June 2008

A few weeks ago my Think Tank colleague Gordon blogged about the Proposition 2 ½ over ride which was soundly rejected by his city, Beverly MA.  His observations on local politics and the impact of social networking on these heated topics are characteristic of many towns who are facing tough budgetary decisions in economically diverse communities.  And my town, an upscale fishing/sailing town north of Boston, is included on that list.

I will admit it right now: I am an SUV driving, latte drinking, work-out mom with 3 kids and at least 3 jobs, only one for which I get an actual pay check.  Most of the time managing my off-springs agenda’s is a full time job.  Sometimes it’s the PTO, or church school, or the Children’s Hospital fundraisers that fill my day. Other times it’s helping my clients reach the ever-more-valuable Mom-target more effectively.  It was the years of training in media arena that prepared me best and most for my most recent 90 day job: Chief Override Mom.

Having never worked on a political campaign, nor really knowing anyone who has made it uncharted water.  But much like bringing a new product to market, there was a familiarity to our strategy. We organized ourselves by putting together a troop of talented, business savvy Mommas who brought energy and creativity to this challenge.  We had communications specialists, attorneys, web designers, teachers, real estate marketers, ad agency types, you name it.  We had representation from all kids of hard working Moms, oh yes and one dad with a great sense of humor!  Once our team was drafted we set about answering the following: How were we going to persuade a town full of real old line New Englanders (read: frugal), who are insanely proud of the “lowest” tax rate around, to approve almost $22 million to REPAIR AND UPDATE our middle school facilities?  Not even to build a new school?

This was not going to be “my mothers over ride” as we embraced new media.  What once was an old fashion effort of neighborhood signs and leaflets in your neighbor’s door evolved into a multi-platform marketing strategy.  We laid out a 90 day time plan for our communications and out reach.  We built a web site and utilized Constant Contact email newsletters to reach out to our database of supporters. We set up phone networks of parents to use word of mouth to get out the vote. We had traditional direct mail to the 45-60 year old voters who could no longer (or never could) be reached by the back pack brigade.  We created emails that were organically viral: you send it to your address book and ask those people to pass along in kind.  We added a face to face component and invited the community to events, including tours of the school itself.  Taking word of mouth marketing one step further we identified town/thought leaders and brought them literally into the boiler rooms of the school that many of them had attended in their own youth, pointing out of course that nothing had really changed in 50 years… ergo the $22 million. 

It was important to keep our eye on the opposition daily, reading of course the angry and bitter words on local town blogs and forums, which of course are attributed to no one.  As Gordon pointed out, it is much easier to be rude when you don’t have to sign your name to your rants.  We didn’t spend much time or energy trying to change the hearts and minds of the intensely opposed, it would have been futile.  We preferred to focus on educating those voters who would be impacted one way or another by this enormous decision. 

After 90 days and lots of hard work and some strategic sign holding later, we prevailed.  A real grass roots effort with some high tech twists helped us to get out enough voters to pass our over ride by a 2 to 1 margin.  What had worked was creating a private media channel to reach our target through many vehicles:  a combination of print and on-line distribution of information that helped to educate our community.  It was face to face meetings and tours that gave real urgency to our cause.  It was virtual tours online that brought the situation to life.  It was the friendly email reminders to the overwhelmed to make sure we made their daily “to do list”.  It was inviting the senior community to witness the decay of the school facilities.  It was reminding the town in local papers about the impact of a healthy school system on their property values.  All in all, it was a classic private media channel where we used compelling content to tell our story to a highly targeted audience.

I know this small town effort to fix a single school is no match for what is coming in November.  We are still low tech in our efforts compared to Obama and McCain but we sure have come along way from the bake sales and flyers of my youth.  I have witnessed organic-mom-networking 2.0.  So far I’d say it’s a powerful force of nature and one to be watched with a careful marketer’s eye.

Share This

This week the NY Mets gave us an example of what happens when you don’t understand the current media landscape.  They fired Manager Willie Randolph on Monday night, and did it via press release at 3:15 am east coast time.  The team was in Anaheim on the first day of a west coast trip.   So, they made poor Willie fly all the away to So Cal, manage a game (he won) and fired him after the game.  As I am sure you know by now the Mets have been getting killed in the media for this low rent move on a classy guy.  They are spinning all kinds of stories such as they didn’t want to fire him on Father’s Day to they didn’t make up their mind until Monday.  The sad truth is they actually thought that if they did it in the middle of the night it would lessen the news and press impact since it would be a day before the NY papers could jump on it.  That was a questionable strategy in 1978 or 1988, but in 2008 it is beyond moronic.  That “strategy” backfired and blew up in their face.  They got beaten up on every available media platform for nearly three days – print, talk radio, blogs, sports web sites etc. 

