Home › Blogs › Soren Dayton's blog ›

Learning lessons from Obama's campaign: Budgeting, technology, field, and media

Submitted by Soren Dayton on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 01:28
in

A fantastic interview with Barack Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe. It really shows the link between organization, technology, and media. It also shows how we need to shift focus on budgetting.

In response to a question about how much the campaign spent on media, Plouffe responds:

D.P.: Right, the playbook is 70 to 75 percent, and we did much less than that. Under 50 percent.

I have argued that the fundamental innovation of the Obama campaign wasn't technology, but it was the investment in grassroots. You can see this Plouffe's explanation:

D.P.: Well, we spent obviously a lot of money on TV, but as a ratio of our spending, it was much lower than historically is done, and that's because we spent a lot of money in the field and on the ground. And, in fact, when we did our baseline budget, the field was fully funded because we thought it was very, very important. If we were to raise excess funds, we bolstered the field a little bit, but it went in advertising. Our first priority was the ground operation because we thought that was essential to us winning. It's very much, I think, a unique approach. In a lot of campaigns, the media gets funded first, then if you have extra money that comes in, you bolster the field and things of that sort. And we kind of did it in reverse.

Patrick, Mindy, Turk, and others have had to argue for shifting a couple of percent of the media budget to online expenditures. They are correct. It is important to enhance an organization. But where do you get the organization? Obama decided to build it.

Think of the seeming insanity of the Obama approach. Build an organization early on, with a minimal media budget. And then use the overage for media, if you can get it.

But it worked. Read on for some of the details.

Pete Snyder, my boss at New Media Strategies, noted this and the link to technology earlier:

Obama acted quite differently. Having opted-out of his promise to abide by campaign finance laws (which proved to be one of his shrewdest and smartest moves), he went for broke. His campaign started pouring millions of dollars into opening scores of campaign offices in all 50 states, many in areas that Democrats hadn't contested in decades. In the traditionally GOP-favoring Colorado, Obama set up 59 campaign offices to McCain's 13.

In 2004, the Bush-Cheney campaign learned that there was a linear relationship between staffed field offices and volunteer activism and enthusiasm. Obama learned that lesson and applied it:

This time around, everyone counted. And given the power of social media, everyone who has the interest has the ability to influence and mobilize networks of friends. A blue dot in a sea of red could now make a real impact, both vote-wise and dollar-wise, to a presidential campaign. Obama got this and McCain really didn't.

Early field investment, combined with effective technology, allowed the campaign to later leverage that technology into an organization that, among other things, raised unprecedented amounts of money. With much the same theory as direct mail, you invest early, build a list (in the end nearly 14m people) and then contact it repeatedly for activation and fundraising.

Some Republicans have argued that Obama's organization will have been a one-off. I am not so sure, although it may only apply at the Presidential level, something Plouffe suggested. In 2012, we will see it again. And we may see it deployed in 2010 or 2014. We aren't going to be able to approach Obama's advantages in the meantime. And we can expect that some 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates will try a similar strategy.

This does suggest that campaigns, especially ones at the top of the ballot, should consider shifting more resources towards field and enhancing them with robust technology.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Unique

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 09:09.

The variable in this analysis though, is the candidate. 

When you are lucky enough to have a young, energetic, camera-friendly, mesmerizing, charismatic candidate with a message people WANT to believe, then of course you don't need to be spending crucial campaign monies on developing image and showing his good side.

absolutely

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 09:36.

So many people involved with his campaign were first time-volunteers and former republicans that saw something unique in Obama. A lot of it also has to do with message- never underestimate the power of a positive message. You can't go door to door telling people to vote for a particular candidate "or else."

I really don't think the GOP would be in such a bad state if they just became more positive...the majority of the candidates are doom and gloom, and it's all driven by the fear tactics used after 9/11. Don't complain about the other side...just talk about your own plan and how it will benefit people.

Obama falling popularity

Submitted by vanpersie on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 04:49.

Polling data show that Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001.  But Republicans shouldn’t be too encouraged by this news. They’re still the most hated political party in America. this is my opinion.

cheers

hong kong fashion

Friendly media

Submitted by Adam C on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 10:57.

