For some time now, I have been bemoaning the complacency of the GOP when it comes to its online efforts. Rob Bluey and David All have joined me recently with posts on the same topic. Patrick Ruffini jumped into the debate last night with a different take. While I am not intending this as a critique of Patrick’s post, there are a couple of points where we disagree.
The basic gist of the argument is that because Democrats embrace open systems online (blog comments, user generated content), they’re more successful and raise more money. This totally gets it backwards, I think. It assumes people go to Barack Obama or John Edwards’ sites because of the allure of creating their own personal space there, or at least to check out other people.
For my part, this isn’t at all what I’ve been trying to say. I have pointed to the difference between McCainSpace and Obama, or to open blogs versus something like Tancredo’s merely to reflect the difference in choices made with regard to the Internet. Democrats generally pursue open systems online, Republicans don’t. This isn’t simply a question of blog comments. This is everything from blog comments to social networking to the way their e-mails are written.
Ruffini makes the argument that the Democrats get more media attention and therefore they’re going to get more Internet attention.
If Democrats are covered more often, it’s no surprise that they will be searched for more often, and their sites will get more traffic. In addition, I’m also willing to concede that Democrat primary voters may be more willing to engage in odd numbered years. Does this mean Republicans are congenitally incapable of going online? Hardly. At this point, the gap results from external factors in the offline world, and the numbers can easily skew one way because comparatively few people are tuned in.
This is really sort of a chicken and the egg argument, however. Do they get more attention because they get more media? Or do they get more media becuase they’re getting more attention? I argue it’s the latter and you can see it very clearly in other things going on online. Case in point, the Vote Different video was stirring things up online long before the first MSM outlet said a word. Granted, once they did say something, MSM drove even more people to the video, but it had been percolating for quite some time.
This is true of just about anything covered by the media. Almost every story that breaks in the media originated online. Stories drive buzz before they drive media. Buzz exists long before the media takes notice. That’s where the GOP is falling down. The GOP is about advertising, the Democrats are about marketing – and there is a serious and significant difference. I fundamentally believe that word of mouth marketing now drives the vast majority of our culture – from which movies we watch to what cars we drive and which candidates we elect. The Internet is the focal point of word of mouth marketing in the world, and the Republicans don’t get that.
The GOP talks about the Influentials as new-found disciples of Keller and Berry. The GOP has been promoting the concept for years – longer even than Keller and Berry. The difference is the way they have altered the meaning. They previously used the word “opinion leaders” to describe pastors, business owners, elected officials, and those in high positions that can sway people. They’re the same people the GOP sees as influentials today. They fundamentally miss the concept.
Word of Mouth Marketing
To really understand where the GOP is falling down, you need to step back and look at word of mouth marketing conceptually. Let’s take me as an example.
Since Mrs. Quip and I had Little Quip, we don’t get out to the movies often. Prior to the little man’s arrival, though, I would see a movie at least once, usually more like two or three times a week. I love movies. As a result, I read about them constantly. Who is directing which film? Who has been cast in what role? When will movies be released and to how many screens? It all fascinates me. As a result, I consume a lot of information about movie production and often devolve into discussions of films with friends. Much of my excitement for movies that have not yet been shot, let alone released, is passed on to those same friends.
When I talk to friends about movies of which they may have heard nothing, I don’t tell them what the producers or the studios want me to say, I tell them what I think. I tell them I find it appalling that they’re plucking Puss in Boots from the Shrek movies and making it a spin-off. Since my kids will likely be of cartoon age when it is released in 2010, I will likely be forced to see it, though I will hate every minute.
If I had a choice between two vehicles to spread that message – let’s say talking to friends at parties, versus a movie website that only allowed me to send preformatted messages telling everyone that I thought Puss in Boots was the greatest movie idea since Bambi – I would opt for the one that allows me to talk openly, and share what I really think.
It is a difference between sender-receiver models and empowerment. It doesn’t matter if I am saying what you want me to say about your movie, as long as I am talking about your movie. That’s marketing in a word of mouth era. When it comes to ideas the GOP has convinced itself that the old adage “even bad press is good press” is wrong. They believe that only positive coverage of your ideas is a good thing. It’s just not true.
Continue Reading »
