Think Audience, not List

January 23, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Naïve candidates, electeds, and political operatives think that lists are important, valuable assets which they either guard jealously or covet gratuitously. They presume that an operative or an elected with a [provide-your-own-hyperbole] list can somehow bring access to some secret cache of support that would be unattainable without hiring or locking down the support of that one key person with a great list.

If they could just get access to the “real” list–you know, the “right” list: that targeted distillation of the people that will make a difference and none of the hoi-polloi–then all their political dreams would come true. Of course, once they get some coveted list, comes the snark about data quality (bad phone numbers, emails, addresses, “should have been targeted better”, “too many saying ‘no’”, “big waste of time”, “this isn’t THE list”, grumble grumble grumble).

Too few professional operatives are willing to call out that kind of talk for what it is when they hear it.

There’s no great, “magic” list out there. That kind of talk is just a carryover from the way campaigns used to work. Or worse, it’s the words of a skilled manipulator implicitly trying to negotiate or renegotiate the terms of influence trading—sometimes parroted by wannabees.

Anything like perfect data quality in politics is a waste of resources since the process of campaigning generates information that is more valuable than the data on any list.

But the process of campaigning is hard. And most folks would prefer an easy way out of doing the hard work. I get that. I waste a lot of time wishing things could be easier, too. Generally, that kind of wishing doesn’t accomplish much beyond distracting me from the things that matter most.

A simple fact of the world we actually live in today is that there is so much data openly available and of far superior quality to anything anyone in politics has locked away in any proprietary database that no political organization could hope to have the resources to digest it all.

Still, any campaign, on almost any budget, should be able to combine right-scale data research and a systematic communication strategy to build an in-house list (or better, an audience) that’s far more meaningful than any list they could acquire. That doesn’t mean that acquiring proprietary lists shouldn’t play a role in good campaign strategies; it’s just that list acquisition is of little value without good research and a rock-solid communication strategy.

So if you are an elected official, or you think you might want to be one someday, and you plan to hire any political operative because of the list you think they have (or even worse, buy any list outright) stop it, stop it right now. You are wasting your donor’s money. You would be far better off investing in building your own relationships with voters, donors, opinion leaders, prospective voters, and prospective donors (you know, people).

If you are a political operative making, or hoping to make, a living by getting people to pay you for access to any list or group, stop doing that. Go MAKE SOMETHING: build a campaign operation to help candidates and electeds contact and build genuine relationships with voters, donors, opinion leaders, prospective voters, and prospective donors (you know, people).

If you are political club keeping yourself alive by making candidates and elected officials jump through hoops to get your endorsement in exchange for them driving attendance and paid membership, you should stop, too. Instead, BUILD SOMETHING. Create an environment where people can find and relate to serious candidates and office-holders, make it genuine and not contrived, and lay it all bare so that the fakes and the phonies have nowhere to hide.

A list (what used to be called a rolodex) seems a lot like a political asset, but it’s not really. A strong network of relationships, a ready audience, is far more valuable . . . but, when it comes right down to it, calling that audience a political asset or a thing of value really misses the point. To the extent that you think of a network of relationships as an asset, you actually undermine its strength. Build an audience, and RESPECT it–do that and you will be doing better than anyone doing politics.

Filed Under: audience building Tagged With:

Organizational Data Posture: transactional and analytical databases

November 28, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Most of what I know about databases and data management I taught myself while working with (or thinking about the problems of) political campaigns. The rest I learned in grad school while thinking about thinking about politics. Either way, most of my professional life has been spent organizing data and trying to figure out what, if anything, we could actually know from looking at data. If nothing else, I’ve figured out one thing for sure: organizing the data is inextricably linked to learning anything from it.

I have always been frustrated by the lack of careful thought about the relationship between how data is stored and modeled and its intended use. You can think of this relationship as the organizational posture of data—the state of data when you are not looking at it determines how easy it is to get down to understanding data when the time comes. Awareness of posture matters just as much for business as it does in academic research and political campaigns.

Most small organizations get their data posture wrong because getting data management right used to be expensive and difficult. Worse still, if you got it wrong, you could actually make a nightmare out of trivial access to mission-critical data. Those circumstances created some bad habits.

Now data management infrastructure has matured to the point where tools for managing and collecting transactional data are readily and cheaply available. Whether browser-based database applications, e-commerce tools, point-of-sale customer identification, email marketing services, QR-codes in printed communications, or mobile computing apps, we have available to us plentiful ways to measure the mechanisms of audience engagement.

Likewise, tools and techniques for understanding and analyzing data have reached the point where high-value insights are available for the simple cost of collecting good data and managing it well. Business Intelligence (BI) tools—built on the premise that ad hoc data analysis should be easy to implement without hand-coding and complicated programming—have broken out of the Enterprise-only realm and are accessible to organizations of even modest scale.

