wonderful article

Freedomfighter — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:21:08 -0400

I think you put it quite aptly. There is a difference in the way the Obama campaign and Moveon converged to grow a movement compared to other attempts to use micro-targeting. They started early and piled it on. When they wanted an event, they sent emails to those most likely to read the email and attend. The result is a bunch of identical minded people showing up, who could be encouraged to donate without any criticism of why they were meeting. That works well, until the people attending realize they were caught up in a form of impulse buying habit and not getting anything out of it.
Micro-targeting has great potential for a true supporter base, but it does have serious drawbacks if there is not a lot offline connection.

Microtargeting Myth vs. Fact

Patrick Ruffini — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:33:30 -0400

There's a lot of hype surrounding microtargeting -- which is the process of targeting voters scientifically based on consumer and demographic data. This piece in Salon yesterday on "Obama's super marketing machine" is no different. But as someone with a bit more than a passing understanding of what microtargeting is, I have to shake my head a little at articles like this. Because the media gets it almost completely wrong -- whether it's hyping relatively mundane technologies or celebrating "sexy" examples (dial up 40 year old Vodka drinking Volvo drivers!) that have almost no bearing on microtargeting's usefulness in real life.

techPresident - Microtargeting Myth vs. Fact - Comments

wonderful article

Microtargeting Myth vs. Fact