Comments on: Was it the Medium or the Message?

By: RAMESH (THE PAPA AT MOMMY NIRI)

RAMESH (THE PAPA AT MOMMY NIRI) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:56:06 +0000

The social outreach (offline) and the social media (online) is a reflection of the candidate’s organizational abilities. Simply put, one candidate did a significantly better job. Thanks Todd for the analysis.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:18:04 +0000

Not sure if you live in Mass., Scott, but I do and I respectfully disagree with it being more DC than the candidate. The way you describe it is how I see it positioned in the major media outlets and I don’t agree. Obama’s approval rating is still higher than nationally here in Mass., our unemployment is lower, and there is a higher approval percent for healthcare reform here. The majority of the problem was Martha, behind that in importance sadly IMO was Brown’s attractiveness and persona…I say sadly not because he’s not a good guy but sadly that lookism would have such an impact.

By: Scott Lewis

Scott Lewis — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:02:19 +0000

The thing that got out the independent vote and made sure the Republicans got to the polls had more to do with what’s been going on in D.C. than it did with Coakley as camndidate or her campaign. Could a different candidate or better campaign have made a difference in the final outcome? Maybe but both would’ve needed to be remarkably better.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:28:57 +0000

I give credit to Brown for running a great campaign, but I think the difference in social media is a symptom of the disease but not the whole disease. My credentials are that I live here in the Commonwealth and vote Democratic, including yesterday for Coakley. My Wednesday morning quarterback (to paraphrase Martha) is yelling at me for not voting in the primary. Dems unfortunately chose an unappealing candidate at the wrong time. It is about the perceived lack of warmth in Martha, her lackluster stumping, her inability to reach out to the base…I just started getting calls a few days prior to the election. Too little, too late. She ran a bad campaign, attacked Brown in all the wrong places, disappearing rather than getting out for photo ops in a sweater shaking hands. She assumed which was the fatal mistake.

By: Frank Days

Frank Days — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:20:29 +0000

I see your point. It seems her social media outreach mirrored her generally casual approach to the campaign.

It seems like people were locked into change regardless of the candidate/views.

I wonder if her campaign used social media better how many more connections she would have made?

By: Rachel Happe

Rachel Happe — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:09:29 +0000

Great review Todd – I will also add that it’s a little bit of community management 101. If you don’t create a small group of energized community leaders (i.e. cheeseheads), you simply cannot gain energy with a wider group. I just didn’t see a lot of passion coming from the Martha Coakley camp and I certainly didn’t see her seek out or cultivate that group… and although I’m not a fan of ‘vote for her because she is a woman’, she had that passionate support early on and let it die out.

By: How you say it « Caffeinated ideas and views on marketing communications

How you say it « Caffeinated ideas and views on marketing communications — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:41:11 +0000

[...] lack of campaign skills –Read this great blog post on it by my friends over at Fresh Ground Communications). It may have something to do with HOW the White House is communicating its message, which is [...]