Blue States of Mind

Thanks Again!!!

2005-07-23T06:11:00.000-07:00

Thanks Emi and Phil!!!

2005-07-22T09:05:00.000-07:00

Blogging and John G. Roberts

2005-07-21T12:35:00.000-07:00

From the day that Sandra Day O'Connor announced that she was stepping down as a Supreme Court Justice to take care of her ailing husband, the blogging world went berserk. Liberal bloggers wrote blog after blog concerning the grave importance of who Bush would nominate and the likelihood that President Bush would appoint a conservative judge to replace O'Connor's swing vote.

The frenzy of blogging did not stop and only heated up when President Bush announced on Tuesday night that John G. Edwards was his nominee for the Supreme Court position. According to an article in today's Washington Post, fifty of the top liberal bloggers joined together with Senator Ted Kennedy in a forty-five minute conference call organized by BlogPAC, to create a plan of attack in anticipation of President Bush's nomination. After the conference call, BlogPAC put calls into Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's office, Sen. Russell Feingold's office and liberal organizations such as MoveOn, Alliance for Justice, NARAL and People for the American Way.

According to the Washington Post, this conference call which brought together Congressional representatives, liberal organizations and bloggers, was an indication of the importance that blogging plays in today's political world. The article points out that this is the first nomination of the twenty-first century and liberals will use technology extensively to get their views concerning the nomination across. Senator Kennedy involved himself with the bloggers because he recognizes their potential to "convey the impact that this decision will have on hundreds of millions of Americans, whose last line of defense for their freedoms and liberties is the Supreme Court," according to the article.

These blogs have the potential to reach a huge audience, and by combining forces, they hope that the message from liberal bases will be as strong as possible concerning the Edwards nomination. Obviously each blog will write their own individual messages to their respective readers, but the goal as a whole will be the same and a central message will connect these blogs and organizations to each other, inspiring their readers to take the course of action they suggest.

I think this is an interesting idea, and may be used in the future with stronger results, but for now I truly think Bush's nomination of Edwards does not leave a lot of wiggle room for liberals to work around. He looks great on paper and while these blogs have compiled opposition research on him, I am not so sure that there is enough fire around Edwards for the blogs to be as effective as they hope.

All in all I think the use of synchronized blogging is a good idea in theory and I think that it is advantageous for the Congressional representatives and liberal groups to join forces with the blogs. I bet we will be seeing a lot more of this in the future from both Democrats and Republicans.

Finals!!!!!

2005-07-20T13:11:00.000-07:00

Get Out of Blogging Free

2005-07-17T15:06:00.000-07:00

Filtering in China

2005-07-16T09:24:00.000-07:00

The study Internet Filtering in China in 2004-2005 is a very interesting analysis into China's online filtering habits.

What I find very interesting is the lack of transparency that the filtering has. According to the study "the state does not generally admit to censoring Internet content, and concomitantly there is no list of banned sites and no ability for citizens to request reconsideration of blocking, as some other states that filter provide." While topics are described as sensitive or prohibited, the legal code is non-specific. As broad as the code is there are laws which prohibit citizens from testing the boundaries. As such there is also a "ban on spreading state secrets to discourage" the practice.

In China the government legally has the ability to control what users can see and what they can share with other Internet users. It was very interesting just to browse the list of accessible and non-accessible URLs according to the study. Sites that deal with the democratization of China and even certain pages that link from Yale's Web site can not be accessed. It truly is amazing what people can and what they cannot see.

The Future of Ideas

2005-07-15T09:08:00.000-07:00

In his analysis The Future of Ideas, Stanford law professor Lessig made some very stark comments as to the direction the Internet is taking as we move into the future. To be honest, after reading just a small excerpt from the Future of Ideas, I found his insights very depressing.