Inexpensive transactional data management coupled with accessible BI tools may sound like data paradise but there’s a missing piece of the puzzle: the tools for managing and collecting transactional data don’t necessarily store and present data optimally for analytical tools—and they probably shouldn’t.

In technical jargon this is the difference between OLTP (online transactional processing) and OLAP (online analytical processing). Most small-to-medium organizations (especially those that are undercapitalized) will try to get by conducting analytical functions from within their transactional databases. This tactic is often manageable at small volumes but it does not scale well. The tipping point comes when the analytic potential of non-mission-critical data becomes valuable enough that it makes sense for the organization to start gathering and collecting it. That the analytical data is valuable is assumed; but if the organization pools that data, in what is likely the only data management tool available, with mission-critical transactional data then problems develop.

First, as live transactional data becomes a smaller and smaller proportion of the overall dataset; transactional performance suffers—requiring processing power or worse, users, to sort through irrelevant data to get to current customer information. Second, analytic power suffers because the organizational schema is built to optimize insertion of individual transactions rather than extraction and summarization of large-scale analytics.

The art of striking the right organizational data posture is to recognize when you are at the point of realizing serious value from data analytics. There are two things you want to avoid: (1) you don’t want to be playing catch-up later against competitors who got it right and (2) you don’t want to have to disentangle an intertwined mess of OLTP/OLAP databases.

Filed Under: data management Tagged With:

Using Statistical Inference in the Practice of Politics

July 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Most people interested in politics have at least some exposure to the use of statistical inference at a very basic level–at the very least, most would accept that it does work and know of some specialists more adept than themselves at using it. Polls are stock-in-trade of most political news coverage and so every entry-level political junkie quickly develops some facility with the jargon necessary for trading suppositions based on horse-race polling.

Of course,  a little experience lends the ever-so-slightly-seasoned political operative to learn that the real value of polling lays not in measuring where we are but in guiding resource allocation. The most important inferences (educated guesses about facts which cannot be directly observed) for campaigns to make have to do with the differential effect that issue messages or various framings of contestable issues have on persuadable voters—and the key information here is which messages move just enough voters at the lowest cost. In a campaign with scarce resources (and I’ve never seen any other kind) investing in information that helps you spend your communications budget wisely is almost always a good choice.

Micro-targeting is a deeper use of statistical inference that is becoming increasingly available to campaigns. It started with the largest (nationwide, presidential) campaigns, but the method has become more accessible to smaller (statewide, nationally-targeted congressional, and statewide-targeted legislative) campaigns. The practice is revolutionary for campaigns and work like this:

Start with a voter file. . .improve that voter file with commercially available data about consumer behavior (especially consumer behavior reasonably linked to political interests). . .draw a large sample form the improved voter file. . .poll large sample on a battery of political interest questions. . .regress poll results on sample to derive a model that relates political interests to consumer behavior. . .apply that model to the broader voter file to predict electoral behavior. . .use predictions to constrain persuasion and mobilization communication expenditures and reduce wasted communication.

Now, the casual observer might notice that there are quite a few steps of inference and supposition in that chain of reasoning, but these are sensible when performed by someone who fully understands the statistical pitfalls.

A deeper way to apply statistical inference to improve targeting and resource allocation is to combine micro-targeting predictions (and/or traditional polling results) with tactical field campaign results to further pare down target universes or to highlight mobilization segments.

Micro-targeting is revolutionary as a first application of bringing large datasets to bear to drive inferences about electoral behavior. But the state-of-the art has already begun to pass this technique by. The obvious innovation of combining micro-targeting predictions with tactical field data suggests a more powerful methodological move we could make. Field campaign data represents the tip of the iceberg when it comes to measurable campaign activity. Generally, field efforts in well-organized campaigns collect two dimensions of data (turnout intent & candidate preference) coded on a five- to seven-point scale. The development of statewide shared voter files through browser-based data applications has fostered the spread of best-practices, improved coding, and made it possible to collect, store, and accumulate such data across election cycles.

But vote choice and vote intent (while highly instrumental variables) are only a very narrow view into political behavior. Given that we have a wide array of tools available to deliver calls-to-action across a number of media and a number of corresponding tools to measure response we actually have the capacity to generate call and response filters that can define multi-dimensional segmentation for political audiences. This gives us an opportunity—if we will take it—to walk non-voters through a succession of calls-to-action and measured iterative communication to determine which paths will lead which sub-segments to convert to voters, to become our voters, or to adopt a shared identity.

If you are interested to learn how to implement these techniques in your campaign, we’d love to hear from you.

Filed Under: inference, targeting Tagged With: