power is moving to the people. Numbers are participating even more than before. Glen Reynolds - great book - but you have Goliaths and Davids. Is the Edwards Campaign building the slingshots so they can do something about these issues. Now it is about change.

Aud Mmber: Trippi felt that there was a difficulty. Bush had a moment where he picked up the phone and it was replayed over and over. Hitting one person was valuable.

Zack asks: What would it take for you to believe?

Trippi: one example - Dean's tuna fish sandwich in front of the computer when Cheney was having a $2000 a plate dinner. People could not believe that it was happening - it was incredibly "authentic".

Peter: the moment is magnified by traditional media - it just expands on its own. It can be magnified on its own.

Josh: there is a level of cynicism: call three TV crews and have this

Ari Melber: Will we have a "justin.tv" like candidate?

Mindy: absolutely. Unedited information will happen. (my opinion - not in this cycle)

Josh: there is content with Obama talking to others, much more personalized, the mechanism is there - much easier.

Ari Melber: How do you plan on taking input on things other than theme song. For example: minimum wage, etc and take it into the campaign so the feedback can be placed within the campaign and the governance. Or do you not see that role that way.

Peter: most successful initiative was the petition for the resignation of the Attorney General. While humor is important, the information is as well.

Audience Suggestions:

• Less control of the message, let the people speak
• Use eventful to make an event happen by the people
• Forget the swing vote
• If the candidate can not blog, get a group to blog together.
• Post your calendar
• Register people to vote with a widget
• Create a widget on google
• Have a real debate

PDF2007

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 4:16 PM

PDF 2007 - Embracing User Generated Content

Corssposted from Social Engineer

Coming in late for live blogging...

Josh Marshall: input from the readers is key to everything you do. Sort of open source journalism. But use it in a highly mediated way. Talking Points Memo does not support comments - legacy concept (when he used to do HTML from the beginning). Josh got used to email communications and filtered/mediated. Very little user generated content.

Want to ensure quality content - best way editorial is the best way to highlight higher quality content versus wiki work that allows for user-generated. Started TPM back in 2000 - never heard of open-source journalism - he just responded to the positive feedback and it was not until 2004 that he started using the blog as a tool for mobilizing. It was the Sinclair Advertising effort that he made an effort and wanted to get things to happen and work with people to accomplish something. Did something similar with Tom Delay, Social Security and then the ball started to roll.

Moderator: reporter - it is your credibility, your name. As a politician - you are projecting an image. Then, suddenly you have an outsider making videos and comments that becomes associated with something outside of the mainstream.

Why is mySpace doing a two-state poll?

Jeff Berman (mySpace): political activity: Katrina, mid-term elections - after Impact Channel and the Presidential MySpace pages. Friend do have benefits in this community. Straw polls make sense - and the users desire it.

Question to Steve Urquhart - why are the electeds not allowing for transparency showing the bills that happen? The Republicans have crippled themselves with this issue.

Rep Urquhart - candidates are open during campaigns, after being elected are being closed. Understandable bills are needed. We need to clarify the neutral description supporting pro and con argument. people need to understand the arguments. Words really matter - and, instead of an or. Need to flesh-out all of the people. Need informed discussion.

Queston to Eli: maybe we need to do our own hosting.

Eli: network theory - barriers to exit. The more important myspace becomes the next email, it becomes more difficult to generate the social capital elsewhere. Myspace is becoming the next email - especially if there is not democratic structure. Myspace and FaceBook are walled communities where they have control or they are a "true community" which has trials by community to make the decisions, instead of the company only.

Jeff Berman: invites all to come to MySpace and be involved.

Question to panel: who is building the next organization to allow them to form natural organizations?

Question to Eli: the challenge of "gotchas" becoming the defining moment.

Eli: it is not just about user-generated content, we (as citizens) have to become more sophisticated at being more capable of understanding the complex dynamics.

Rep: just the fringes are just talking amoungst themselves.

Audience: fringes

How do you engage the moderates in the public conversation?

Rep: engage them in the issues that they care about (IMHO - not particularly enlightening)

Betsy from VideoVoter, voter education: centrist voter education is (unfortunately) kind of boring. People think they want to make their own decision, but they often just want to be guided. Too many choices out there require some form of guidance to help guide people in some fashion.

Jeff Berman: mySpace had the My State of the Union - the winner was a centrist - on one hand, on the other hand.

Betsy: It really has to be both sides. You are always going to "piss someone off".

Tags: PDF2007, Josh Marshall, Jeff Berman, user-generated content, Eli Parser

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 1:24 PM

Keeping Personal Democracy personal

This morning, I got an email from an old friend of mine, Aldon Hynes, who made two interesting posts at Greater Democracy:

• Keeping Personal Democracy Personal
  where he talks about the migration of politics from the personal to the professional, where the operations of politics is about optimizing certain performance metrics, and
• Interaction and Interactivity
  where Aldon discusses the difference between "interaction" (where you respond to a stimulus given) and "interactivity" (where a conversation or dialog ensues between a grouping).