The Internet inspired a revolution of innovation and new ideas exploded as the Internet progressed and that innovation was fostered by the Internet. Today, Lessig argues that a counterrevolution is taking place, replacing innovation with a general stifling of creative energy and control by powerful conglomerates. These conglomerates take advantage of the law and technology and Lessig argues are taming the Web as we know it.

Lessig offered the opinion that today the Internet is changing from an "open forum for ideas into nothing more than cable television on speed." This insight is an interesting analogy but I am not sure that I completely agree with it.

I am torn because on one side, I do see the rise of blogs, in this country mind you, to be a powerful force allowing people to speak their minds. But then I can also appreciate that the Web is becoming more regulated and the flow of information not be as free as it once was because of corporate interests. Obviously there are no easy answers, but just from reading a brief excerpt I am interested in hearing what else Lessig has to say.

Be Careful What You Blog

2005-07-14T08:37:00.000-07:00

According to an article in today's Washington Post concerning the rise of blogging and the potential impact that revealing personal information online will have in the future, a staggering 79 percent of teens believe that people their age are not careful enough when giving out information about themselves online.

I believe that this is a critical mistake that has the potential to stir up trouble in the future. For some reason people today have misgivings about using a credit card online to make purchases, but at the same time have no problem revealing the most intimate details of their lives to total strangers. People do not feel guarded when blogging for instance because there is a certain degree of anonymity behind the concept.

I would advise anyone who has any inkling in them whatsoever that one day they might want to run for public office to be as careful as they can when sharing personal information about themselves online. I agree that something as innocent as a Facebook profile where someone puts a drunk picture of them up and belongs to groups that focus around drinking, partying and drugs, might not be a big deal today because of the college culture, it could potentially open a very nasty can of worms for the candidate in the future.

When trying to decide how much information is too much, I would use stick to the conservative side. I would never post anything that would cast me in a negative light, because fifteen years down the road my Facebook profile from when I was only twenty-two could potentially cause a lot of damage to me as a candidate.

Influentials Revisited

2005-07-08T17:33:00.000-07:00

Thanks to who Damien and Outside Damage who responded to my post yesterday with very interesting points. To be perfectly honest they articulated much more eloquently than I did a point I wanted to make but neglected to succeed in doing.

The point they made which I did not was the fact that it really does not take much to be considered an influential. An influential can be a guy who sits on his couch all day and does not have to be a Congressional intern.

What I was attempting to say but did a poor job of is the fact that despite the virtual ease of becoming an influential most people do not rise to the challenge. As my responders said, anyone can be an influential. So why don't more people take the miniscule effort to become one?

I was not trying to suggest that an influential should only be a political insider. Instead I wish more "normal Joes" would take it upon themselves to get themselves somewhat connected.

Again, thanks guys for responding and helping me collect my thoughts. :)

Influentials

2005-07-07T13:29:00.000-07:00

According to a study by the Institute for Policy, Democracy, and the Internet, influentials "tell others what to buy, who to work for, and where to go to vacations." But what exactly makes a person an influential?

The answer is not as much as you may think. To be considered an influential you only need to participate in three out of eleven acts in a year, including a public town hall meeting, working for a political party, making a speech, serving on a committee or organization, attending a political protest or rally, writing a letter to the editor and a few other tasks.

To be honest, I think it is a little sad that you really have to do that little to be an influential and to help affect the choices that others make. I think that it just goes to show you again how little average people actually have to do with the democratic process. For GSPM students like myself, I fulfill most of these qualifications numerous times in a year. To me it is second nature to participate in the democratic process, whether it be by attending a political rally, working for my party or going to hear a candidate speak.

However, to many people it is not second nature to do any of these things. I feel that so-called influentials like myself, need to do a better job in getting people involved in these activities.

RSS: The TiVo of the Internet

2005-07-06T09:05:00.000-07:00

We have talked at length in class about the importance and convenience of RSS feeds and advertising agencies are starting to pick up on that as well. The New York Times features an article on the fact that marketers are beginning to see RSS feeds as a tool that they can take advantage of as well and I think political campaigns will also jump on the band wagon eventually as well.

Marketers are beginning to explore using RSS feeds to expand advertising opportunities, providing conversational and informative advertisements . Advertisers see RSS as the TiVo of the Internet, allowing information to directly come to the consumer who can then store the information for later use. Their plan is to link advertisements along with RSS feeds that a consumer will receive from the New York Times for example.

While few companies are already jumping on the RSS bandwagon because testing is still going on, Microsoft is confidently leading the pack. Not only will RSS will be offered in their next operating system, which means that most people who buy Microsoft products after 2006 will find RSS very easy to use, they have already started to use RSS advertising. Consumers who are interested in Microsoft products can opt in for Microsoft RSS feeds, which will basically be advertisements for Microsoft in a new form that does not read like a traditional advertisement. Through RSS the technology is hidden as is the marketers' advertising strategies.

I think that there is a lot of potential in RSS advertising. By hiding technology and allowing people to sign up for updates, I believe that advertising will inevitably change within the next five years as RSS becomes more prevalent. This will undoubtedly have an effect on traditional advertising venues as well.

I definitely do think that political campaigns will also be expanding their use of RSS as the technology evolves as well. Taking a cue from the private marketing industry, campaigners will most likely find a way to enhance their candidate's images and positions in the polls.

Bill Bolling

2005-07-05T10:33:00.000-07:00

Taking a look at the Bill Bolling for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia Web site I have a number of positive and negative observations concerning the Web site. Unfortunately for the campaign my criticisms do tend to outweigh the positives of the site however and I feel that key changes need to be made if the campaign wants to use the Web effectively.

On a positive note, I am happy with the overall layout of the site. What I like about it is the fact that it is extremely easy to navigate and the links on the homepage make sense. The main links laid out on the left side of the homepage include the most pertinent points of contact for the campaign, including: Welcome, About Bill Bolling, On the Issues, In the News, Legislative Links, Contact Information, Endorsements, Support Bill Bolling and On the Road.

These links are all critical components of the campaign and since there are only nine, the viewer does not feel overwhelmed by the amount of information which is present on the opening page. If a viewer, for example, wants to know more about Legislative Links, the link then breaks down into Legislative Biography, VA Online Legislation, and Session Highlights links. This makes sense, because the viewer does not need to be bombarded with those links when they initially view the homepage and only appear when the viewer decides they want to focus on the Legislative Links option.

In addition, I am happy to see that the home page has large volunteer and contribute graphics on the right side of the page. I think it is absolutely critical to make it as easy as possible for anyone going to a web page to volunteer or to make a contribution to the campaign. Having large graphics for these two options on the home page is advisable in my opinion, because if a voter comes to the page solely to volunteer they will not have to navigate their way to the volunteer page, and will only be one click away, making the task far easier.

While I am happy to see the volunteer and contribution graphics on the home page, these links also happen to be the biggest source of contention and annoyance that I have with the Bolling campaign. Since May 31, 2005 I have on five occasions clicked on that link, giving two different email addresses with the hope of getting email updates about the campaign and to sign up as a volunteer. As of today, July 5, I have still not heard from the campaign.

Having to register numerous amount of times and not hearing back from a campaign is unacceptable. What good is having a link present if the campaign does not follow up? The campaign’s lack of follow-up is sure to turn away a number of voters who had every intention of donating their own personal time to help the campaign and it is certainly not a good campaign move.

The contribution link is source of annoyance for me, because it is not a secure page and is not on an https page. Once again, by failing to use the web properly I believe the campaign will turn away important voters. In today’s world, people are already very skeptical about making online purchases on secure sites and I believe it is a mistake for a campaign to ask the voters to contribute on a site that is not secure. Bolling’s campaign should value the voter’s time and their own security more when asking for their donations.

