Campaigns track voters' personal data.

January 20, 2004 8:25 PM

Campaigns track voters' personal data.Ever wonder why you get mail and calls from particular political groups, and not others? Turns out the political parties are developing far richer datasets on individuals than the government is. Aristotle International, Inc. (mentioned in the article) is the giant in the field, but there's much smaller ones all over the place (Weave, for instance, helps with environmental activism, and Local Victory is an example on the right). On the one hand, with limited resources, campaigns would say they must do this. On the other hand (as the article points out) it may partially explain why fewer and fewer seem to participate in the electoral process.
posted by MidasMulligan (22 comments total)

Why would they be any different from other marketers? they have a product to sell too.
posted by amberglow at 8:27 PM on January 20, 2004

Why would they be any different from other marketers? they have a product to sell too.

You actually are fine with seeing voters as simply consumers of a political "product"?
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:33 PM on January 20, 2004

So now ... "war is business?"
posted by namespan at 8:41 PM on January 20, 2004

yup--what's the problem? We make informed choices about who to vote for just like we do about other goods and services--and politicians are heavily packaged to "sell" (see Bush, the "compassionate conservative". "He unites, not divides!" "bloodthirsty, yet a good Christian")

The only problem is that it's winner take all, and choice is too limited, and we don't have control over the product after purchase. (the not having control thing is the biggest problem--large donors and lobbyists do buy candidates, but us voters don't have the purchasing power)
posted by amberglow at 8:44 PM on January 20, 2004

First, let me say that I’m a big fan of marketing. I enjoy it immensely when companies understand my consumer needs and cater to my every whim. To an extent, it makes my shopping more efficient, and I’m able to spend less time searching and more time with other aspects of my life. However, before you enter the arena of shopping, or politics, or any other decision-making process, you need to be informed of personal and external goals and agendas. This is where I’m concerned.

Too often these days, more than any other time in my lifetime, we ignore the struggle to understand complex ideas in favor of quick decisions and immediate judgment. Instead of studying products, histories, reviews, and experiences, we instead want it now, for the cheapest price, or the least sacrifice, or the fastest time. And now, more than ever before, our political judgments are as fickle as our consumer preferences. You can’t blame these companies, political or otherwise, for capitalizing on our simplicity. Further, you can’t blame politicians for catering to the lowest common denominator. Companies make large amounts of money mining this information; companies and campaigns benefit greatly from our easily swayed opinions and preferences.

Here’s my question…when do we, as a society, take responsibility for the over-simplification thrown at us by those who use us for financial and political gain? When do we start to seriously self-educate ourselves and our communities to the atrocities being committed, instead of relying upon the government, the media, or a benevolent God?
posted by BlueTrain at 8:51 PM on January 20, 2004

This is mind boggling to me, amberglow... seeing a general lefty like you and knowing something of Midas's probable bent, it seems really odd to see you two take those positions. The left's wariness of market metaphors for everything and right's love affair with them would seem to predict the other set of sidings.

It's essential to our humanity and ability to build better societies that there be some things we don't see as commodities to be bought and sold.

But then again we've been living in a culture in which the attempt to buy human minds is part of what most people do every day (ah, the term mindshare). So in otherwords, I'm not surprised at the runny paint accross the line between the two. But I don't think it's healthy.
posted by namespan at 8:52 PM on January 20, 2004

I should clarify that with "war is business" I'm not meaning to refer to profiteering, but rather to invert the saying that "Business is War." Rather than borrowing the metaphors of warfare for business, it would seem we are borrowing the metaphors of business into other activities. What do we risk if we let that creep everywhere?
posted by namespan at 8:55 PM on January 20, 2004

Midas, you're......you're....a privacy advocate !, and not a shuffling right wing zombie clashing with shuffling left wing zombies : a human being with nuanced views. Uh oh. Oh my....

Metafilter is confusing me! I can't tell the good guys from the bad guys.....what if the bad guys are actually good guys, at least a little?....Stop it, you're making my head hurt.

( just kidding. An Interesting, balanced post which serves as garlic to the bloodsuckers of stereotyping. )
posted by troutfishing at 9:00 PM on January 20, 2004

Well holy shit, if supposedly confidential census data can be used by the government to pidgionhole terrists, why can't they use that data to peg voter support? Lets just bypass AI, Inc. and go right to the heart of the data. Think of how much deficit we can pay off by selling census data to interested parties. This could so be win-win.