At the heart of this mistake is a lack of understanding of today’s media environment.  It is always on, and always in search of content.  The explosion of media platforms, brands and choices has eliminated the concept of “news cycles” as we knew them.  On demand content and viral distribution have made traditional news cycles obsolete.  In addition, the proliferation of media platforms has created a situation where any “hot” bit of content and news is blown out of all proportion.  Many of these media outlets thrive on scandal and controversy.  The search and hunger for edgy content seems insatiable.  How else do you explain Lindsay Lohan’s mother and talentless sister getting a reality show.  More shame for us native Long Islanders.  Wasn’t Amy Fisher’s sex tape enough humiliation? 

The media narrative ended up being about how clumsy, heartless and dumb the Mets management appears to be.  The net result is the Mets did some real damage to their brand image, and maybe their bottom line too.  We are in a new media world, and if you follow the old rules you are sure to get burned.

Share This

I recently contributed another article to Chief Marketer on the topic of face to face events.  Specifically it explains how to use events as a lead generation and lead nurturing tool.  While working for several media companies I had responsibility for publication branded events and custom events.  One thing I learned is when using events as lead gen tool it is critical to scale your event (and budget) to the anticipated return.  Many people do think of live events as custom media, but they can be very powerful tools as part of a private custom media solution.  Click here to read the article. 

Share This

Just a short word on the passing of Tim Russert.   I spent much of last week thinking about and writing about media bias in the news organizations covering politics.  It was quite a shock to learn about his tragic death, as he was one of the last objective unbiased journalists on television.   Even though he worked his way up the ranks in Democratic politics he was equally tough on both parties.  You could make a case he was the most important journalist in America today.  Many people, including me, turned to him on Meet the Press and election night coverage to make sense of it all in a straightforward manner.  You could trust him because you felt he neither had an agenda nor was self promotional.  The timing of his loss before a historic election is a blow for this country.  We would hope that someone would fill the void, but it will be an impossible role to fill.

Nearly everyone I spoke with over the past few days felt like they lost a close friend.  He was such a presence on television, you actually felt like you knew him.  Just another reminder that as Buddhism states everything in life is impermanent.  It was heartbreaking to watch so many of his friends and colleagues talk about him all weekend.  However, listening to the tributes he was clearly a man who made the world better and lived every minute of his short 58 years.  Personally, I agree with his impressive son Luke, who said that if Tim could hear what was being said about him; he would be the most excited to hear that Bruce Springsteen paid tribute to him and played Thunder Road in his honor.  As a fellow Springsteen fanatic, I was very touched by the gesture from Boss who like Tim Russert is a master story teller with an ear to the common man.  Here is a passage from Thunder Road, a beautifully written song about vulnerability, yearning and redemption.

We got one last chance to make it real
To trade in these wings on some wheels
Climb in back
Heaven’s waiting on down the tracks
Oh oh come take my hand
Riding out tonight to case the promised land

Share This

In an interesting bit of timing, the NY Times ran a story today about perceived media sexism toward Hillary Clinton. (A topic covered here yesterday) In a shocking development the mainstream media (NBC, CBS, CNN etc) strongly disagree with that notion.  They seem almost dismissive of the claims.   They are also quick to say that Hillary Clinton’s defeat was caused by her own mistakes and they are not responsible for her loss.  That is true, Hillary has no one to blame but herself, and Barack Obama played by the rules and won the nomination fair and square.  However, that does not absolve them of their actions, nor does it lessen the anger many feel towards them.

There is this passage and quote from MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann:

There was “constant reflection and analysis at MSNBC, and I must say there was constant good faith in trying to make certain Senator Clinton was not treated unfairly.”

Now that they have been called on the carpet they wrap themselves in objective journalism.  Ironically, Olbermann has made a name for himself making fun of Bill O’Reilly and the right wing bias at Fox News.  I don’t know if he realizes that he has become a liberal version of his friend Bill.  I used to enjoy watching him, but his rants have taken on an air of self righteousness and he has lost his ability to be objective. 

There are several problems with the mainstream media defense tactics.

As the old cliché goes – perception is reality.  Many Clinton supporters and women’s groups including NOW (click here to read a column from their President) are angry at the bias, and NBC/MSNBC and CNN have lost credibility with many viewers.  They can defend themselves all they want, but it won’t change the way many women (and men too) feel about the way their candidate was treated while her opponent got the kid gloves treatment.