In addition, the campaign has included an “On the Road” link on the main page, but the link has not been updated since a week before the primary on June 14. When a voter clicks on the link, they are directed to a notice that “There are no upcoming events currently stored online. Please contact our office if you have any questions concering upcoming events not listed here. Thank you!” Not only do I think that it is not advisable for a campaign to make it look like a candidate has nothing going on, it is also a mistake to spell the word “concerning” incorrectly on the page. I think this makes the Web site look sloppy and uncared for and not updated often enough.

In addition, the “In the News” section is not as up to date as it could be. Since June 4, only four articles have been posted in this section. When I did a quick Lexis Nexus search for Bolling, I found over two hundred and fifty articles. Granted some of these might be repeat stories or might not feature Bolling in the most positive light, but I am sure that a few of the articles would be a positive addition to the section and would make Bolling’s campaign look more newsworthy. In addition, I think it would be advisable for Bolling to include links to any radio, print or television advertisements the campaign has generated as well as their response to any negative advertisements that have come their way for the voters to take a look at if they desire.

Along the same line, the opening home page text has not been updated since Bolling won the nomination in June. Instead it still reads that Bolling and Kilgore went on a statewide tour on June 15 and 16. It is now July and I believe the home page should include an updated note from the campaign. This is no longer news and should be archived in the “On the Road” section.

For the site as a whole, I do not think enough photographs are included. This is especially true for the “About Bill Bolling” link. His biography section is text only and does not include a picture to show the voter who Bill Bolling is. I think that it would be advisable to put a picture of Bolling looking official as State Senator on this page and to also include a picture of Bolling with his family. In addition, I do not think his family connection is highlighted enough. Instead, it seems as if his family is an afterthought only worthy of two sentences at the very end of the biography. It does mention his wife and two sons and what church they are affiliated with, but it does not make the voter feel connected to the Bill Bolling as a family man.

In addition, while pictures are included in the “Bill Bolling” link, they are very grainy and do not have captions describing who is in the black and white photos. The photos do not appear to be the web quality and leave the voter guessing who is in the photo. Once again, this link does not feature his family enough. The fact he is a father of two sons is not even mentioned. While the link does mention the fact that Bolling was the first in his family to attend college and that is where he met his wife, he does not come across as a real person and instead re-states his legislative accomplishments, making him come across as not believable.

What is clear to me is the fact that the Bolling campaign did not put a large portion of funding into the Web site and possibly does not see the Web as being an important aspect of the campaign. I believe though that the page that is up has a number of key flaws that should be immediately fixed and I think if they remain untouched the Bolling campaign might lose some support.

Happy 4th of July!!!

2005-07-04T14:24:00.000-07:00

Third Party Blogging

2005-07-03T17:33:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading the special edition of the Congress Online newsletter, How Congress Uses Blogs and was interested by the five different ways representatives are using blogs and I think that they make a lot of sense. It is important to note though that this article did maintain that Congressional offices are hesitant in starting to use blogging in a widespread manner.

As I have written about before, one of the reasons why Congressional offices are not exactly jumping through hoops to blog because they are afraid of the consequences blogging will have on spin control. They are afraid to put too much information out there that can be troublesome in the future.

The fourth type of blog the article mentioned was Third Party Blogging. This is a technique that such figures as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer have used and have posted blogs on established outside blogs such as Daily Kos. Now I think it is a good idea to use such influential blogs because of the large audience they reach, but I have to wonder if Congress members are so afraid of spin control and getting too much information out there, why they would really want to do this. Daily Kos allows readers to respond to blogs that are posted and as such a Congress person will have to deal with people who do not necessarily agree with them and who might post negative comments about them.

With all the concern over spin and the way that some elected officials are so paranoid about how people perceive them I am surprised they would want to open that can of worms. Yes, it does mean they do not need to sit in front of the computer and create blog entries day after day, but to me it does not really add up.