 It also helped that the MSM ran more positive articles (and a higher ratio of positive to negative articles) about Obama than any candidate in recent history.  If the MSM is doing your advertising you can spend less money on ads.

I don't think the Obama campaign specifically relied on such a friendly media.  They would have done the same balancing of ads vs. grassroots either way.  But it was quite fortunate that their weak point (ads) were less necessary than usual.

The "real donor matching"

Submitted by chrisawalik on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 01:15.

The "real donor matching" program was done in 2006 to great success by the DNC, so the Obama campaign's use of it wasn't really the first time. Both the DNC and the Obama camp used the same contribution software built by Blue State Digital. ( School of Legal Studies and School of Nursing )

bad stratagem

Submitted by vanpersie on Sun, 06/21/2009 - 11:39.

He should not have dropped out of the Michigan primary. Once he did, he should have quickly accepted Hillary's offer of an early and fair resolution of both MI and FL -- including a revote. His delaying tactics and refusal to commit made him appear to be playing unfairly and alienated millions of Hillary supporters, as well millions of FL voters

 

PDF Printer

nice article on obama secrets

Submitted by vanpersie on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 03:30.

well i wish you best of luck, but that is all that obama has to offer and all the Online Pharmacy are good to use.

Yet Obama’s own

Submitted by omaba on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 14:44.

Yet Obama’s own rhetoric suggests that he lacks confidence in his own agenda. Like a broken record, Obama and his administration now constantly remind Americans that they inherited a $1.2 trillion budget deficit, two wars, and a recession. If Obama were really convinced that his own plans had merit, why would he feel the need to divert attention to a scapegoat by pointing the finger of blame at a previous administration?

 

link building services

My 2 cents

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 12:18.

FWIW, I've always believed Grass roots was more important than Paid Media.

I like this article very

Submitted by tiredtonto on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 04:48.

I like this article very much.  It gives info about how to unlock iphone and informs me of where to find the best cheap web hosting. Thanks so much...

You know what else helped Obama?

Submitted by CJK on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 14:13.

The most unpopular president in at least 56 years, plus an economic disaster.

Look, I know Obama's field organization was impressive. But all the organization in the world wouldn't of ultimately helped him if the above two factors didn't exist. We shouldn't act like the Obama playbook is what everyone has to do now just because he won under circumstances abnormally unfavorable to the incumbent party.

Could you imagine any incumbent candidate in history (in any country) winning under any circumstances if the economy fell off a cliff a month before the election and the president's approval rating was less than 30%?

When you factor in a media which has abdicated any journalistic responsibility, you realize that Michael Dukakis could have won this election.

I agree

Submitted by Renee on Sun, 05/10/2009 - 20:24.

I agree that we had a perfect storm for Obama to take the helm, not to mention the educational areas of weakness that continue to erode in society. Take for instance the online ged courses that continue to come into effect as the old schooling tecniques provided are out of date. These online GED educational offerings even apply to sites have online high school diploma programs like http://www.gedonline.net who give a solution online instead of basic schooling. I think these options will help students continue their best pontential until the government catches up on education and high school options that are up to date.

Renee

yeah that was predicted

Submitted by omaba on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 10:56.

Reform is not a luxury, but a necessity. I know there has been much discussion about what reform would cost . . .

 

cheers

Pottery Barn Outlet

 

Hold On Just A Bit WIth All The Techno Mumbo Jumbo.

Submitted by americanmale on Sat, 12/13/2008 - 02:12.

<<This does suggest that campaigns, especially ones at the top of the ballot, should consider shifting more resources towards field and enhancing them with robust technology. >>

It seems as though this site has a belief that effective use of technology will be the savior of the party.  I'd like to point out some real world issues though as i do just what you are proposing for a living.

First off, every corporation/interest group in america wants to build an internet presence.  They all want the robust websites, they all want the social networking, they all want the youtube channel, they all want the message boards, and they all want the full "Web 2.0" package.  And...they all want the general public to come on by and get a warm fuzzy about the company/interest to inspire consumer/constituent loyalty...or maybe even buy something from the online catalog.  Sound familiar.

