How the Obama 2012 campaign harnessed tech to win votes

Last night, at the Royal Automobile Club on London’s Pall Mall, Zeitgeist was fortunate enough to hear Harper Reed, the Chief Technology Officer of the Obama 2012 US presidential campaign speak candidly about how he helped get out the vote and keep the Democrats in the White House. Harper is ex-Threadless, the famous T-shirt company that lets users contribute their own designs, with the most popular becoming actual products sold the world over. It’s a democratic philosophy, one that understandably caught the attention of the campaign committee. It is also the kind of thinking that cities like New York and Chicago are starting to employ; actively gathering, analysing and distributing data to inform policy implications and help citizens. What follows is a brief summary of his thoughts and points that Zeitgeist found interesting.

Harper began the talk with the fundamentals, discussing how, when he arrived, the campaign seemingly already had much of the data gathering resources needed to achieve what he wanted. The trouble was it as all siloed. Putting all the data together was a major step in the right direction, toward cohesive data analysis. He elaborated, saying they went from having fifteen different numbers for doors that needed to be knocked on, to one. On hiring the right people for the task at hand, Harper was explicit in noting that they had hired tech people and taught them about politics, rather than the other way around. He riffed on the state of journalism, saying it was similarly important when hiring journalists that know about tech.

One of the more interesting insights Harper talked about involved the target demographics. Those most likely to vote are male or female 18-28, and women perhaps in her 50s. The younger group is adept and comfortable with all digital platforms, but still uses paper a fair amount. Paper, by contrast, is an essential medium for that middle-aged female voter. So the insight was about making paper use more efficient, given these groups’ use of it. Understandably this was a hard decision for a group of very tech-minded people to arrive at, but the acknowledgement showed they were willing to park their own pre-conceptions on how things ought to be done.

Like many startups, they were constantly trying to fail in order to create redundancies. This involved hosting hackathons where code was obsessively broken and then reconstructed, “ensuring things would break in ways we understood”, as Harper put it. They had the same approach with the content they published, aggressively testing every piece to make sure it was relevant and engaging for the intended audiences. What they failed to foresee was the Internet activist group Anonymous launching a DDOS attack the day before the election to coincide with Guy Fawkes day, which helped trigger a meltdown over at Amazon’s cloud servers, AWS. Harper made it sound like not too much trouble to switch the servers from the East Coast where they had been affected, to the West Coast, but the experience must have been a stressful one.

Lastly, he offered an opinion increasingly shared by many in the industry, which was a reluctance to talk of mobile device use as “second-screening”. Mobile devices, Harper pointed out quite rightly and obviously, are the first thing you look at when you wake up, the last thing you look at when you go to bed, and the thing you’re actually looking at when you’re supposed to be watching TV. Mobile first should always be the initial mindset.

In questions, Ruth Porter asked whether there were any pearls of wisdom that could be applied to those in UK politics and how they go about with their own strategy of getting out the vote. Harper conceded he had met that day with a party “whose name starts with ‘L'”, and believed that what was key was investment, commitment and belief from the very top in what social and data could do for the campaign. Without that, such efforts would amount to nothing. The lessons of the Obama 2012 campaign – and the pitfalls of Romney’s campaign – offer valuable lessons for political parties, but it seems any efforts at cherrypicking ideas or going in half-hearted would doom any prospect of leveraging what the Obama team were able to do.

Any success in Harper’s tech strategy must be qualified against the sheer unpopularity of Obama’s rival candidate

Can great creative work save the finance sector?

“Marketing has always combined facts and judgement: after all, there’s no analytic approach than can single-handedly tell you when you have a great piece of creative work.”

– McKinsey & Co., Measuring Marketing’s Worth

Capitalism has come in for a bit of a knocking of late. Recently, the Futures Company found that 86% thought “big business” maximised profits at the expense of customers and communities (not helped by another recent poll stating 51% of top financial services executives think businesses should just be about making money). The antipathy is not a recent phenomenon and hardly one confined to the fringe. John Maynard Keynes, whose ideas framed modern macroeconomics, said capitalism is “not virtuous [and] doesn’t deliver the goods”. And while there was a short period when such sentiment was only to be found in places like Pyongyang, these feelings are now more pervasive, particularly against the driving force of capitalism, the finance sector. Can marketing help shift perceptions?

From the outside looking in, it would be difficult to say that some of the wounds are not self-inflicted. Multiple fiascos have led to much head-shaking and hand-wringing within the industry. The furore has ceased to abate as politicians score cheap points for fingering the blame on bankers, and lionised institutions like Goldman Sachs suffer massive public relations disasters (including a part ownership stake in a prostitution ring). The manipulation of the LIBOR scheme and subsequent reforms reveal no quick end in sight to a period of immense negative exposure that began with the global recession four years ago.

