In the first ever televised presidential debate in 1960 between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John Kennedy, there was a distinct division of opinion about who won, depending on how audience members accessed the event. Specifically, among those who listened in by radio, Nixon won. For those who watched the contest on TV, Kennedy was the victor¹. The emergence of television as a powerful image medium from this watershed event marked a turning point for political campaigning and eventually for positioning of any key influential individual. Going forward, any public figure, whether a U.S. President or corporate CEO, would need to exist in a world where one’s visual image and onscreen performance would have at least as much impact, if not more, than the content substance of a message.

Today, nearly 50 years later, that realization about the influence of technology has been extended far beyond TV to a wide range of new media – the web, mobile technologies, and in particular social networking web sites.

Use of the Internet in Campaigns

The year 1996 marked the first general and substantive use of the Internet in a presidential campaign. In these early uses, candidate sites were largely static and little more than the digitization of existing print brochures. By 2000, web technologies were more mature and campaign sites became interactive and two-way. Voters could contribute money online, post information, collaborate with other supporters, and sign up for notifications of events or new stories of interest to them.

It was 2004, though, that would prove to be the first breakthrough period. In part due to changes in campaign financing laws, such as McCain-Feingold, third-party organizations (including 529’s) came to fore. Not only did 2004 mark further advances in the use of advanced web techniques by campaigns, but so did the much expanded role of web sites of “influencer” organizations. These sites, such as MoveOn.org, were positioned to be more aggressive in the use of new web techniques and incubators for strategies to mobilize specific voting segments. Presidential candidate Howard Dean raised over $15 million in online contributions in the third quarter of 2003 alone² in large part due to the influence and support of affiliate web sites.

It was, in fact, the Dean campaign that most exploited and elevated use of new media and the Internet. Dean generated a large and devoted following via his own web site and other friendly sites and newsgroups. He used the deanforamerica.com site to generate a record $1 million in campaign funds by late May 2003, a first in U.S. presidential elections³. Dean used his site to organize an army of nationwide door-to-door volunteers who would distribute flyers and host meetings with other prospective supporters⁴. Dean also used his site to launch a successful voter turnover drive in Iowa, organizing a letter-writing campaign to uncommitted voters which won him the Iowa primary⁵.

By the 2006 congressional election cycle, the Internet was an established tool with capabilities that had broad impact, both positive and negative. Congressional candidates experimented with posting of MySpace pages and mimicked Dean’s Internet fundraising model. The internet also became a larger threat for those caught in gaffes as demonstrated by the decline of George Allen’s campaign for Senator from Virginia when a videotape of him uttering what appeared to be a racial slur was posted to YouTube.⁶ 

The continued adoption of Internet use, in particular social networking initiatives, has continued apace in the 2008 presidential campaign. The question now is whether the Internet will become simply an extension of traditional political tactics – another channel like TV, radio, rallies, and print -- or drive further transformation in creating a true, two-way conversation in campaigning that has never before been possible with earlier media forms.

Leading that drive today are social networking functionality and applications, which enable third-party developers to create content that fits within a standard Facebook or MySpace interface, providing users with a one-stop shop for information. The Barack Obama Facebook application, for example, aggregates content in a variety of ways: recent videos and speeches are available in close proximity to recent press articles, links are provided to other users’ via the Facebook network (which can be both geographic or related to someone’s background such as where they work or went to school), and opportunities are presented for viewers to donate.

All of the presidential campaigns have used MySpace. However, its chaotic nature has sometimes provided undesirable distractions. Due to the absence of tough identity verification techniques, some users, not directly affiliated with campaigns, have created MySpace sites “on behalf” of their candidates. A MySpace site created for Barack Obama by Joe Anthony^7, contributed significantly to early buzz about the candidate going back to 2006. When Obama formally entered the race, however, conflict ensued between the Obama campaign and Joe Anthony over site ownership, creating bad press for the candidate. What started as a net positive for Obama turned into, at best, a minor negative as supporters of the original space reacted unfavorably to the campaign’s desired control of “their” site.

While Facebook was originally designed as a way to meet and stay in touch with friends, users can now add others to their list of “friends.” Among these friends are candidates running for office, who have profiles just like any other user. In addition to demographic data, a candidate’s profile will also have a contact phone number for connecting users to a campaign hotline. There’s also usually an opt-in application that collects the user’s personal information and uses that information passively to provide them later on with campaign updates.

All of this promotes a very efficient means of sharing of information, which has come to be referred to as a viral marketing technique. Political information on Facebook is designed to be highly interactive, and the application interface is designed to allow users to spend large blocks of time browsing for information, while gaining a sense of connection with others doing the same. Real-time polls gather valuable voting preferences and offer the opportunity for users to write a few lines explaining choices. This, in turn, facilitates further dialogue among respondents. Moreover, all user discussions on Facebook are advertised as having a chance also to appear on ABC News, creating an extra measure of message productivity for those who participate.

A Primer for Corporations

Though Facebook did not emerge as a significant option in the marketing toolkit of political campaigns until the 2008 election cycle, the smaller elections of 2006 were marked by the creation of Facebook “groups” that identified user preferences for specific candidates and political issues. Groups were used primarily as a means of self-expression rather than to communicate information; while some were straightforward (“Students for McCain”), others had more pithy titles (“Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Republican”).

Increasingly today, businesses are following in the steps of political campaigns. Many corporations now have posted, sponsored groups on Facebook that are developmentally similar to the original political groups. A filter for “sponsored groups” (meaning those with corporate affiliations) yields more than 220 entries in the winter of 2008.

Content-wise, these groups are often simply discussion boards where users can be found comparing products and sharing tips. Some groups offer guided tours of products and links to make purchases online. However, only a handful of groups offer content that is truly useful and unique to that site, such as job postings.

These potent and efficient technological breakthroughs provide a useful crucible for both political campaigns and corporations as they plan and manage new marketing and branding strategies. It is imperative for any individual or organization that wants to be perceived as leading-edge to have a significant presence on and affiliation with these new resources. One way or the other, the media today will find interesting ideas and institutions, so it’s probably wise to exert as much proactive control up-front as possible.

Related Content:
Full Report: New Media and the 2008 Campaign Season -Valuable lessons for Brand Marketers and Business about Being First, Fast and Nimble 
Overview: Strategy & Operations

Footnotes:
1. Erika Tyler Allen. The Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debates, 1960. The Museum of Broadcast Communications Online 
2. Wolf, Gary. “How the Internet Invented Howard Dean”. Wired Magazine. Issue 12.01, Jan. 2004.
3. Theimer, Sharon. “Howard Dean Raises $1M Via Internet”. Associate Press. May 23, 2003.
4. Wolf, Gary. “How the Internet Invented Howard Dean”. Wired Magazine. Issue 12.01, Jan. 2004.
5. “Howard Dean Launches Internet-driven Voter Turnout Effort”. DowJones Newswires. Jul. 2, 2003.
6. Craig, Tim. “The What If of Allen Haunts the GOP Race.” Washington Post. Feb. 6, 2008.
7. Sifry, Mical, L. “The Battle to Control Obama's Myspace”, http://techpresident.com/node/301, May 1, 2007.