In reading his posts, I see a lament of the migration from a civic, personal contact to a business mentality of running a campaign. Considering the masses under nebulous demographic and psychographic metrics may seem cold and calculating, but the challenge of achieving the goals of campaigns is to win. And to win, the campaigns have little else to do but place bets on particular expenditures, rather than trying to be all things to all people.

In every campaign I have been a part of, there is always a major constraint that they have: money. While the assumption that volunteers for the candidate is "just around the corner", that is almost as funny as hearing that "there's gold in them thar hills", convincing the old '49ers that they should keep digging into the hills for that chance of finding the motherload.

In an archived post, which I never made public due to last cycle's issues, I wrote about being a campaign manager and the business of running a small campaign - especially one where resources are scarce and the opponent is entrenched. I promise to finally publish this post which should be instructive on how campaigns have to have a startup mentality in order to succeed - since the goal is to raise awareness with the individuals that can best bring about your success and find a way to fund your efforts, especially when you are a candidate who needs to rely on the support of others.

The challenge is to maintain a close relational contact with your supporters while keeping in mind that there is only 24 hours in a day, and you can only occupy one physical space at one time. Technology is meant to help enhance the ability of a person to communicate with a group of people, and allowing for some personalization of the communication to the supporters in the best way possible. Note, I did not suggest "converse" with all of the supporters, since people are limited with one mouth and two ears (or you could include two hands). But, by using technology to enhance the chance of communicating (e.g. John Edwards on twitter, every candidate on email and/or blogs, Chris Dodd and Tom Vilsack on video sites), the candidate (and/or his staff/surrogates) tries to keep the connection with the supporters to ensure the energy continues to flow.

I, too, will be attending the PDF - this year, for the first time, as a participant. This cycle has been difficult for various reasons (as some people know), but my affection for the art and business of politics still exists. No matter how difficult it can be, I believe that we will be able to create relationships through these technologies - in ways we have yet to understand. In the business world, I spend more time confirming with clients on how to work together online with their customers, considering the long-term value of a customer given the power that technology can give them. If it was not for Microsoft Outlook, Plaxo and/or google Calendar, I would loathe to remember every one of my friends birthdays. If not for the ability to blind cc my friends, I could not keep them up-to-date with my goings-ons. And if not for the ability of blogging and the easy publishing and syndication tools (thanks Dave!), I would not keep in touch with my friends in the blogosphere. Personal Democracy is about maintaining a connection with others - whether one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one or many-to-many. In a later post, I will explain where I think we are heading in our technological evolution such that Personal Democracy can remain personal.

Tags: Personal Democracy, Personal Democracy Forum, Greater Democracy, Aldon Hynes, PDF2007

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 9:56 PM

Florida changing to January 29th...

Reading the local and national papers, see that Florida has decided to change the date to January 29th for the primaries. All that is left to be done is have Governor Charlie Crist sign off on the bill to finalize this move.

I have seen various blogs wringing their hands over this (e.g. see Chris Bowers at myDD here and here), suggesting this is a Republican power-grab since the Republican Party would be "in control" of a major "swing state" in effecting the outcome of the political process. For me, I am still in favor for a number of reasons:

1. Florida Democrats will, in time, reassert their muscle over the entire state as the National Party begins to spend more time there. As in Iowa and New Hampshire, the residents of those states take the decision of selecting a President very seriously. And, as one notes, more contemplative the effort, the more likely Democratic it becomes.
2. Florida is known as a microcosm of the United States - almost every major population center in the US is represented in Florida. Retirees and their relatives all tend to move into Florida and settle in the general areas. IMHO, within ten years, it will be Florida - not Ohio - that will be the "canary in the coal mine" as to who will be elected President.
3. Florida's influence will exceed its "ATM status" - as a Florida resident, I have been dismayed and hurt at how the Federal government has shortchanged Florida residents in areas of infrastructure, school funding, economic support. As a native Floridian, I want to see the government make some structural changes that will be needed, especially with the growth of population and the potential for dangers in the coming years (read: hurricanes). By being one of the important bell-weather states, the Federal government will be required to truly focus and deliver on their promises to the state.

And, for the harbingers of doom, maybe Michigan will move their primary up as well. So be it. This process has been stacked so poorly against truly making a statement before, we will have to see change happen to address status quo.

While I may not have voted for you, Governor Crist - you have my support for signing this bill.

By the way....did anyone notice that Florida legislators voted out the "touch-screen" voting machines? Way to go legislators!!!

Tags: Florida Primary, Governor Crist, Campaign 2008, Jeremy Ring

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 10:02 AM