So the image of finance is indisputably tarnished right now. Marketers are trying to change this, in different ways. Many Western financial institutions have been around for a while; the symbolism of such longevity can serve as a valuable asset for brands. Coincidentally, this year sees Citigroup – while dealing with its turbulent present – celebrate its 200^th anniversary. They’ve had a broad above-the-line campaign celebrating their place in history, putting their relative achievements – helping fund the building of the Panama Canal – alongside other important moments in time. Citi also have their eye on the future too, making a concerted push in areas of sustainability, recently managing to become the first bank to achieve LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for 200 projects from the U.S. Green Building Council. The question is whether leveraging history and sustainability – both of which arguably convey a sense of trusted consistency, rather than reckless risk-taking – with advertising can help address a serious deficit in consumer affinity for the finance sector. Does it even matter? If we assume banker-bashing is an irrational emotion, and the whole sector is tarnished with the same brush, how much sway does it have over the rational part of our brain that must decide where and how to invest our money?

Several banking brands rely on the prestige of their historical affiliations, and have found themselves no safer from customer ire. It can be hard to seek engaging differentiation in a commoditised industry where the power of switching costs can a play a strong role. A PwC report from July summarises, “Many consumers remain loyal due simply to the absence of a negative because it is often easier to put up with something that is less than perfect than go to the trouble, and potential expense, of switching”. So what else can be done to wake potential customers from this inertia?

It’s interesting to see Morgan Stanley take a decidedly more personal tack, with a new campaign, “What If?”. Shifting focus away from the company as a faceless monolith, the WSJ said the aim is to make the company seem “like your neighborly [sic] stock picker”. The creative itself is beautiful, showcasing professional types with aspects of business and social responsibility framing their translucent faces. It attempts to convey a personalised and considerate attitude that includes but also goes beyond profit-making. It broadly taps into themes in a new book. “Positive Linking”, by Paul Ormerod, sets out to dismiss the outdated notion that people are driven by personal, “rational utility maximisation” and instead claims they are more interested in aiding the network to which they belong, realising this will help them too. This in essence is a slightly less selfish form of capitalism.

“I owe the public nothing”, J.P. Morgan was once quoted as saying. Have times changed much since? The problems with the world of finance are too numerous for this article. The crisis of confidence has begun to have an effect on recruiting, as MBA graduates turn their learned eyes to more reputable sectors. Although it may not seem like it now, customer perceptions of brands within this sector are malleable. Any one that can position itself as an outlier in what is currently seen as a pernicious industry will have much to gain. The tail cannot wag the dog though. If these businesses are to change, they must back up their ambitions with operational changes that reduce risk and ensure profits sit alongside dedication to the broader lifestyle their advertising evinces.

Creating Buzz without Causing Offence

When some campaigns go awry, it’s often due to external sensitivities that, in the passion of the creative moment, sometimes go unacknowledged. We might question how an agency could have overlooked such a thing, but as we know it is all too easy for groupthink to set in. In October 2009, Zeitgeist wrote about one such gaffe, when DDB made a very hard-hitting and extremely controversial ad for WWF, using 9/11 imagery. It’s important to point out that the real story there was more to do with the painful process of admission that DDB went through rather than the ad itself.

In February, the South African film Night Drive arrived in cinemas. An agency by the name of 1984 was responsible for the advertising in its domestic market. To drum up interest, 1984 decided to take a viral approach and distribute fliers in Johannesburg, offering “the best prices for all your body parts and organs”. Naturally this raised concern, as the fliers themselves looked genuine in an amateur way, with the police treating it as a serious matter. Indeed, earlier that month, elsewhere on the continent in Liberia, The Economist reported on crimes where “body parts such as the heart, blood, tongue, lips, genitals and fingertips, all used in sorcery to bring wealth and power, are removed”. Worse still, members of government were being implicated as they looked for anything to give them an advantage ahead of elections. The agency’s parent company swiftly apologised.

It’s a terribly unfortunate tale that sometimes can happen. Agencies are susceptible to this more often than you might think, and the reasons for this are twofold. Think about what agencies are trying to do in the creation and execution of a campaign. Firstly, they are aiming for verisimilitude, especially if the product being sold (in this case a film), is fictional. Secondly, they are trying to get someone’s attention in a marketplace that is incredibly cluttered; increasingly the message needs to be unique to stand out above the fray, even more so with a stacked, year-round movie calendar.