So, we design them a heck of a website.  Install phpbb or phorum (pick your poison).  We set them up a facebook group, set them up a youtube channel, set up the corporate blogs / departmental blogs, put up a chatroom, etc.....put up miva or whatever.

We also have them budget 10 times what they spend on the "internet" side for traditional media advertising.  After all, the internet is an interactive medium.  You have to get the people to want to interact..and that is only done by the one way mediums of radio, print, and TV. 

And, guess what, the "social networking" stuff goes totally unused.  It languishes to the point of being a turn off due to inactivity.

The reason why is because whatever message you put out on an internet based site has what we call "CORPORATE STANK".  The message is so tainted (it can't help be anything but) that it doesn't pass the "iwall". 

The "iwall" is short for the "Personal Internet Message Recipient Firewall".  Unless you like what you are smelling, you won't contribute.

The only thing that gets through the iwall is a message from an independent 3rd party.  With regards to politics, in 2004, it was Jib Jab's parody of Bush/Kerry.  That message permeated the internet user's iwall and pretty much made the entire election meaningless...a joke if you will.  That little flash presentation actually turned off the "internet channel" and thus made Karl Rove's actions in traditional channels meaningful.

In 2008, the thing that made the obama campaign message get through the personal iwalls was....are you ready for this....OBAMA GIRL.  Us computer geeks widely regard that 3rd party video (?) as the primary catalyst for the campaign.  That passed right through the personal iwalls of everyone and allowed the Obama message to be heard....simply because it was done by a 3rd party.

Concluding, it is important to realize that the internet is simply another type of an interactive communications medium.  It ranks second in capability to the telephone.  It's primary attraction is that it allows the user to receive messages (read sites, email, view video, chat) at their preference.

The obama campaign used a website.  They had a mailing list that communicated where and when's.  The blog sites were simply corporate stank of which all participants had a common interest (i.e. all liked the smell of the stank)  No minds were changed. 

The blog sites worked just like opinion shows on TV.  Viewers view them to get affirmation of their beliefs, not get their minds changed.  The same holds true to the internet websites.

So in conclusion, it is the message that matters.  The initial delivery is best done by a 3rd party so as to avoid the "corporate stank".  Once that is right, the internet communications conduit will take care of itself.  It can be simple as a mailing list. 

The only requirement is that when using the internet communications conduit, that the messaging provide the ability for the reader/viewer to "catch up" if they miss a few messages (just like tv shows do at the beginning to catch you up if you missed the previous episode).  Other than that, don't rest too much faith on "technology".  Put the faith in a well crafted platform and message.

Of course these are just my opinions.  I'd hate to see the great potential of this site being lost to the belief that technology matters most...when in reality, it is the message that matters most.

 

 

 

Not a silver bullet, but...

Submitted by Tom Readmond on Sat, 12/13/2008 - 19:57.

Americanmale, you're absolutely right that a good website isn't going to do you any good if your candidate/message isn't any good.  Moving forward from 2008, campaigns need to avoid the mistake of thinking a good website and a Facebook profile are all you need, and that a lousy candidate or bad message/lack of message are going to succeed any more than they have in the past.

This is definitely true of Obama too: had his candidacy not excited people to begin with, his Internet operation wouldn't have changed that fact.  Great Internet tools are useless of you don't give anyone a reason to use them. 

That said, I think it's a mistake to write off the value of how the Obama team made use of the Internet.  Yes, they had an exciting candidate. Yes, there were external factors that put wind at their backs (like a GOP president with a 28% approval rating).  But when Obama began his campaign, Hillary Clinton was a foregone conclusion as the Democratic nominee, with money, a huge national organization, and many of the party's big name consultants and staff.  The Obama campaign's (astute) solution to this was to focus on areas Clinton was likely to ignore, notably running up big wins in caucus states. 

