4 ms·

I'm guessing you didn't read the article. The people who are being hired are those who did analytics and social media for the campaign.

dmix 14y ago
It's true I gave some what of an ad hominem attack. But lets apply the social media marketing analogy to Pepsi. Does Pepsi have an active social media audience that is feverishly reading their tweets and is very open to promoting them to their friends the same way Obama does? I doubt it. I pulled some more quotes from the article: > “Politics is a direct-response business,” Goff says. “People do things if you ask them to do it, and for the most part don’t do it if you don’t ask.” And then talking about using their facebook page over direct phone calls: > "5 million voters were contacted this way (via Facebook)" How many people are going to openly receive direct-marketing messages from a corporation like Pepsi about their products via Facebook? TLDR: The tools sound the same but political marketing is VERY different than business marketing. The type of audience you are reaching and their engagement is everything.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  These are valid points. For a megacorp, a lot of what OFA did just won't work. A political campaign is able to build a very personal connection, and not just with the candidate. There was a mention in another article that fundraising emails 'signed' by campaign manager Jim Messina did very well. People built that connection with another person, an individual. Some companies might be able to pull that off. If Elon Musk had a consumer company that needed that kind of marketing he'd be able to do it. Jobs could have, and in a way he did. It would be very difficult for Pepsi to pull it off. Not impossible, I can imagine it being done, but it's very unlikely. I wonder if at some point in the future there's demand for a C level exec with populist charisma in the megacorps. Maybe.
  - dmix 14y ago
    > I wonder if at some point in the future there's demand for a C level exec with populist charisma in the megacorps. Interesting point. It's true corporations tend to hire celebs strictly from promotional pieces. But it's easy to see past the phoniness of the message because you know they were hired to say it. But if that person was an executive who worked directly in the business it would definitely add credibility.
  - nhebb 14y ago
    > I wonder if at some point in the future there's demand for a C level exec with populist charisma in the megacorps. Well, there was this company called Apple ...
Shivetya 14y ago
I will not be the first to think it or even post it, but in the end they weren't the reason he won. He has never faced a truly critical press. If anything far too many in the media are still enamored with him and he also has one fall back which is even being exploited today in regards to other members of his administration, race. Simply put, he cannot be criticized without risk of those who do so being branded bigots or racist and that inhibits many from who can be unbiased but critical from speaking out because fear is a great was to stop people before they move. Yes he had good people working his campaign, but they didn't really have that hard of a job cut out for them. This guy is part cult in his appeal and had a small portion of the vote automatically locked in. He didn't have to win over as many voters as the other guy, and again the GOP ran their Kerry / Gore / Dole / Mondale. Politicians who are easily defined by others because they cannot define themselves face an uphill battle.
- erickhill 14y ago
  "Politicians who are easily defined by others..." Oh, come on man. Romney couldn't even define himself for more than a few months at a time, if that. That was part of the problem. He had been on both sides of some of the key "litmus test" issues. Rightly or wrongly, the current narrative likes it when politicians don't change their minds about hot-button issues (like medical care, abortion, etc.)
- sxcurry 14y ago
  Sorry, but I completely disagree. Did you read any of the extremely critical articles over the last few years, even in the mainstream so-called "liberal" press. Obama was strongly criticized over his policies and actions. One example - the drone program. He was and is roundly castigated about this. I really don't agree with your "cult appeal" statement either. The people I know who support Obama are smart and well-informed, and made a conscious decision that he was and is the best choice for the country. You may not agree, but please don't fall into the trap of dismissing his appeal to many people.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "Simply put, he cannot be criticized without risk of those who do so being branded bigots or racist" If you can't speak without making people feel uncomfortable or appealing to certain dogwhistles ( http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwate... ), that isn't Obama's fault. "He has never faced a truly critical press." His centrist policies haven't, certainly. His liberal policies have been attacked and rolled back consistently to match the media narratives.

dmix 14y ago

It's true I gave some what of an ad hominem attack. But lets apply the social media marketing analogy to Pepsi. Does Pepsi have an active social media audience that is feverishly reading their tweets and is very open to promoting them to their friends the same way Obama does? I doubt it. I pulled some more quotes from the article: > “Politics is a direct-response business,” Goff says. “People do things if you ask them to do it, and for the most part don’t do it if you don’t ask.” And then talking about using their facebook page over direct phone calls: > "5 million voters were contacted this way (via Facebook)" How many people are going to openly receive direct-marketing messages from a corporation like Pepsi about their products via Facebook? TLDR: The tools sound the same but political marketing is VERY different than business marketing. The type of audience you are reaching and their engagement is everything.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
These are valid points. For a megacorp, a lot of what OFA did just won't work. A political campaign is able to build a very personal connection, and not just with the candidate. There was a mention in another article that fundraising emails 'signed' by campaign manager Jim Messina did very well. People built that connection with another person, an individual. Some companies might be able to pull that off. If Elon Musk had a consumer company that needed that kind of marketing he'd be able to do it. Jobs could have, and in a way he did. It would be very difficult for Pepsi to pull it off. Not impossible, I can imagine it being done, but it's very unlikely. I wonder if at some point in the future there's demand for a C level exec with populist charisma in the megacorps. Maybe.
- dmix 14y ago
  > I wonder if at some point in the future there's demand for a C level exec with populist charisma in the megacorps. Interesting point. It's true corporations tend to hire celebs strictly from promotional pieces. But it's easy to see past the phoniness of the message because you know they were hired to say it. But if that person was an executive who worked directly in the business it would definitely add credibility.
- nhebb 14y ago
  > I wonder if at some point in the future there's demand for a C level exec with populist charisma in the megacorps. Well, there was this company called Apple ...

Shivetya 14y ago

I will not be the first to think it or even post it, but in the end they weren't the reason he won. He has never faced a truly critical press. If anything far too many in the media are still enamored with him and he also has one fall back which is even being exploited today in regards to other members of his administration, race. Simply put, he cannot be criticized without risk of those who do so being branded bigots or racist and that inhibits many from who can be unbiased but critical from speaking out because fear is a great was to stop people before they move. Yes he had good people working his campaign, but they didn't really have that hard of a job cut out for them. This guy is part cult in his appeal and had a small portion of the vote automatically locked in. He didn't have to win over as many voters as the other guy, and again the GOP ran their Kerry / Gore / Dole / Mondale. Politicians who are easily defined by others because they cannot define themselves face an uphill battle.

erickhill 14y ago
"Politicians who are easily defined by others..." Oh, come on man. Romney couldn't even define himself for more than a few months at a time, if that. That was part of the problem. He had been on both sides of some of the key "litmus test" issues. Rightly or wrongly, the current narrative likes it when politicians don't change their minds about hot-button issues (like medical care, abortion, etc.)
sxcurry 14y ago
Sorry, but I completely disagree. Did you read any of the extremely critical articles over the last few years, even in the mainstream so-called "liberal" press. Obama was strongly criticized over his policies and actions. One example - the drone program. He was and is roundly castigated about this. I really don't agree with your "cult appeal" statement either. The people I know who support Obama are smart and well-informed, and made a conscious decision that he was and is the best choice for the country. You may not agree, but please don't fall into the trap of dismissing his appeal to many people.
illuminate 14y ago
"Simply put, he cannot be criticized without risk of those who do so being branded bigots or racist" If you can't speak without making people feel uncomfortable or appealing to certain dogwhistles ( http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwate... ), that isn't Obama's fault. "He has never faced a truly critical press." His centrist policies haven't, certainly. His liberal policies have been attacked and rolled back consistently to match the media narratives.