2 ms·

Nah its more complex than that. Micro targeting allows political groups to tailor their message to specific small demographics. They can tune their message slig

Nah its more complex than that. Micro targeting allows political groups to tailor their message to specific small demographics. They can tune their message slightly for each different group, drastically improving their targeting and voter appeal. When they have to target broad groups, they have to have a consistent message across all of those groups. This hurts their ability to manipulate and pander to sub populations.

dillondoyle 7y ago
I don't buy this argument (for some context, I work in digital politics and my agency buys digital political ads). You can micro target political speech through non-digital channels such as mail, phones, doors, & addressable cable. Campaigns have been doing this for a LONG time - before the internet. You can also still target very specific audiences even without 1:1 audience matching a la liveramp. E.g. retargeting, specific website placements, specific youtube video/channel placements, and more. The one kind of large negative I can foresee with this restriction would be narrowing to likely voters, which is tougher without either an audience match or 3rd party data (though maybe still good enough with 'watches news' or 'visits msnbc.com' and similar). Though one can definitely argue a benefit here that speaking to only an audience of likely voters is a problem (and 'recycles' the same voters not brining new voters in), especially with Democrats who tend to only talk to those voters in VAN.
- codingslave 7y ago
  "You can micro target political speech through non-digital channels such as mail, phones, doors, & addressable cable. Campaigns have been doing this for a LONG time - before the internet." I think you are underestimating the level of micro targeting that FB and Google employ. If I'm trying to win Florida, theres districts that I know I can get, the gray areas, and the ones I know I will lose. If I go into those gray areas and systematically target small sub groups, to the level of only thousands or tens of thousands in each group, I can flip a whole state. Theres a reason Google and FB are worth so much, its because all previous advertising is completely inferior to the level of targeting and information they have on their audiences. 'Visits msnbc.com' is no where near what you would need. More along the lines of: Show married females from ages of 32 - 50 in <important county> my opinions on abortion. Show single men ages 20 - 30 in <important county> my opinions on gun laws (if I'm pro gun). etc... Not only is this more accurate than older methods, its much cheaper. I can get instant feedback on which ads are working, iterate and tailor my message.
  - dillondoyle 7y ago
    you can target those exact same small sub groups over the mediums I listed. I can pull a list of females 34-50 in county, zip, or neighborhood (whatever specific to the 1:1 human is my point). I can give that list to comcast/other addressable TV, I can call them, I can mail them, I can knock doors. For reference I buy political digital ads for a living. I'm by no means saying I'm the best or I know everything but my point is this type of individualized campaigning has existed (and still exists) for other 'traditional' political messaging mediums. Sure digital has better toolsets to optimize/try tons of creative. That's a valid difference. Cable that would be hard to do for instance (CTV is easy...). Phone scripts are optimized and tested fairly in depth if done right but not usually to the level of 100 different scripts.

dillondoyle 7y ago

I don't buy this argument (for some context, I work in digital politics and my agency buys digital political ads). You can micro target political speech through non-digital channels such as mail, phones, doors, & addressable cable. Campaigns have been doing this for a LONG time - before the internet. You can also still target very specific audiences even without 1:1 audience matching a la liveramp. E.g. retargeting, specific website placements, specific youtube video/channel placements, and more. The one kind of large negative I can foresee with this restriction would be narrowing to likely voters, which is tougher without either an audience match or 3rd party data (though maybe still good enough with 'watches news' or 'visits msnbc.com' and similar). Though one can definitely argue a benefit here that speaking to only an audience of likely voters is a problem (and 'recycles' the same voters not brining new voters in), especially with Democrats who tend to only talk to those voters in VAN.

codingslave 7y ago
"You can micro target political speech through non-digital channels such as mail, phones, doors, & addressable cable. Campaigns have been doing this for a LONG time - before the internet." I think you are underestimating the level of micro targeting that FB and Google employ. If I'm trying to win Florida, theres districts that I know I can get, the gray areas, and the ones I know I will lose. If I go into those gray areas and systematically target small sub groups, to the level of only thousands or tens of thousands in each group, I can flip a whole state. Theres a reason Google and FB are worth so much, its because all previous advertising is completely inferior to the level of targeting and information they have on their audiences. 'Visits msnbc.com' is no where near what you would need. More along the lines of: Show married females from ages of 32 - 50 in <important county> my opinions on abortion. Show single men ages 20 - 30 in <important county> my opinions on gun laws (if I'm pro gun). etc... Not only is this more accurate than older methods, its much cheaper. I can get instant feedback on which ads are working, iterate and tailor my message.
- dillondoyle 7y ago
  you can target those exact same small sub groups over the mediums I listed. I can pull a list of females 34-50 in county, zip, or neighborhood (whatever specific to the 1:1 human is my point). I can give that list to comcast/other addressable TV, I can call them, I can mail them, I can knock doors. For reference I buy political digital ads for a living. I'm by no means saying I'm the best or I know everything but my point is this type of individualized campaigning has existed (and still exists) for other 'traditional' political messaging mediums. Sure digital has better toolsets to optimize/try tons of creative. That's a valid difference. Cable that would be hard to do for instance (CTV is easy...). Phone scripts are optimized and tested fairly in depth if done right but not usually to the level of 100 different scripts.