I wish that more elected officials would drop their cautious outlook and work overtime to speak to the people and create an open forum for discussion and I would like to see more people like Tom Tancredo step up to the plate and post their own blogs for their own constituents.

A Slight Modification

2005-07-02T11:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday in my blog I basically said that I wasn't so sure if blogging would be a good or bad idea for a Congressional representative to utilize on their Web sites. While I am still not sure of the answer I must make a slight modification to what I said.

When I considered what size of a population would take advantage of a Congressional blog, I downplayed the scope. Today I decided to take a look at the blog that Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) keeps, and was surprised (and impressed) to see the number of comments that his blog entries receive. While I was thinking that maybe a hundred people might respond, I was surprised to see that some entries had over 800 comments.

Yes, I still stand by my opinion that not everyone will read the blog and the comments might be slightly skewed to represent a small component of the constituency, but maybe blogs make sense. It might eventually become a great way to open up a forum and get the constituency talking, but for the Congressman or women's electoral sake, they should hope that what the constituents say is in their favor.

It is all about Control....

2005-07-01T11:04:00.000-07:00

I believe that Molly Chapman Norton's article, "Why Congress Doesn't Blog...And a Few Members Who Do" makes complete sense concerning the apparent lack of interest of current Congressmen and women have towards creating a blog on their Web sites.

In today's world of spin, Congressional offices like to be completely in control of their message and what communications the office circulates to the media and its constituents. I completely agree with the notion that a blog is not seen as a critical component of a Congressional Web site not only because offices do not want their views and positions misunderstood, but also because the Web sites are so behind the times to begin with. Blogging would mean that the office would need to severe a bit of its control and add to their workload further and I am not so sure many Congressional offices would be too conducive to that idea.

Do I think that blogging should be utilized on an officials Web site? To be honest I do not know the right answer. I can see the pros and cons to the question on equal footing. Yes, blogging would be a good way to key into constituents' minds, but a true blog would not filter what anyone would comment on. This means the elected official could be setting themselves up to look badly. Having the ability to see what the voters believe could potentially help an official navigate the political spectrum in the best way for their constituency and it would provide the voters with an easy to use communication forum. On the other hand, the constituency as a whole would not respond or even read the blog, only a few people who are truly interested in the politics would and they would therefore present a skewed vision of the constituency. If someone is not going to pick a newspaper to read an article about some Congressional appeal, they are certainly not going to blog about it.

It is my position that campaigns have a lot to learn from corporate uses of the Internet and officials already elected and in office have a whole lot more to learn than even the campaigners. Blogging is a buzz word that we are all very cognizant of now, but these offices have a lot to catch up on. Congressional offices will eventually find a happy medium where they get the best out of blogging while minimizing their losses, but I think this will definitely take some time to evolve and come to light.

If a Democrat Wants to Win the White House it is Time They Make a Smart Investment...

2005-06-26T12:35:00.000-07:00

The first paragraph of Technology, the Internet and Progressives puts a great deal of insight into one of the reasons why a Democrat is not in the White House today. Democrats have a tendency to refuse to put an adequate amount of campaign money into their Web components and do not accept technology as willingly as the Republicans. "Conservatives know that modern technology is the most efficient and effective way of 'getting to people' and 'getting their message out.'"

To me it seems ridiculous in the year 2005, some Democrats are still unwilling to put enough campaign resources into their Internet strategies. The Internet is a critical component to any campaign and a poorly designed site might make the difference between a winning and losing campaign.

The way I see it why wouldn't a candidate want to create best Web site they possibly could? I see a site not only as the perfect location to store a clearinghouse of positive news reports about a candidate but also help the candidate to make a personal connection with the voter. They can tell their life story, show pictures taken throughout their lifetime, highlight their accomplishments and explain their policy stances. As Emi showed in class Tuesday, candidates can take quizzes to see how their views correspond the candidate's. That is a great tool. Web sites also serve as a direct avenue to garner campaign support - both economically through donations but also through volunteer sign ups.