Indeed, film marketing is therefore one of the places you are more likely to come across viral efforts. Triumphs include The Dark Knight, which won an award at Cannes Lions in 2009, and the campaign for the excellent film Inception, $100m of which was spent on viral efforts. One of the best features of this campaign was the treasure hunt they organised around the UK, releasing clues on Facebook that could lead fans to tickets to the premiere. Zeitgeist covered this in its review of summer film marketing activity last year. By contrast, the viral campaign for this year’s Limitless, however, was not seen as successful. The campaign involved two prongs. Zeitgeist remembers images such as the one above gracing the London Underground trains, with actor Bradley Cooper selling his super-drug, with one side-effect being “death”. It was confusing, but the copy was such that if the reader was paying any attention, they would soon realise it was fake, and that the website was Paramount Studios-affiliated. The film’s other main effort, a video of a man controlling the screens of Times Square with his iPhone, met with initial excitement, then puzzlement when it emerged it was to do with the film in question.

What do we learn then? Well, we learn that there is a very fine line between obscurity and popularity, between prominence and offence. We learn that there is no golden rule, no pieces of a jigsaw to assemble that makes the consumer look up and listen. And always, always read The Economist.

A Seeding Campaign with a Difference

As most products are developed to create or fulfil a consumer need there is rarely a great deal of confusion as to how they should be used.

That is not so say that inventive consumers can’t find extra uses for everyday products.

In some cases these innovators benefit the product and change how it is marketed. Way back in 1924, Kimberley Clark targetted the humble Kleenex to women as a means of removing make-up. It took six years, a persistant researcher and some trial adverts to convince them it ought to be sold as a hygienic replacement for the handkerchief.

In other instances a much less welcome use is discovered such as when ravers found that the innocent Vicks Vaporub could enhance their narcotic experiences.

You butter not eat this

Recently it has been an item given away as part of an on-pack promotion that has caused some confusion and generated some unexpected column inches.

Danish butter brand Lurpak have spent the year inspiring consumers and reminding them of the benefits of paying a little bit more for their butter.

More recently they’ve been giving away  seeds for consumers to grow their own herbs. A website supports the promotion with lots of tasty recipes for each herb, including some by Jamie Oliver.

However, some residents of a Dorset care home mistook the slabs of soil for biscuits and nearly choked as they scoffed them down.

Upon hearing the news, Zeitgeist rushed out and boosted Lurpak‘s sales by one.

‘Here are your free basil seeds’

Without the sleeve, things are less obvious

A warning not to eat what is inside the sleeve

The on-pack promotion serves to give the shopper a distinctive reason to choose that product over any competitors, but as we know, the shopper isn’t always the consumer.

While the person who bought the butter for the care home would most likely have known what was stuck to the side of the tub, once the sleeve is removed there is no explanation as to what it is.

While this incident seems to be isolated and lighthearted it highlights the need to consider how a product is used once it leaves the store.

With reports suggesting that there are 12 million illiterate adults in the UK and around 10% of the population aged 7 or under perhaps a written explanation on a sleeve isn’t always enough.

As our photographs show, the slab could be mistaken for a cookie by someone unaware the wider campaign.

Perhaps in these difficult financial times an opportunity exists for an entrepreneur to set up a panel consisting of the young, the old and the illiterate to test promotions to make sure such confusion is avoided in future.

The Art of Behavioural Economics

Much proverbial ink has been spilled on the coinciding of two events on September 16th, 2008. This was the day that, as Lehman Brothers collapsed, artist Damien Hirst made off with a cool £111m, “the largest single artist sale ever held” for his show Beautiful in my Mind Forever, according to the Wall Street Journal.

On Monday evening this week, the auction house Sotheby’s held an Impressionist and Modern Art sale, after a large article in the FT that weekend, detailing how the pieces to go on sale, which included a self-portrait by Edouard Manet (above), were expected to fetch record prices. This following recent all-time record sales, first of a Giacometti sculpture for £65m in February, which was then eclipsed three months later by a Picasso that sold for £72m.

The sale, which ended in the Manet being sold for £22.4m – a record for the artist – was not deemed a success. This morning on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme, Sotheby’s representatives were quick to reference “unsophisticated buyers” from the Middle East, Far East and Russia; there was also vague talk of buyers looking for something that looked “like a painting for the 21st century”.

Looking at the sale holisitcally, which we can do purely in financial terms, it was an unqualified success. The result was seen as disappointing only because expectations had been raised considerably, based on – what? There was nothing to suggest that this sale would break major records, only the knowledge that certain pieces of art had recently been sold at high prices.