I wonder if the many of the biggest offenders (who are generally men in their 50’s and 60’s) fully realize the way the media world has changed.  Every one of their comments is stored on the web forever, and can be easily passed around.  And, there is an army of bloggers to offer a counter opinion and analyze their comments.

The bottom line is they can deny it all they want, but we live in a new media world.  My advice would be to really reflect on how they handled the nomination process rather than trying to spin it away.  No one is buying it.

On a separate and personal note – Happy Father’s Day to the #1 reader of the Think Tank blog – my Dad, who is one of the smartest guys I have ever met.  The lessons I have learned from him are too numerous to recount here, and I use them every day.  Happy Father’s Day!!
 

Share This

Before we leave the process that will eventually name Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee, let’s take a look back at one of the factors in this contest that helped him beat Hillary Clinton.  It can provide us some clues and insights into how he may fare against Senator John McCain this fall.

There has been much debate whether sexism played a role in the defeat of Hillary Clinton.  She and her campaign made a couple of well hashed over errors:  they underestimated Obama’s appeal, had no organization in the caucus states, and used Bill Clinton incorrectly.   Watching Bill Clinton in the 2008 campaign was like watching Willie Mays play for the Mets in 1973 – painful to watch a star whose time has past.  She was significantly hurt by the actions of Florida and Michigan to break the DNC rules which cost her big states she could have won.  And, it seems like she didn’t connect with the voters until she went from frontrunner to underdog.

A big factor in the race was a media bias for Obama and against Clinton.  This manifested itself in a mainstream media that seemed to be openly promoting Obama, while gleefully participating in the steady stream of sexist comments and jokes aimed at Hillary.  It was open season on petty analysis of her appearance, emotions and of course, the comments about how she came across as a bitchy woman.   Take a few minutes to check out these clips.   One is a brilliant piece from the Daily Show and other is a home grown video from YouTube.  Both illustrate numerous examples of the mainstream media taking sexist shots at Hillary.  It is sadly comical to watch a bunch of middle age white men (Mike Barnicle, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchannan, Wolf Blitzer) make statements that essentially says that Hillary is a shrew and a harpy who men don’t want to listen to because she sounds like a nagging wife.  Makes you wonder how happy these guys are at home.

In addition, journalists such as Keith Olberman of MSNBC and Frank Rich of the New York Times all but anointed Obama while never missing an opportunity to take a shot at either Hillary Clinton or John McCain.  By the way, making fun of McCain’s age is also fair game, and even sometimes the injuries he received as a POW.  Obama’s lack of experience and a real record and his relationship with Rev. Wright received as close to a free pass as you can get in today’s 24/7 media.

Try and imagine what would happen if these same middle age white male commentators used jokes and negative stereotypes about Obama’s race in the same manner as they did with Hillary Clinton’s gender.   When anyone even hints at race, such as Geraldine Ferraro, they are treated like a pariah.  Remember when a bunch of guys showed up at a Clinton rally held up signs and chanted “iron my shirts”.  It was laughed off as a prank.  What if it was an Obama rally and those hilarious frat boys were yelling “shine my shoes” or “fry my chicken” Not so funny, is it?  In fact, it is horrible.  However, it is hard to argue it was much different in terms of negative stereotyping.  Unfortunately, this gender bias affected the way the race was reported throughout the primary season.  Next, we will take a look at how media bias may have shaped the race.

Share This

The media bias manifested itself in the reporting of primary results and the race for delegates.  I took a very close look at the final results in all of the election results as reported on Real Clear Politics.  The results were much closer than reported and in fact, you can make a strong argument that Hillary Clinton should be the nominee based on these results and her viability as a candidate vs. John McCain.  The popular vote is all but tied in terms of statistical variation, and Obama won 124 more pledged delegates out of 3,046 available.  After they fought to a near draw on Super Tuesday, Obama reeled off nine wins in a row in mostly caucus states (where the vast majority of voters don’t participate) and states with a huge African-American vote in the Democratic primary.    When February ended, the media had Clinton left for dead and already started calling for her to drop out in the name of party unity.  The calls for her to quit continued all through March, April and May.  What happened once the media crowned Obama? 

Starting with March 4th, Hillary won 9 of the last 15 races (I am leaving out Guam) and some of them with big margins – Kentucky, West Virginia, Penn, Ohio, and Rhode Island.  So much for the party faithful falling lock step behind Obama.  It is clear that he has an issue getting votes from white, working class voters.

Add her strong finish to wins in Texas, New York, New Jersey, California, Tennessee, Arizona, Arkansas and New Mexico.  She also would have fared very well in both Florida and Michigan.  Look at that list of states above – that is a winning Democratic electoral strategy.

