microtargeting

Cross-posted from Overdetermined.net. Find the latest entries in the series there!

Once the data is (yes, is, prescriptivists--I went there) in a standardized format, we move from the realm of "interesting" into "faintly creepy".  The information from Secretaries of State or state parties is generally pretty innocuous--name, address, maybe phone number or age.  The appended consumer data, on the other hand, is more unsettling.  There's nothing on there that would do real damage if anyone knew it--no credit card numbers, nothing that people could use to steal your identity--but it can be kind of strange to think who realizes that you own two dogs and a cat.

Most of this consumer data is gathered by for-profit companies, who then retail it to both the state parties and the for-profit companies that are creating these files (if you take a look at our resources page, InfoUSA is one such vendor).  They get their information anywhere they can--state licensing agencies (think it might be worthwhile for the McCain campaign to know who has a gun license?), magazine subscription lists, grocery store value card memberships...basically, if you have to fill out a form for it, somebody wants it, and will get it unless prevented by law. 

Moreover, based on this consumer information, it's possible to predict other characteristics (within limits, which I'll go into in a later post).  For example, the RNC might conduct a truly massive poll that measured all kinds of behavior--TV habits, income, type of location, and lots of other things besides.  Based on that poll, they might determine that there's a high correlation between a given cluster of characteristics and certain behaviors.  For instance: only a survey can tell you how much radio someone listens to.  But it's possible to know for everyone where they live, their age, and whether or not they own a boat.  If all males 54-65 who have boat licenses listen to Rush Limbaugh, it can be a good predictor. 

This use of consumer data is at least a partial definition of the oft-abused term "microtargeting" (this WaPo article, although overwrought, is a good introduction).  Rest assured I'll have more to say on the topic in the future; but this is the overview.  Stick around; tomorrow, I'll go into how this data gets used.

Gargh! I had a rebuttal to Mark Penn's Op-Ed in The Politico last week all set to go and then I closed out the tab on it. You'll have to take my word that it was brilliant and thoughtful and eloquent. Now you'll have to settle for the short and clunky version.

Penn's Thesis: Old people (aka "Active Grannies") are making up a larger and larger portion of the electorate (as lifespans are elongated and the Boomers start to retire) and they are voting less reliably Democratic. The candidates both need to work on courting older voters.

Problems with said thesis:

1. Penn never really proves his point about "Active Grannies," which he at first defines as "empty nesters, " but often expands to anyone over 65 or anyone over 45 to prove his point. You can't label half the electorate a microtrend. This essay is a big mushy fruit salad of comparisons between apples, oranges and pineapples.
2. This is already a failed strategy. Penn tried this strategy while at the helm of the Clinton primary campaign. It lost out to a wave of young voters, who Penn himself derided as "looking like Facebook." Well those Facebook voters made the difference for Obama over Clinton's "active grannies" and even rivaled the 65+ demographic in Iowa - the straw that broke this strategy's back.
3. Does Penn really think that the campaigns won't reach out to older voters? Every campaign since the beginning of time has ignored youth and focused on the senior vote. The idea that the campaigns would ignore senior voters is ridiculous on its face.

The most important thing to note here is that this is a highly reactive, defensive Op-Ed. Penn is responding to what he sees as threatening changes in the partisan habits of older age demographics. This change was entirely foreseeable. As the Greatest and Silent Generations - traditionally more progressive - age out, and the heavily divided Boomers age into their senior years, we would expect to see the senior vote divide more between the parties, especially in close elections.

What he neglects is that we need to change that dynamic. We shouldn't only react to what is happening in the older segments of the electorate, we should work to lay the groundwork for future changes. Time and resources invested now in making young voters life long progressives will continue to pay dividends decades into the future. When the Millennials start to retire, the "reliable senior" demographic will become progressive along with them as they replace the more conservative Gen X.

This is what Penn is missing. That in order to stop playing defense at the older end of the spectrum, we need to invest in offense courting younger people at the lower end of the age spectrum. The campaigns will court older voters with door knocks, TV ads, mailers, robo-calls and more. They don't need any extra encouragement on that front. It's young people - that investment in the future often forsaken by consultants like Penn - that needs far more attention from our political class. The best defense is a good offense.

When we talk about the youth movement in America and ways to get us to engage and participate in the process we often find a huge amount of ambiguity – little hard data/evidence (except the Harvard Institute of Politics or the CIRCLE research) and even fewer willing to conduct experiments into microtargeting the 18-30 demographic.

A few months ago I read a great article that talked about microtargeting Labor Supporters in California. Seems the California Labor Federation was beginning to notice that the stereo-types about supportive labor voters were no longer true. Because the world has evolved – not all labor supporters live in urban areas. Some now living in outer lying surburbes or even rural counties. The CLF’s Chair Art Pulaski decided to look outside the box:

“The shifting demographics of the country mean you have to look for them in non-traditional ways and sometimes in unexpected places…

Traditional targeting has always told us to focus on union members and their families in big cities, and that’s where most labor resources went for persuasion and GOTV efforts in years past. But it’s important not to build a targeting model for today’s voters based on outdated demographic patterns. Understanding that pro-labor voters aren’t just urban union members and their families anymore, we at Winning Directions worked with the CLF team to help find California’s pro-labor voters, wherever they live.”

One of the biggest process/tactics stories of the 2006 election cycle is the rise of social networking as a campaign tool. Candidates caught on to the fact that young voters are a demographic they need to be courting – particularly progressive, who currently have a natural advantage in this demographic - and that social networks were the place to do that.

On November 8th and 9th, there will be plenty of stories about the role of social networking in the midterm elections. If current predictions hold, most likely those stories will focus on how social networking played a key role in turning out young voters. Hopefully for Democratic candidates.

But what have candidates really done with their social networking profiles, and what will they need to do in 2008 to take this campaign tool to the next level?