Daniel Borris for The New York Times |
By JIM RUTENBERG
It was called “the Optimizer,” and, strategists for President Obama say it is how he beat a better-financed Republican opposition in the advertising war.
Culling never-before-used data about viewing habits, and combining it
with more personal information about the voters the campaign was trying
to reach and persuade than was ever before available, the system allowed
Mr. Obama’s team to direct advertising with a previously unheard-of
level of efficiency, strategists from both sides agree.
“Future campaigns ignore the targeting strategy of the Obama campaign of
2012 at their peril,” said Ken Goldstein, the president of Kantar
Media/CMAG, a media monitoring firm that tracked and analyzed political
advertising for both campaigns. “This was an unprecedented marrying of
detailed information on viewing habits and political predispositions.”
One of the biggest emerging stories about the campaign that has ended is
how Mr. Obama’s team used information and technology to outmatch and
outwit a galvanized and incredibly well-financed opposition.
And in the days since the election new details are emerging about just
how outmatched the Republicans were on the technology side, prompting a
partywide re-examination of how to avoid a repeat and regain the
once-fearsome tactical advantages they held in the era of President
George W. Bush. They acknowledge they have their work cut out for
themselves.
Romney campaign officials have said the computer-driven operation they
built to monitor turnout, and to push supporters to polls in areas that
were falling below vote levels needed for victory, crashed and became
inoperative for a prolonged period as voting was under way.
The system was meant to combat the far more sophisticated version that
Mr. Obama’s team had built over years. But Mr. Romney was distracted and
financially depleted by his long primary season, and even with perfect
execution, both sides agree, he never would have had the time or
finances to catch up.
With so much more time to prepare, Mr. Obama’s polling and “analytics”
department collected so much information about the electorate that it
knew far more about which sorts of voters were going to turn out — and
where — than the Romney campaign and most public pollsters.
But in between identifying likely supporters and successfully delivering
them to the polls there was an intensive effort to send them a constant
stream of messages devised to keep wavering 2008 Obama supporters from
succumbing to Mr. Romney’s effort to win them over, and to get
unwavering supporters excited about voting.
That was where “the Optimizer” came in.
In essence, said Larry Grisolano, who helped lead the development of the
system, it created a new set of ratings based on the political leanings
of categories of people the Obama campaign was interested in reaching,
allowing the campaign to buy its advertising on political terms as
opposed to traditional television industry terms.
“We were able to create a set of ratings based on a model of our target
voters, as opposed to the broader categories that are kind of defined by
traditional advertising ratings,” he said.
Erik Smith, another senior strategist, said a decision by “super PACS”
supporting Mr. Romney to hold off on their first major anti-Obama
advertising push until well after the primaries had given the team extra
time to develop its system.
Through its vast array of information collected via its e-mail list,
Facebook and millions of door-to-door discussions conducted by
volunteers in swing states — and fed into the campaign database — the
campaign devised a ranking scale for voters ranging from likeliest to
support Mr. Obama to least likely.
Then the advertising team worked backward to figure out what sorts of
programs likely and undecided voters were liable to watch, and when. It
did so using not only traditional Nielsen Media Research data but also
newly available information from set-top cable boxes that gave a far
more detailed sense of how the groups watched television, and, more
important, commercials.
The answers led to advertising purchases that the campaign might not
have made, especially as it pursued undecided voters who did not
regularly go to traditional sources for news.
Keep reading on New York Times >>
Keep reading on New York Times >>
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario