BY: Cameron Gilbert
Today we discussed in class the innovative campaigning efforts by Barack Obama and his supporters. In 2008 he swept the country with his presence in social media much like Franklin D Roosevelt’s adoption of the radio and John F Kennedy’s usage of the television. He captured the hearts and votes of many by tapping into a world that has never been exposed to presidential campaigning. His Twitter account amassed more followers and Facebook had more friends than either of his two opponents.
This election, campaign spending was at an all time high. As shown in the video below, the 2012 campaign spending even dwarfed the record numbers set in 2008 by the Obama Campaign:
During this campaign Obama was at a disadvantage in the amount of money the campaign had. Romney, known for his fundraising prowess and being backed by the top end of the Republican National Convention, didn’t disappoint. You can see here the disparity between the two campaigns.
However, bigger isn’t always better. Barack Obama had to figure out a way to overcome the funding disadvantage. Simple presence on social media sites wouldn’t deliver a win like it did in 2008. He needed to market himself to the right people at the right time. His campaign can be compared in size to a Fortune 500 company. However, in terms of advertising, there are a few lessons that can be learned from the Obama
campaign:
In class we came to the conclusion that this campaign was a classic example of quality over quantity. Though Mitt Romney had more money, the Obama campaign effectively used canvassing tools and real time data to efficiently advertise and campaign in areas where people were either undecided or Obama supporters. They recognized that going after avid Romney supporters is a waste of time and money. I’m glad they were able to cut that out of the bottom line because bigger isn’t always better.
No comments:
Post a Comment