Social Media as a Political War Room

Paul, great meeting up in Las Vegas at BlogWorld. Your panel was brilliant by the way. Your post today has connected yet another dot in this theory. This comment is going connect to a discussion among Mitch Joel, Shel Holtz and others on the question of who owns social media.

Thanks for the hat tip on my political comment. I speak of the politics from 10 years of experience inside the national political scene (on Capitol Hill, at the Republican National Committee and in Bush ’41 Administration) and a couple years covering politics as a journalist.

By way of background, the political war room, communications center sounds a bit more inviting, contains the following general functions: political strategists, these folks know what types of people and where they live, to drive to the polls in the numbers needed to win. This might be a similar to a marketing function targeting to most profitable customers or likely prospects to convert.

Pollsters are next, you know these people as number crunchers, but they are much more than that, the real good ones are wordsmiths because they shape the question in such a way where the numbers support the message required to drive the profitable people to the polls. In the corporate world this might be product developers or market researchers.

Then there is opposition research. These are people tasked with finding dirty needles in haystacks covered by huge tarps, surrounded by mesh netting. Ok you get the picture and I’m sure you’re aghast that such a thing goes on, but Swift Boats happen. In a corporation this might be market intelligence, what are the factors that make competitors look weak and us strong. What do people dislike about the other fella’s product?

Next are constituent group communications specialists; labor unions, minorities, religious groups, soccer moms, er or dads, and hundreds of other groups (aka communities) have a voice in the political process. Those groups, whether configured in the same way or slightly different, are the people that buy products and services.

In fact as an aside at BlogWorld in a different presentation, Howard Kaushansky the president of Umbria, a firm that helps analyze brand and issue conversations on the web, described how buyers of jeans identify themselves in several distinct categories. Here’s a link to that report. http://www.umbrialistens.com/industries/index.php

Lastly, there are the image makers, packers of emotion and substance. They match the candidate’s positions with the right constituent bases, and scrap it out for what’s left in the middle. Ironically, when a candidate has a position, listens to constituents and changes that position to reflect their constituents’ view, it’s fertile ground for a flip-flop ad. The good part is when a company listens and changes a product, or comes out with a new “green” position; they are viewed as being responsible. Go figure.

Now let me connect the dot to the discussion about who owns social media. Paul and I maybe on to something, because Shel Holtz articulated the need for a cross-functional team in this post http://blog.holtz.com/index.php/weblog/comments/who_should_own_social_media/

He also made reference to a Chief Reputation Officer, which may well be the equivalent of the campaign manager or communications director, nonetheless your post highlights a different way corporations may engage their constituents given the growth of social media.

I apologize for taking up so much space, but I see a bigger picture that may help the profession and corporate marketers appreciate the breadth of social media. This appreciation may lead them toward a phased implementation, learning and adjusting along the way.

All the best,

Tom

OMG! I love your point about companies losing slowly over time. Fantastic comparison point …

I think we are going to learn alot this year about Interactive Marketing by watching the political campaigners.

fasten your seatbelt!