I taught a class on coalition building recently in which I reminded the class never to forget the ultimate goal: to get at least one more vote than the other guy.  Similarly, the Obama campaign never took their eye off the only ball that mattered in the primaries: getting more delegates.  Lots of advertising and cultivating the national press didn't help Clinton once she started lagging in delegates, which Obama had been racking up little by little in oft-ignored caucus states like Minnesota.

The key to winning a caucus is organization: getting your supporters to small caucus sites all over the state, focusing like a laser beam on those supporters, rather than running a big TV ad that's wasted on the other guy's supporters or people who won't bother to vote on election day.  Here's where I think there's some credit due the Obama campaign: they viewed their Internet operation not just as a place to shoot out press releases, or even as a place to counter the media (as many Republicans still view the Internet) but as an organizing tool: a way to identify and build strong bonds with and between its supporters. 

You're probably right that by and large those using your Internet infrastructure are already supporters, but that was the whole point.  Obama's campaign used its operation to organize supporters who would bond more strongly to a unifying factor such as their neighborhood, profession, ethnicity, etc.  than they would just by being Obama supporters.  The Internet operation allowed the campaign not only to identify its supporters, but to help them find each other.  This instilled a sense of community among those supporters and allowed those supporters, little by little, one by one, to bring more people into the fold.  I don't think the Obama campaign could have done that nearly as effectively without smart use of the Internet.

So as usual, I find myself coming down between the two extremes.  It's definitely true that regardless of technology, a good candidate and message is the most important factor, just as it has been since the election of 1800.  However, having achieved that, Obama deserves credit for recognizing the potential of the Internet to organize his supporters and embrace the Long Tail to get him over the line on delegates, raise small donations, and out-organize both Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Obama's campaign was a

Submitted by tiredtonto on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 02:46.

Obama's campaign was a shining example of how technology can be utilized as a major advantage over your foes.  Especially technology-crippled foes ;) I bet none of them could fix my ipod

The nation's economy remains

Submitted by chrisawalik on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 01:12.

The nation's economy remains the top challenge facing Obama. The Federal Reserve estimated that lenders were on track to initiate 2.25 million foreclosures ( ged at home ) this year, more than doubling the annual pace before the crisis set in. With payday loan reform going on in New Hampshire, it seems the nation’s finances are on everyone’s mind. Barack Obama gave his economic ( online high schools ) address today, and Republican leaders had a few things to say about their ideas regarding the plan. Luckily, everyone agrees that we need a stimulus package, and fast. Too many Americans need a payday loan nowadays ( Online high school diploma ) just to make ends meet. Not surprisingly, though, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed that the plan, as proposed, was too expensive. Boehner called for balance, and McConnell suggested that money given to states should be loans instead of grants.

Unfortunately, Mr

Submitted by omaba on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 09:12.

Unfortunately, Mr Obama’s critics can also point to a striking record of failures. A startling number of his nominees for senior positions have imploded. The upper ranks of the Treasury remain empty in the midst of the most serious recession since the 1930s.

cheers

Raleigh SEO

Obama's campaign( christian

Submitted by fashions on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 05:07.

Obama's campaign( christian louboutin )used its operation to organize supporters who would bond more strongly to a unifying factor such as their neighborhood, profession, ethnicity, etc. than they would just by being Obama supporters. The Internet operation allowed the campaign not only to identify its supporters, but to help them find each other. This instilled a sense of community among those supporters and allowed those supporters, little by little, one by one, to bring more people into the fold. I don't think the Obama campaign could have done that nearly as effectively without smart use of the Internet.

coo

Submitted by tagshow on Mon, 06/22/2009 - 22:01.

Thank you for this about Mesh.. Really helpful.

Credit Card Terminal| Point of Sale .

Obama's campaign

Submitted by andly on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 02:26.

Yes, but the problems are still there.....

 

 

link building services | web directory

good！

Submitted by cnnic2005 on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 21:27.

Reform is not a luxury, but a necessity. I know there has been much discussion about what reform would cost . .Christian Louboutin Shoes  christian louboutin

learn lots from it

Submitted by xpanel on Wed, 07/08/2009 - 01:36.

we really learn lots from obama, and "we can do it".

Yes, we can do it, learn more about Processus