back to notes

When targeting online, make sure your data is up to snuff

When targeting online, make sure your data is up to snuff
Author(s): Jordan Lieberman
Source: Campaigns & Elections (2010). 34.5 (September-October 2013): p6.
Document Type: Article
Copyright : COPYRIGHT 2013 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
http://www.politicsmagazine.com
Full Text:

If you're reading this magazine there is a good chance you are familiar with a voter file. For a generation, it has been the common ingredient in everything we do. During the last campaign cycle, our community accepted that the voter file needs to be the key ingredient in online ad targeting. Targeting properly online matters no less than when targeting with direct mail.

When you buy voter-targeted ads, the implicit understanding on the customer side is that actual voter data powers your targeting effort. However, the online ad networks in our space had a free pass over the last campaign cycle; many of the largest online video and display networks actually got away with selling you the political data equivalent of a knock-off Prada bag.

Many of you are buying fake, also known as modeled or panel-based, voter data. Modeled is a fancy term for "people who look like voters" and is a cheap shortcut for vendors who don't have the technology or ability to invest in a voter file. One cannot just sprinkle pixie dust on a list of people who look like voters and call it "voter targeted."

Here's my advice: when you buy your voter targeted online ads, make sure that you ask your vendor the source of the voter data. Target Democrats, independents, or Republicans, with a specific vote history and use a voter file with a name you've heard of.

If you cannot verify the original source of your online voter file, there is a good chance it is modeled. That means fake. Counterfeit. Not real. Run.

In the last issue of C&E we asked the question, "Have gay marriage advocates finally found a winning formula?" In the piece, National Organization for Marriage strategist Frank Schubert bemoaned the fundraising advantage gay marriage proponents had this past cycle, which generated some response online. Gerald commented, "It is disappointing to see Frank Schubert avoid responsibility for his poorly run campaigns. His primary excuse is that $13 million was insufficient for him to run his largely cookie-cutter campaigns. As an initial matter, Mr. Schubert and his bosses at the National Organization for Marriage appear to have a chronic problem with the truth. In the days following the election, NOM told the press and its donors that the anti-gay marriage side had been outspent. While he was outspent, the ratios are not nearly as lopsided as he claims. Moreover, during the campaign, he repeatedly told both the press and his potential donors that he did not need to match his opponents and that he fully expected to be out raised. On the contrary, he continued to predict success up until Election Day. For him to now cry that he was the victim of a lack of funds is only to point a finger at his own lack of candor and inability to manage his resources. Mr. Schubert and his firm received a hefty monthly retainer from each of the four state campaigns. Given the economies of scale, and in light of the supposed lack of resources, why did Mr. Schubert insist on enriching himself instead of ceding these retainer fees and commissions back to the campaigns? This is a question that every NOM donor should demand that Mr. Schubert answer. It is a question C&E should have asked.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

On our Campaign Insider blog last month, Smart Media Group's Mandie Suits argued that the ad space beyond TV and online is beckoning. Suits said campaigns might want to start considering unorthodox advertising strategies, especially when trying to reach younger voters. Some potential vehicles for political ads in the future: public restrooms, graffiti and tattoos. Online commenter Ryan D. was less than convinced. He wrote, "Interesting ideas, but let's be serious: no candidate in their right mind is going to run some sort of advertisement in a bathroom. Maybe some creative minds start doing negative ads on urinal cakes, but that would probably just end up with bad press. I do think the graffiti idea might be a real possibility though. But even the fact that we're talking about political ads as tattoos or on the walls of public bathrooms says a lot about how hard it is to actually find voters these days."

Online Comments

from CampaignsandElections.com

Jordan Lieberman

President, CampaignGrid

Lieberman, Jordan