Are the expectations for the incoming Obama administration too high?  The Obama-Biden campaign certainly re-set the rules of political campaigns with their 2008 effort – raising more money, spending more money and engaging people on a level unlike anything in living memory.  But will the public’s anticipation and expectations of the new administration and, more specifically, the promise to continue reaching out and engaging the public, be met to everyone’s satisfaction?

It reminds me of the expectations and constant chatter surrounding Social Media.  In fact, I don’t think there’s any question that an Obama Administration will be the first to fully embrace the uber-democracy that is the online/Social Media world.

My only question is: can a 18th century institution like the US Federal Government adapt quickly enough to not get completely balled up in an avalanche of 21st century Social Media interactivity?

It all started with the campaign
The Harvard Business Review has posted this analysis of the Obama Presidential campaign.  It’s very complete and a good read for any marketer (political or otherwise) who wants to understand how the rules of grass roots egagement have changed in 2008.  The article identifies a number of things the Obama campaign (and, more specifically, the candidate) did to set things up for success:

  • Candidate Obama demonstrated superior listening and speaking skills – he engaged and was engaging.  A consistently positive attitude helped build equity in his political brand.
  • The campaign found a way to draw on the candidate’s brand equity and turn it into monetary support for the cause it represented.  At an average donation of $300 or less, this was truly a grass roots effort funded by the masses.
  • Obama used all of the Web 2.0 tools available to him to keep in touch and continue making “touches” for funds when needed.  The result was an emotional, intellectual and financial “buy-in” that is the political equivalent of winning the Trifecta.
  • The campaign found ways to turn out record numbers of voters in areas where voter turn-out had not been strong before.  To one degree or another, this election involved a different 80-90 million voters than the 80-90 million who voted in the last election.
  • Brand consistency in message, tone, demeanor and follow-through.  Not only did the campaign “talk the talk” – they walked it as well.
  • Campaign intelligence was objective enough to allow the Obama team to stay one step ahead of the competition, shortening the news cycle when it had to and making pre-emptive strikes when possible.
  • Extra time spent planning and organizing how to get out the vote made the Obama campaign the clear winner in the “ground war” – in promotional terms, this campaign activated flawlessly.

The entire effort was managed adroitly by a team of experienced marketers and campaigners who were not entrenched in old-style political groupthink.  The campaign’s embrace of new technology was underscored by the candidate himself who, as a well-known Blackberry junkie, was contrasted with his opponent who admitted he didn’t know how to use e-mail.

So when the Obama camp included activities to collect text addresses at every campaign stop, or provided online widgets and fundraising tools to excited volunteers, they were already miles ahead of their competition on the marketing side.  And those advantages translated into votes and victory.

The virtual road ahead
The challenge for the Obama Administration, now though, is how they are going to ride the marketing momentum and continue to engage their online constituency once they take power in January.

As reported in various media, including this article in the Huffington Post, a President Obama will be making direct appeals to the American public through YouTube.  There will be, undoubtedly, a myriad of blogs, Twitter feeds and other Social Media apps dedicated to spreading the word of the Obama Administration.

Call it an electronic bully pulpit.

To illustrate the point I’m trying to make, the HBR article itself is only about 400 – 500 words while the 36+ posts that follow it constitute page after page of opinion.  And, unlike many comments posted on more mainstream blogs, the HBR commentators make relevant points and remain fairly respectful of each other.  The comments on the even shorter article in the Huffington Post, on the other hand, are well above 350 and growing.

Add to this concern the fact that online appeals and conversations will be open to the entire world (and you can make the case that they should), and you’ve just expanded the potential audience from the US population to all of the web users on planet Earth – which at last count was approaching 1.5 Billion people.

Engagement is good.  Transparency is even better.  But for the rest of us to think that we’ll have a more responsive and responsible government starting January 21, 2009 as a result is just not realistic.  After all, what do we expect to happen when the President of the United States asks the rest of the world what it thinks about an idea?

Look at how Social Media/Web 2.0 have impacted your personal work habits and the way your business operates.  Now multiply that by a few hundred thousand and you’ll start to get the idea of the kind of change in store for the US Federal Beaurocracy.

Hang on folks.  It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

Bookmark and Share