techPresident - metrics - Comments

power of a network

conservstudent — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:54:04 -0500

The power of a network will far surpass that of a simple email list... always. The thing you don't get with an email list is investment. With a social network, people will invest themselves in it, nobody cares about an email list.

The candidates don't even need to build a social network, they can just use existing ones. Social networks are the future.

***
http://republican.konnects.com

network building isn't that hard

Dan Ancona — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:50:52 -0500

You just have to invest in the right toolset up front. Obama did exactly that; I can't understand the conventional wisdom saying that Ron Paul is the only people-powered candidate this cycle. Obama's just the first people-powered candidate to have a network that's getting big enough that it's starting to maybe (BIG maybe actually) translate into actual votes. It's going to be an interesting 3 1/2 weeks.

Yes and #2...

gibson_stevens — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:33:25 -0500

The network is part of the story, but the conversation is another. Lists of people aren't enough. Homegrown networks aren't enough either. Candidates must engage in the conversation to cut through and grab attention. Think about what interaction / communication / persuasion is outside the reach of the campaign? Certainly more than what is inside...

More of my musings...

Yes, and

Micah L. Sifry — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:57:25 -0500

Colin--

Yes, it's big network and big list. Oh, and by the way, a strong message and a strong messenger.

I just don't see much in the way of Clinton's organizing network, other than the pre-Internet networks she and Bill have, plus the unions. Neither of which reach young people.

Micah

How many people are on Obama's list?

Colin Delany — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:51:24 -0500

Micah--

Without know how big Barack's email list is, drawing a conclusion this strong is suspect -- you can't separate out your variables. At worst, I bet he doesn't have many fewer list members than Hillary does, and if he has 500,000 donors (essentially all of whom end up on his list), he's likely to have MORE people on his email list than she does. If you have hard numbers about email subscribers from his campaign, I'd like to see them.

Basically, I think you're drawing a misleading distinction -- the best thing is to have both a big list AND a big network. It isn't network vs. top-down, it's network AND top-down -- just as a campaign has both grassroots activists AND television commercials. Without encouragement from the top (the people who provided the networking tools in the first place), it's hard for a candidate-support network to form and thrive (if it were easy, we'd have lot of Ron Paul/Howard Dean candidates running around, and we don't). For example, a good question to ask is how many started those blogs and those fundraising campaigns because they received an email encouraging them to do so.

Colin Delany
e.politics
http://www.epolitics.com

All fair points, but

Micah L. Sifry — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:37:20 -0500

Luigi--

Yes, lists look easier to build than networks. But my point was to try to illustrate something about how the different approaches Clinton and Obama have taken to internet-based organizing are now playing out.

Micah

The graphic

Luigi Montanez — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:19:34 -0500

Oh also, I know Zephyr has a really good graphic similar to the one above, but this one shows that in a network, the center can be removed (the P), but communication is still possible among the C's.

To be fair to the Clinton campaign

Luigi Montanez — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:12:44 -0500

The Clinton campaign also has an Action Center, which has many of the same features as My.BarackObama.com.

I think it comes down to ROI. Building a network is much more resource intensive than building a list. Also, a list is a concrete asset with real value, that can be swapped or even (gasp!) sold. A network cannot.

Joining a network is a tougher "ask". Filling in your email address and zip code on a splash page is one thing. Filling in your name and providing a password to create an account is another. Joining a list is anonymous to everyone but the campaign, joining a network makes you findable to anyone else on the network.

Being a national Presidential campaign is a huge soapbox to have, something smaller campaigns and most advocacy orgs can't benefit from. I doubt most activists on My.BarackObama.com would join up to a similar network set up by a Senate campaign or a non-profit, even if they supported those causes just as much.

SIPP Index - How is the SIPP Index calculated?

michman42000 — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:24:47 -0400

>>Read how the Internet Political Performance Index is Calculated

"The score derived by these factors represents the Internet “market share” owned by each candidate. Those with the greatest reach will have a higher share of the online market because they are connecting with the most potential voters across the entire spectrum of the Internet. Individual factors are weighted based on their importance in connecting with users, such as the degree to which the technology is immersive and action oriented. Weighting also includes the reach of the site/tool as determined by site traffic and page rankings."

Ron Paul

RPmaniac — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:24:44 -0400

Well said Tex, I get really sick of the small but fanatical group of people who use every chance they get to take a shot at Dr. Paul, I have personally converted 17 people to vote for Dr. Paul just by simply asking them to google Ron Paul, or watch one of his youtube videos, the truth of the matter is the other candidates are a joke compared to Dr.Paul and most people need only to watch one or two videos to be convinced of that.

?

Tex MacRae — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:46:30 -0400

..fanatically watched by a small number of people but limited appeal to the greater world.

Could you explain your reasoning behind that conclusion? I'm curious because according to TubeMogul, this video got 2,362 views yesterday for a full 46% of @GoogleTalk total video views yesterday. This video isn't even on Ron Paul's channel. How do you account for that?

Ron Paul's official channel got 22,484 views yesterday. (For comparison, Barack Obama's channel got 12,403 views yesterday.) So, according to your reasoning a small fanatical bunch of supporters viewed over 25,000 videos of Ron Paul yesterday and that's not counting the unofficial videos. For example, this publisher - aravoth - has 7 videos tracked by TubeMogul, all about Ron Paul. Yesterday, his videos received 10,238 views and has a total viewership of 673,244. So make that 35,000 Ron Paul video views yesterday.

Do you really think a small band of fanatics is responsible for that?

ratio

Tex MacRae — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:19:10 -0400

I think it just means that the supporters of candidates other than Ron Paul don't see loyalty to his channel as a way of showing support. Ron Paul's supporters are doing everything they can to support him, including signing up for everything they possibly can and going to every event, etc. RP's videos are regularly the most commented, favorited and rated of the political candidates. See here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014724.html

Another factor is that if a good or important Clinton or Obama video comes out, you'd more than likely hear about it in the media, which is not the case with Ron Paul. His supporters are more likely to subscribe to his channel so as not to miss anything.

youtube views

Todd Zeigler — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:11:26 -0400

Paul numbers make sense - fanatically watched by a small number of people but limited appeal to the greater world. I think Edwards' numbers can't really be compared to the others since his overall view count is inflated because YouTube is his primary player. Edwards' has also promoted his videos more heavily via email than Clinton or Obama (at least that is my perception). I also think Hillary and Edwards' ratios are higher because they have had more "blockbuster" videos (Hair, pick a song contest, Coulter, etc.) than Obama that end up reaching a wider audience.

http://www.bivingsreport.com

Just a thought.

The Walkingman — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:51:07 -0400

My suspicion would be that anyone who spends a significant amount of time on youtube watches some of the videos from multiple candidates, even if they are only subscribed to one.

Ron Paul 3rd in IL Straw

rtester — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:44:33 -0400

Ron Paul 3rd in IL Straw Poll!! 19%