If I was to lead a campaign today, once I developed a message and a strategy I would start from the web up. All of my traditional campaign collateral like banners, bumper stickers and yard signs would point voters in my candidate's site direction where they would have an amazing tool at their disposal.

I am all about online newsletters, banner ads and volunteer connection emails. I think that the Web is the best place to get both like minded and undecided minds together to support a candidate or a product. It all seems so simple and a non-issue to me, but perhaps that is because I am of the Web nativist generation. When I want to know something about a person or a thing the first place I go to is the Internet.

If a candidate does not see the Web as being important in an election today or worthy of a large amount of funding I would say that they are making a critical mistake. I believe if you ignore the Web in politics today, you will most certainly get ignored at the polls.

Rocked the Vote....

2005-06-25T12:20:00.000-07:00

As I said in my previous post, 2004 was supposed to be the year of the activist and as I said Kerry lost the election, the activists didn't. I see this to be the case because activist groups did manage to make a difference in this country's political landscape.

According to Manjoo, in 2004 activists groups helped Kerry to pull much bigger numbers in certain areas as opposed to what Gore pulled in 2000. In fact in Ohio alone Kerry won over 554,000 more votes than Gore did. In my book that is pretty impressive. With a volunteer staff of over 120,000 ACT showed that people are not too lazy to work to get out the vote.

I do not see the third party movement as a failure because these groups managed to make themselves relevant in the modern day political world. Becoming more mainstream, these groups helped to attract attention to the election and the poltical process. I do believe that these groups should savor these small victories and work to build on them.

By building on these small victories, I believe activist groups should communicate together and relaize they are working towards a common goal. Just because Bush has four more years in the White House does not mean that these activist groups and all their volunteers worked for nothing. They worked on the basis of principle, got their point across and I believe they got more people to the polls. Although Kerry did not win I believe these groups made a major contribution to the political world. Now they just need to work together with the Democratic Party and proper communication could mean a world of difference and a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

ACT Didn't Fail... Kerry Did.

2005-06-24T12:06:00.000-07:00

According to Farhad Manjoo 2004 was supposed to be the year of the activist. Activist groups like ACT and other third-party movements were supposed to team together with the Kerry campaign and defeat Bush, only the Kerry campaign did not live up to their end of the bargain. Kerry lost, but ACT and other activist groups managed people to get involved in the democratic process.

ACT successfully managed to engage otherwise non-political people to get involved in the election and successfully turned out many first time voters. Sure some of these non-voters turned voters came out to support Kerry but the fact of the matter was Bush simply had more votes. He won fair and square and that was not the fault of ACT or any other activist group - it was the fault of the Kerry campaign.

Bush inspired volunteers, Kerry asked for money. While ACT tried to tip the political balance in favor of Kerry, there was simply not enough support behind him. I believe that the Kerry campaign was not coordinated enough with these activist groups. The Kerry campaign had a very hard time connecting with the voters because I believe they were asking people the wrong questions.

While ACT and MoveOn.org attempted to get people involved, the people did not vote for Kerry. Bush had more support and made more of a connection with the critical voters in swing states like Ohio. Instead of working together, activist groups and the Kerry campaign were not synchronized. Instead, they acted as separate components and thought each other was handling something like voter registration when neither was.

Narrowcasting

2005-06-23T11:46:00.000-07:00

Narrowcasting is the political marketing of the future. In future political campaigns, marketers will craft specific, important messages to highly targeted groups of individuals. Through narrowcasting, these influential messages will be targeted to the specific groups based on demographic, polling and self-selection according to an article found on campaignaudit.com.

By using such information as credit card history, marketers are able to, for instance, use voting records to link with credit information to find out what kind of homes people live in and what kinds of cars they drive. Computer models then chart a county and make predictions about what messages will be effective in what areas. A specific and tailored message is then created that get out the vote volunteers will deliver in video form to the constituents.