The problem then, a term used in behavioural economics, is one of anchoring. Behavioural economists disagree with classical economists’ view that people act on a rational basis. The anchoring rubric is a question of framing. In this case, because expectations had been raised artificially by recent news of record auctions, the sale at Sotheby’s was viewed as a disappointment, when in fact, in purely financial terms (i.e. “did the objects on auction meet and surpass their reserve?”), it was a success. In much the same way, the Hirst / Lehman Brothers coincidence is used to illustrate the robustness of the art market, irrespective of global financial turmoil. This framing fallacy concept is of course by no means exclusive to the high-end art world. In fact it can be found everywhere in the natural world as a way of helping judge the relative value or worth of an object, by positioning it relative to its peers. It is done in the supermarket every day to help consumers make a choice between peer products. The different prices and attributes anchor the shopper, giving them a relative understanding of the value of each product. Without this, a shopper would have no idea how much a product or feature was “worth”, or how the product sat on a hierachy with it’s competitors.

We Have (Green) Ignition

Shell and Renault might not leap to mind as producers of the most ‘green’ products in the market right now. Hence why both companies are trying to alter this perception by touting their so-called ‘green credentials’. In the past week, one brand has come off better than the other in managing these expectations.

Though unquestionably adept when it comes to social media – having in the past month launched their products on the latest incarnation of the Sims game, as well as the ubiquitous Facebook integration – Renault has fallen foul of the ASA twice over a period of five weeks. At the end of March, seventeen people complained that the company’s strapline for their new electric car, that it was a ‘zero-emissions vehicle’, was a fallacy, as it “did not take the full life cycle of the vehicle into account… the ASA adjudicated that if the car was charged using energy sourced from the UK’s national grid, CO2 emissions would be produced as a result.” The article also mentions a new set of codes by Defra meant to combat ‘greenwashing’ tactics. Yesterday, Brand Republic reported the ASA had banned a second Renault advert, when one person complained “it was using French rather than UK figures to make the claim that one of its electric cars reduces CO2 emissions by least 90%.” The ASA concluded the ad was “misleading”.

Where Renault has stumbled, Shell has not, with those wonderful JWT minds producing a simple but visually engaging advertisement that immediately speaks to the relative cleanliness and quality of its fuel.

One luxury brand not usually associated with such serious things like sustainability is Aston Martin. But then neither was BMW before it recently unveiled its prototype electric car (see headline picture). Campaign magazine reported yesterday that the manufacturer “is looking for an agency to handle the launch advertising for its Cygnet city car”. The project is being managed in conjunction with Toyota, based on that company’s iQ car. “a large proportion of Aston Martin drivers also own a smaller car, such as a Mini or smart car, which they use for their inner-city commutes or to do the shopping. Reports suggest that the Cygnet will cost around £30,000 and feature a low-emission economical engine.” It’s an interesting decision. Although one might initially blanche at the idea of Aston Martin producing a more economical car, as the above quotation illustrates, it is in fact very on-brand. In this case, why sell to half of the consumer’s automobile product purchase, when you can sell to it all? The model will, initially, only be available to those that already own an Aston Martin.

Zeitgeist is most pleased to see efforts being taken by the those industries with an environmentally questionable past to prepare for a cleaner future. Moreover, who’d have thunk it, but electric cars can be cool and fast (although UK hybrid and electric sales are unfortunately slipping). It’s clear from Renault’s example though that people won’t tolerate a greenwash. Perhaps the open-source project “c,mm,n“, will help.

Serving up a slice of Brand Advocacy

From the July Zeitgeist…

In the quest to save money during these stringent times, an industry can be inclined to cut corners; to produce something subpar.

As this video so effectively reminds us, there are few things more influential to a potential customer than having someone they know recommend a product or service to them, even when, as in the case of the video, it’s something as innocuous as “Blank”.

This power of advocacy is of course nothing new. The notion of trying to do this online is also not an especially revolutionary one. However, as Digital Buzz points out, brands could and should be committing more to this idea, where one person’s purchasing decision can have huge ramifications as they blog, tweet or mention it on Facebook. Really focussing on digital activation is an absolute must, right now. However, it’s important to be mindful of Habitat’s recent foray into Twitter‐ville, piggybacking on current machinations in Iran. For just as the positive ramifications have huge potential, it also makes it that much easier for dissenting voices to be heard. Bad news has always travelled quickly, but the speed at which rumours and hearsay can now affect a brand’s reputation has increased exponentially.

As Campaign details, though Domino’s dealt with their recent crisis quickly and effectively, the damage to the brand was considerable given the almost 1m YouTube views of the incriminating video in 24 hours. The spreading of misinformation can still be consequential even when it is unintentional. The recent rumours of Jamie Foxx playing Sinatra in an upcoming movie make this all too clear, if amusing. It’s vital then that an agency should always be ready to respond quickly and proactively to damaging news.

Do you know how you would respond, if your brand was subject to a Domino’s‐style attack?