

Corporations Want Obama's Winning Formula - imjared
http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/83230-corporations-want-obamas-winning-formula

======
dmix
Step one: be one of only two options on the marketplace.

Bonus Step 2: make everything you promise non-binding, so you never really
have to follow through with anything your marketing said in order to make the
sale.

~~~
shardling
What the heck does that have to do with the article?

~~~
dmix
Well how can you draw marketing analogies from something, when your business
faces a completely different marketing environment?

For example, what business gets free press 24-7 for months?

~~~
redthrowaway
I'm guessing you didn't read the article. The people who are being hired are
those who did analytics and social media for the campaign.

~~~
Shivetya
I will not be the first to think it or even post it, but in the end they
weren't the reason he won. He has never faced a truly critical press. If
anything far too many in the media are still enamored with him and he also has
one fall back which is even being exploited today in regards to other members
of his administration, race.

Simply put, he cannot be criticized without risk of those who do so being
branded bigots or racist and that inhibits many from who can be unbiased but
critical from speaking out because fear is a great was to stop people before
they move.

Yes he had good people working his campaign, but they didn't really have that
hard of a job cut out for them. This guy is part cult in his appeal and had a
small portion of the vote automatically locked in. He didn't have to win over
as many voters as the other guy, and again the GOP ran their Kerry / Gore /
Dole / Mondale. Politicians who are easily defined by others because they
cannot define themselves face an uphill battle.

~~~
sxcurry
Sorry, but I completely disagree. Did you read any of the extremely critical
articles over the last few years, even in the mainstream so-called "liberal"
press. Obama was strongly criticized over his policies and actions. One
example - the drone program. He was and is roundly castigated about this.

I really don't agree with your "cult appeal" statement either. The people I
know who support Obama are smart and well-informed, and made a conscious
decision that he was and is the best choice for the country. You may not
agree, but please don't fall into the trap of dismissing his appeal to many
people.

------
pella
"5 Ways The Obama Campaign Was Run Like A Lean Startup"

\-----------------

1\. They measured every single thing.

2\. They used A/B testing.

3\. They used behavioral targeting to increase engagement.

4\. They streamlined the checkout process.

5\. Their marketing was nontraditional.

[http://www.fastcompany.com/3002973/5-ways-obama-campaign-
was...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3002973/5-ways-obama-campaign-was-run-lean-
startup)

~~~
Androsynth
Its interesting that theres another thread right now about how being
unwavering on political issues. Isn't A/B testing about as far from that as
you could possibly get?

If you are trying to get elected at the national level and you are A/B tesing,
isn't wavering exactly what you are doing? Isn't it it essentially well-
targeted and opportunistic populism? Isn't this very, very bad?

(this comment isnt aimed at pella, more aimed at the idea of politicians a/b
testing)

~~~
gnaritas
> Isn't A/B testing about as far from that as you could possibly get?

No, A/B testing doesn't mean flip flopping on the message. You'd want to test
various campaigns delivering the same message different ways to see which one
converts better. Maybe one set of words gets more donations while another gets
more volunteers while another barely gets anything.

------
btilly
My thought upon seeing the title is that this is a huge business opportunity
for Optimizely that they should take advantage of.

------
stcredzero
I thought Obama's IT formula came from the corporate marketing world, but was
adapted to use in a political campaign. I've been hearing about sorting people
into "cohorts" using statistical correlations for over a decade, and yet when
I first heard about it, it was already decades old and originally based on
pre-internet data from dead-tree media like magazine subscriptions and even so
_it was already very scary_ in terms of what they could tell about you.

~~~
Gustomaximus
I thought the same thing. As someone in marketing I was thinking if
corporations are not doing this stuff already you are well behind the game.
The thing to note with the Obama campaign is not the strategy but more how
well they executed it.

------
lubos
This article reminded me blog post on Coding Horror back from 2007 called
"Falling into the pit of success". This is exactly what Obama has created for
his staff: "a pit of success". His staff had to merely just fall into it.

[http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/08/falling-into-the-
pi...](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/08/falling-into-the-pit-of-
success.html)

~~~
obviouslygreen
This is interesting, and a good read, but I'd suggest that being elected in an
election that's nothing more than one gigantic mutual smear campaign is less
like succeeding and more like helping someone else fail.

Winning, to me at least, implies that you have _done something_ and that the
result of your actions placed you above your competition. These guys didn't
compete at anything aside from who could generate the most bad publicity for
the "opponent."

That just doesn't strike me as the kind of action deserving of words like
"success" or "winner."

------
paulhauggis
I'm waiting for the non-biased responses here on HN...

------
Swizec
Not being an American and thus never having heard either candidate speak on
"issues", this image gallery perfectly illustrates what makes Obama a
successful politician.

<http://imgur.com/a/X6186#0>

He's just so ... human. I don't know whose fault that is, but it's a winning
touch imho.

~~~
waterlesscloud
There's a theory that the most charismatic candidate for president usually
wins. Looking back over history it's pretty hard to argue with that.

~~~
Androsynth
Thats a valid theory, but only going back to the dawn of TV/Radio. Before that
politicians actually had to have some content in their messages.

for example, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates>

_The format for each debate was: one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the
other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed
a 30-minute "rejoinder." The candidates alternated speaking first. As the
incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates._

Those were 3 hour debates. Now all a politician has to do is look good holding
a football.

(this is basically paraphrasing Neil Postman's work from
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death>)

~~~
dmix
There's a good book on this subject from 1985, where the author explores how
the requirement in politics is no longer real action/results it's
entertainment.

 _Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business_

[http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-
Busi...](http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-
Business/dp/014303653X/)