America Coming Together (ACT) used this technique quite crudely in the 2004 elections and I believe in the future narrowcasting will come to play a great deal more. As targeting techniques get more sophisticated important groups of the citizenry will be targeted by narrowcasting and will be sent a very specific message.

I believe that in swing states that are so important narrowcasting will play an important role. In these states every vote counts to the fullest and having the ability to create a message uniquely designed for each segment of the population could mean a great deal. By using narrowcasting the candidate's have the opportunity to see what more people are likely to believe and they can in turn use this to their advantage. This multilevel marketing strategy is interesting marketing development and I look forward to seeing its uses evolve and become more sophisticated.

Still Waiting...

2005-06-21T09:32:00.000-07:00

Just to update you all, it is now June 21 and I still have not heard from the Bolling camp despite the fact that I signed up to volunteer and to receive email updates on May 31, June 6, AND June 19 (yes I tried once again). I still think that is absolutely ridiculous and have to wonder what the campaign is thinking.

I also thought I would share with you all a few more things that bother me about Bolling's Web site. First off on the home page the site brags that Bolling along with Jerry Kilgore and Bob McDonnell just completed a "successful statewide tour... (and) visited every major region of the Commonwealth." Wow, that sounds like quite a busy trip, however when you click on the On the Road Link, no upcoming events are scheduled. What if I am interested voter, who missed their rushed statewide tour and hoped to catch them soon? Since there are no events listed as upcoming does that mean they are done making appearance?

Also, I think it is a huge mistake to say the candidates visited every "major region of the Commonwealth." Shouldn't all regions be major to these candidates? If I lived in a town that was not close to any of the campaign stops I might get the impression that the candidates did not feel that my area was important or "major" enough to visit. I might then infer the candidates are not major enough for me to vote for them.

I also have to laugh when I see the NEW! graphics on the homepage next to the Endorsements and Support Bill Bolling links. Now if I did not know anything about the campaign I might think that he just got these nominations and is just getting support. Yes, it is a picky issue that I bring up but voters are picky.

Lastly, I will just complain again about the volunteer section. We already know that the campaign has not gotten back to me, even though I signed up THREE times, but even if you just want campaign materials, which I point out is its own link, you are forced to re-direct yourself to the Volunteer page. If I can't get the to send me any volunteer information can I really rely on them to get me a bumper sticker I can put on my car or a sign to put in front of my house???!!!!

RSS Feeds A Solution to Spam Blockers

2005-06-20T11:09:00.000-07:00

Over and over again in my daily bloggings I talk about the Internet's evolution and its growing importance in the political campaigning world. I talk about how people come up with new ideas that I believe will change the political landscape and campaigning in the future. Today mostly all political candidates fundraise online, virtually everyone has a Web site and I think soon mostly everyone will be using RSS feeds to get this information out.

According to Amy Gahran one huge limit to the importance of campaigning email newsletters is the fact that spam blockers prevent many voters from ever receiving the information. In fact, Gahran points out that two years ago a study by Steve Outing estimated that over 38% of opt-in email gets blocked by spam detectors. She also points out that this figure has definitely grown in the past two years.

The solution to the spam issue is sending out the information through an RSS feed. In my mind it is a great idea. The RSS feed will mean I will get the information I sign up for instantly and better yet my inbox will not be clogged. It is a much more perfect way to get the information out there.

The use of the Internet in campaigning is no where near meeting its potential and I think it is up to creative thinkers to find new ways to use the Internet. These new ways will provide excellent alternatives to traditional campaigning methods. People will begin to get the most amount of information they want in the easiest ways possible. In my mind it is a winning combination.

The Three Commandments of Online Campaigning

2005-06-19T15:48:00.000-07:00

Every political operartive who works on an online campaign should take the time to learn three simples rules. These three rules were written by Jacon Nielsen and while it should not take a rocket scientist to understand and follow these rules, they are often overlooked by professionals operating an online campaign.

