What Two Very Different Campaigns Tell Us About Political Strategy
Not long ago, a smart, charismatic youngish man from a visible minority group campaigned on a bold vision and connected with young voters through social networks. He flummoxed his opponents and scored a staggering electoral win.
Barack Obama? Well, yes – but more recently, Naheed Nenshi, the new mayor of Calgary, following Obama’s recipe. A successful recipe, but, as it turns out, not the only route to victory.
Whatever you may think of Obama now, few would disagree that his election was a watershed event. And not just because of his colour or his promise of change. The Obama campaign took unprecedented advantage of “new” media – YouTube, blogs, Facebook and the like – to reach out to voters who would not normally take the trouble to turn out on Election Day. He connected with them, promising change they could believe in, and they believed.
Campaign managers everywhere sat up and took notice. Social media were not just for idle chatter, but, used strategically, could transform election campaigns.
Yet here’s the rub: not everybody in the political class got the message. And, as the very different mayoral campaigns in Calgary and Toronto show, it may not matter that they didn’t.
Like Obama, Nenshi used the internet strategically to engage young voters, starting early and staying engaged through online groups and regular Twitter updates. By the end of the campaign, he had 15,000 Facebook friends, more than any other candidate. Nenshi inspired his “purple army” with a dream of better neighbourhoods, a strong urban fabric and public spaces, while fighting off attacks from opponents and the suspicions of those who worried about electing a Muslim.
Toronto’s election was a nasty, divisive affair, pitting the suburbs against downtown. Ford drove home a simple message: government was too expensive and had to be stopped. His four-point plan was broadcast through traditional media, a website and sporadic Twitter feeds – but, unlike Nenshi, he did not attempt to build a groundswell through social media. Without a consistent internet strategy, without connecting particularly well with young voters, and in spite of vicious attacks from opponents, Ford carried the day.
On the face of it, two mayoral campaigns could not be more different. Yet both were successful in convincing a majority of voters and equally so in getting them to turn out: in both cities, 53% of the electorate cast their vote.
Nenshi and Ford both shared one quality with Obama, one that in the end turned out to be decisive: they were outsiders with a resolve to change the system. Nenshi was a business professor and former consultant; Ford, albeit a white male and a member of council, was able to position himself as a maverick who had the courage to say and do the right thing. Both vowed to shake things up.
At the end of the day, it didn’t matter whether this message was carried on TV, Radio, billboards, tweets or YouTube videos: to a frustrated, alienated electorate, shaking things up seemed like a good idea. It resonated.
Certainly, other considerations entered into each campaign: the changing demographics of each city, the economic downturn, the role of news media in building hype. But the common theme in both campaigns was that of a rebel with a cause. Just as former Toronto mayor David Miller used a broom to symbolize his intent to clean things up, Nenshi and Ford arrived with brooms of their own.
The message for political marketers is this: Obama’s campaign was a game-changer, but the old game is far from finished. Content still matters as much as reaching out on the internet. With apologies to both Marshall McLuhan and another U.S. President: it’s the message, stupid, not the medium.