The vast majority of American’s get their information from the mainstream media.  You wonder what would have happened if the they didn’t decide to jump on the Obama bandwagon early and report the facts in a slanted nature.  Or, let the process play out without their own need for a winner to be named by the end of February.  By constantly hashing over the issue of Clinton getting out of the race since early March they may have tampered with the system and affected the results of the remaining primaries.

It is clear that droves of Clinton supporters, many of them women, are angry at the way she was treated and portrayed.  Their feelings are justified, a two term Senator and the first serious woman candidate deserved better treatment and more respect.  It is not a lock they will vote for Obama, when John McCain is perceived as the least conservative Republican candidate in thirty years.  When you combine this with Obama’s weakness among white voters in big states John McCain has a much better chance of winning than Keith Olberman could ever imagine.  A woman running for President has an impossible task – show you are tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief without being perceived as a “bitch”, whatever that code word really means.  Maybe it’s just me, but when it comes to the ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, I’ll take a “bitch” any day.

Share This

Last week my city, Beverly, MA held an election that may offer a small preview of this November’s election.  Here in the Massachusetts we have a wonderful law to reign in government called Proposition 2 ½ passed by referendum during a tax revolt in 1981.  Here in the bluest of blue states we have a segment of people who love their taxes.  It basically states that property tax can’t increase by more than 2.5% per year, except if the people in the town vote to over ride the law for a specific reason.  In our case it was to help fund the school system that is running at a deficit due to the usual suspects – increasing teacher healthcare and pension costs, unfunded state and federal mandates and exploding special education needs.  If it passed, the average homeowner would pay roughly $190 more a year in property tax and one of the six elementary schools in town would be saved from closing. 

It was quite a battle, a real steel cage street fight.  What struck me was the anti-government venom.  It was aimed at the Mayor, School Committee, City Council, Teachers Union and anyone who even walks by city hall.  There was also a generous helping of class warfare as the working class and seniors resented the upscale moms who led the fight for the over ride.  One of the leaders of the over ride movement made the classic marketing mistake of saying it would only cost “a latte a week” to fund the tax increase.  Oh boy! Talk about not knowing your audience.  That statement became a rallying cry from the working class people who wouldn’t go inside a Starbucks on a bet.  The moms (and some dads) were dubbed the Latte Divas by the anti-tax people who fought it out on the Salem News web site message boards.  I would read the forums and the anger was palpable.  The parents were advocating raising taxes “for the children” or our property values would plummet and the city would become a slum overnight.  Opponents ranted back about how unions, the government and entitled parents were ruining America, and how they can’t afford another cent is this bad economy.  Over rides for schools usually pass in small affluent bedroom communities, but in economically diverse Beverly (pop. 40,000) it was crushed 63% to 37%.  And, a real class division opened up in once cohesive community.

It was a fascinating look at how social networking and web 2.0 tactics shaped the debate.  The pro over ride parents (Yes! For Beverly) had their own blog, Facebook page and email distributions; and the forums on the local newspaper sites became ground zero for battles pitched by people from both sides using anonymous screen names.  Some of the postings were pretty mean, and would never be said if a real name had to be attached or it was face to face.  It is much easier to work up some real anger when hiding behind a made up name that can’t be tracked.  It got me thinking about the nature of these anonymous posts which are found all over the web on all types of sites.  Does the anonymity produce true and honest feelings that are hidden by social convention, or is it an excuse to be rude.  There is something freeing about putting the usual political correctness aside, but debates can escalate quickly.  It is an interesting situation for companies who host these types of forums, especially when someone can be slandered on your site.  Monitoring your site is a must to protect your brand.

In addition, I could tell that there were some “PR plants” in there spouting the talking points from each side.  I don’t think many “average citizens” know the intimate details of municipal finance, collectively bargained teacher’s contracts and academic studies on the benefits of lower class size.  There were more than a few people with not so hidden agenda’s passing themselves off as John and Jane Q. Public.

This local battle may be a microcosm of the upcoming Presidential election. We will hear some of the same issues and charges from both sides.  Elitism and class division, education, taxation and the economy will be issues out front and center.  2008 will be the first web 2.0/social networking presidential election.  The ground war is going to move from mainstream media ads and direct mail to the web in a big way.  The blogs, video sharing sites, forums and online fundraising are going to be humming.  This may help Obama and his more youthful supporters, but the same tools can also make any scandal viral or misstep magnified.  We are in somewhat uncharted media waters, and as the cable news talking heads like to say “only time will tell”

Share This