Without further adieu here they are:

1. Energize the party faithful. Get them excited about the candidate and give
them talking points to influence their friends and family.
2. Collect donations.
3. Answer undecided voters' questions, and hopefully convince
them to support the candidate.

While these rules seem painfully clear to us as we read them, it is almost unbelievable that some political operatives are not following them. We are not just talking about someone running for mayor of a small town in the Mid-West here, we are talking at the presidential level.

John Kerry a Senator running for President of the United States made critical web mistakes that are simply unforgivable. Instead of energizing the faithful, Kerry simply asked hardworking Americans for money and once sent two emails in one day soliciting funding. That is simply unacceptable.

I think that political campaigners should read these rules, understand them and their connotations, commit them to memory, say them three times before they go to bed at night and if that fails print them up, frame them and post them in their offices for everyone to see.

No stamp required

2005-06-18T15:10:00.000-07:00

After reading a study by Jacob Nielsen on the uses of email newsletters in the Kerry and Bush campaigns and how underestimated they are as a political tool, I began to question the role of email newsletters in a campaign. To be honest I did not really think much about their importance before, but after taking a few minutes to consider the situation my mind is made up. Email newsletters just make sense.

First off, I will re-state the importance of making an emotional connection with the voter. Email newsletters give the candidate the unique opportunity to speak directly to the voter, connect with the voter, and offer their views, policy points and even life stories.

In a saturated market where a political candidate can not possibly respond to every aspect of a campaign at all times, the newsletter provides an outlet to get the word out in non-traditional ways.

For these reasons and many others, it makes me wonder why campaigns are not putting money into email newsletters. A campaign will spend countless amounts of money sending direct mail to voters, but they do not invest enough resources into an online version of a similar product.

I believe that online newsletters should be targeted like direct mail. One of the best aspects of direct mail is the fact that very specific demographics of the country can be targeted and specific messages are crafted to suit that particular demographic. The same can be true for online newsletters.

The people who sign up for the newsletters most likely are interested in the race and support the candidate. It might be annoying for the voter, but why not ask these voters for demographic information when they register for the newsletter? I am not talking life story but certain key questions. This way the campaign can craft an email newsletter and target it to the demographics.

Email newsletters have one huge advantage over direct mail. A carbon copy can be forwarded to countless voters. If the emails are targeted, supporters can then forward it to people they know who have a stake in the issues. The people they forward it to, might already be supporters but some might be undecided voters. By targeting online newsletters a campaign has the potential to win undecided voters.

I believe email newsletters will one day become critical components to a winning campaign. Targeting is just the start of a new way of reaching voters.

And let's be honest, email is a whole lot less expensive than sending a piece of direct mail through the US Postal Service. No stamp is required.

Still Waiting...

2005-06-17T08:48:00.000-07:00

Way back on May 31, I signed up not only to receive email updates but also volunteer on Bill Bolling's campaign Web site and I have not heard from the campaign since. In fact, I even re-submitted both requests on June 6 with a different email address. Even though I took the extra step to register again neither email address has received any word from the Bolling camp.

This makes me wonder why have a volunteer or email request link if you are not going to follow through and contact the people who want to support you? I think it is ridiculous. While I am not registered to vote in Virginia and would not vote for Bolling even if I was, there is no way for the campaign to know that.

For all they know I am a billionaire supporter willing to invest big money in the campaign. They could be making the biggest mistake of the campaign by not taking the time to contact me. The fact of the matter is they will never know, because at this point if I was a billionaire supporter I would be so disgusted with the campaign I would not give them my money.

I think that whoever I working on Bolling's site should get up, take action and respond to anyone who requests email updates or requests volunteer information. By not responding they are sending an awful message out to the public and I am sure they will lose a few votes as a result. Shame on you Bill Bolling!