Lessons From Grant Park

Posted by Matt Purdue

Love him or hate him, Barack Obama’s election last night represents the beginning of a new era for the United States. There is perhaps no larger public relations and brand-building exercise than a presidential campaign. Here are a few lessons all PR professionals can take away from what many are calling the best-run campaign in modern times.

Vision — This above all set Obama apart, not just from McCain, but from many candidates that have come before him. Obama had a  rock-steady sense of what he could offer this country (“change”) and stuck to it, even as opponents branded him a friend of terrorists and the economy crumbled. PR professionals take note. In my time working in PR, the lack of a long view is the biggest gap I see in the work we do. Too often I see clients “manage by windsock,” changing plans and messages to suit the whims of whatever’s coming next. Too often we let them get away with this. We continually ask “What do we need to do?” when we should be asking “Why are we doing this?” 

It’s the people, stupid — A presidential campaign is the ultimate lab experiment in brand-building, and the candidate is the brand. Obama’s campaign will become a model for how to turn a candidate into a rock star. The McCain campaign, too, tried to tap into the cult of personality when McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin immediately became a lightning rod. Try to find an American who does not have an opinion about Sarah Palin; we either love her or hate her. The lesson: While ideas are our stock and trade, people should always be our focus. Journalists hate press releases, but they love interviews. I need to repeat this: journalists hate press releases. Bulwark every single PR campaign you create with articulate, well-prepared spokespeople who can lead the discussion and you’re halfway to where you want to go. 

Run to controversy — In March, ABC News reported on some sermons given by Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, in which Wright vilified the U.S. and literally damned the country for its long, ugly history of racism. Obama quickly became embroiled in the controversy. He responded not simply by distancing himself from Wright, but by taking complete ownership of the issue itself. On March 18, Obama delivered an address entitled “A More Perfect Union. “ He expressed his views on the open racial wounds still prevalent in society and, more important, his vision that this country could change. Pundits praised the speech, and 85 percent of Americans told surveyors that they had at least heard about the speech—a remarkable figure. The message is simple: In times of trouble, counsel your clients to face controversy head on and use it to their advantage. Even in the darkest crises, there is always higher ground to find. 

Create new audiences — Obama’s strategists knew he had no chance of winning by running a conventional campaign that appealed to traditional voters. They knew he had to actually change the electorate  to do it. Obama’s supporters helped register hundreds of thousands of new voters, and they came out for him in massive numbers: 68 percent of first-time voters picked Obama (compared to only 53 percent for John Kerry in 2004). What can we learn from this? If you find a particular PR strategy comes to a grinding halt, consider and create a new audience—one that you’ve never even considered in the past. Has your dress-shoe designer client run out of interviews with fashion editors? Try the fitness media, who will be interested in how consumers can choose the right shoes to help them walk their way into shape. Your mortgage-banking client can’t get any love at the financial trade shows? Maybe try the home improvement events and DIY stores, where attendees and media can learn how boosting a home’s look can increase its long-term value. In other words, scrap your old notions of how you define “possibility.” 

It worked for Obama.

Comments

[Milos Sugovic]

I like the post, it’s simple and to the point. It screams PR SWOT. But integration of the different components usually gets overlooked, or at the very best implicitly discussed with a typical SWOT. Having a vision and creating a new audience is half the battle. But many stop there. What’s more important is how you successfully push a vision among that new audience you just created. And that step is crucial – it separates the men from the boys.

[Sam Ford]

Great points, Matt, and this fits right into the conversation we've been having across the PR blogosphere about brand-building and politics, as you know. For readers who might be interested in other takes on this topic, look here:

http://pepperdigital.typepad.com/pepperdigital/2008/11/takeaways-on-political-branding.html

In particular, I think your point about creating new audiences is crucial. I've done a fair amount of research in the entertainment industry about "surplus audiences," those that aren't in the target demographic for a show. Soap operas, for instance, have actively ignored their 49+ female audience for years, often seeming to do all they can to run them off, because they are pitching their shows as reaching 18-49 or even 18-34 as the target. World Wrestling Entertainment had a large Hispanic population tune in due to the popularity of some of their stars and had no clue what to do with this burgeoning section of the population. Shows like Veronica Mars were cult hits among some groups of adults, but the show insisted that it was for teenage girls, whether any teenage girls watched or not. In the process, VM ran itself off the air, WWE has squandered its Hispanic audience, and the soap opera has declined steadily in the ratings for about two decades now.

The point is, there's a fine line between the windsock approach and the one where you decide who your target audience is and then never look around to see who's actually listening.

[Tom]

Matt:

Concerning the creation of new audiences, here is some very interesting preliminary analysis on 2008 voter turnout from American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/11/06/pdf.gansre08turnout.au.pdf

Excerpt:

"Much-hyped Turnout Record Fails to Materialize: Convenience Voting Fails to Boost Balloting"

Despite lofty predictions by some academics, pundits, and practitioners that voter turnout would reach levels not seen since the turn of the last century, the percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots in the 2008 presidential election stayed at virtually the same relatively high level as it reached in the polarized election of 2004.

According to a report and turnout projection released today by American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE) and based, in part, on nearly final but unofficial vote tabulations as compiled by the Associated Press as of 7 p.m. Wednesday, November 5, the percentage of Americans who cast ballots for president in this year’s presidential election will reach between 126.5 million and 128.5 million when all votes have been counted by early next month.

If this prediction proves accurate, turnout would be at either exactly the same level as in 2004 or, at most, one percentage point higher (or between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent). If the rate of voting exceeds 61.0 percent of eligibles, turnout will have been the highest since 1964. This projection is based on the 121.5 million tabulated votes compiled by the Associated Press plus some estimate—partially based on experience with post election vote counting in previous elections and partially based on factors specific to this election, most notably the spread of balloting prior to Election Day—on how many ballots are still to be counted.

A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout. The percentage of eligible citizens voting Republican declined to 28.7 percent down 1.3 percentage points from 2004. Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligibles to 31.3 percent. It was the seventh straight increase in the Democratic share of the eligible vote since the party’s share dropped to 22.7 percent of eligibles in 1980.

[Gucci Shoes]

This is a good blog post, I was wondering if I could use this posting on my website, I will link it back to your website though. If this is a problem please let me know and I will take it down right away.

[Steve Cody]

No problem at all!