« Stop the Clinton YouTube Embargo links for 2007-07-04 »

Technology Hybrids and 2008

by Patrick Ruffini :: July 4th, 2007 12:53 am

How do you bridge the divide between reaching the energized core on the Internet and the masses through traditional voter contact? Don’t expect Web 2.0 to do it on its own. You’ve got to build hooks between the new and the old, and a number of tools are emerging for doing that effectively. I call these technology hybrids.

What are some examples of technology hybrids? Something I did earlier today, sending my first TwitterGram, certainly qualifies. I recorded a voicemail previewing this post that was then instantaneously sent to my Twitter account. How useful is this? It probably isn’t for me. Who wants to hear my voice? But if you’re a candidate, it can be tons more authentic than “texting” in your message. Zack Exley has famously urged candidates to write their own emails, but even if they did, would people believe it was them? That’s why candidates shouldn’t Twitter; they should TwitterGram. They shouldn’t blog; they should videoblog. That solves the authenticity dilemma of campaign websites — we’ll know for sure it’s them, in video or voice, delivering a message many times more compelling than plain text.

This got me connecting the experience to some ongoing thoughts about the most effective uses of technology in campaigns. Twitter’s API may have saved the product from laughingstock status, but it’s nowhere close to mainstream yet. But the idea of connecting to supporters via voice rather than SMS and email is as old as the auto-dialer in politics. Imagine if a candidate could send a phone message to its entire supporter list through a simple Web-based interface, a sort of opt-in robocall. Then imagine it was free. That’s exactly what SayNow is doing in the entertainment community; artists can sign up to send messages to their fan community. Fans can send voicemails to them. Fans can also be alerted via SMS when a new message comes in.

How would such an integrated campaign have worked in the fundraising quarter that just ended? Say the campaign sends an email appeal out to supporters. A few hours later, the campaign auto-dials its online supporter list with a personalized message from the candidate reminding them of the email (he or she will have recorded the 500 most common first names on the email list, to add that personal touch). At the end, it’s Press 1 to be connected to an operator to donate, Press 2 to volunteer, and Press 3 to enter your cell number for SMS alerts. That’s similar to what John Edwards did by connecting supporters to donate over the phone, except instead of SMS the initial delivery vehicle was email reinforced by a phone call — mainstream technology that nearly all voters are comfortable with.

What are some other examples of cool technology retrofits candidates are trying in 2008 — or should be?

Mitt Romney’s tele-townhalls in Iowa and South Carolina — an effective way to reach your entire universe cheaply and get the candidate in front of thousands of voters at once.
Obama’s low-dollar donor “kickoffs” in major cities, and his requiring email to attend rallies. Some say this is the special sauce behind his fundraising numbers. At the end of the day this is not high-tech at all, just 10,000 pieces of paper — turned into 10,000 email addresses. Simple — and smart.
Embeddable click-to-call (Jajah is an interesting product) — good for online phone banks, potentially conducted via mobile.
Along these lines, ONE did something very cool a few weeks back. Instead of facing the typical response rate dropoff of asking people to call into a conference, they called anyone who RSVP’d.
Edwards sending 70,000 DVDs to Iowa voters. Imagine if these contained a slimmed down version of his site, with the ability to donate or volunteer. That could connect you with some older, less avid Web users.

Tagged: online politics technology

Comments (0) Trackbacks (1) del.icio.us digg it subscribe