To get off the snark train, it is entirely possible that fewer people are involved in the electoral process simply because we don't trust what we've built. If private companies can do such a terrific job of spamming our very lives, than how can we have any faith that the incumbent vote machines have any interest in us, as opposed to manipulating our perceived demographics?

amberglow said it very well, I think.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:02 PM on January 20, 2004

it may partially explain why fewer and fewer seem to participate in the electoral process.
As does the frequently expressed fear that registering to vote will get you called for *gasp* jury duty.
I've done jury duty. I've done jury duty on a murder case. It was very educational. And someday I may try to sell the story to "Law and Order".

Anyone who has ever gotten on the mailing list of one political/advocacy organization in the last twenty years has found themselves getting pitched by other "like-minded" organizations. At least these groups are generally a lot more careful about who they sell/trade their lists with/to than most commercial outfits. But then "not as bad" doesn't necessarily mean good.

Good post, Midas. Good (but strange) discussion...
posted by wendell at 9:03 PM on January 20, 2004

Rather than borrowing the metaphors of warfare for business, it would seem we are borrowing the metaphors of business into other activities. What do we risk if we let that creep everywhere?
Hasn't it always been that way? Business metaphors and war metaphors for everything, at least for the past 100 years. We live in a consumer society (as our parents and grandparents did). If a thing (in this case, a candidate for office) is packaged like a product and sold like a product, why not treat it like a product? I read labels on cans, etc, and try to find out as much as I can about things I buy and consider myself a smart and critical consumer--why not use those skills (honed over a lifetime, and reinforced by all media all the time, and an endless barrage of ads everywhere, online and off) when picking a candidate to support? I see it as certainly more valid than how our President learns about things and makes decisions (relying solely on the opinions and counsel of just a few people around him, with no counterbalances.)

and us leftys and rightys are all individuals, so don't be surprised. : >
posted by amberglow at 9:06 PM on January 20, 2004

And there are always many many things in life that aren't bought and sold (which is fab), but the metaphor can be extended into many many areas, especially interpersonal ones. No one can deny that candidates are packaged very much like products.
posted by amberglow at 9:13 PM on January 20, 2004

knowing something of Midas's probable bent

I've been rather typecast here on MeFi, but quite often the assupmtions are wrong (in fact, having dug pretty deeply into the candidates, I think Lieberman would probably be my number one pick in the coming election ... Bush is my second choice).

While I own a growing business, and will use absolutely every bit of marketing expertise I can get my hands on to better target the services my company offers, I do think politics is different. What I would consider the normal process a responsible citizen should go through to vote (knowing one's own values, examining both the statements and past voting records of the candidates, and making a choice one believes is best for the nation) is no longer how voting happens.

The targeted marketing that is discussed in that article leads (almost inevitably) to a closed feedback loop. The more one has voted in the past, and shares characteristics that makes them likely to favor particular positions/candidates, they more communications they will receive from the political sector ... which will tend to maintain their interest and keep them engaged. Those who do not fit those profiles will receive less and less over time (which will tend to confirm the sense that politics is something they have no personal connection to).

And there's another huge difference between business and politics. If my company and a competitor both try to sell to someone, the the competitor wins, it does not hurt me in any way (i.e., it is identical to the potential client buying no product at all). Furthermore, quite often competitors help (I've landed more than one deal in which a competitor introduced the concept of a particular sort of service to a client - that they were previously unaware of - that lead the client to release an RFP, etc., etc.).

If the targeting has reached the point of sophistication that it has in business, it means a different sort of motive is at play. Politicians not only want to precisely target those that will vote for them - and draw them into active political participation, they will also want want those unlikely to vote for them (or even unknown wild cards) to stay out of the political process.

It just might be that one of the reasons why so many people don't vote is because politicians don't necessarily want them to vote. In the realpolitik of the current world - elections are not won by ideas, they are won ... pure and simple ... by turnout in key states.

I just don't think this is a good thing.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:35 PM on January 20, 2004

Midas - again, thanks for the post. Liberal typecasting is obnoxious as right-wing typecasting.

The Marketplace, at best, is politics distilled. Teach us!
posted by troutfishing at 10:08 PM on January 20, 2004

I've been rather typecast here on MeFi, but quite often the assupmtions are wrong

In retrospect, I'm a bit sorry I even mentioned the assumptions about side taking. Though perhaps the highlight of the broken stereotype is worthwile -- and at any rate, it's a great post and these are good questions.

What I would consider the normal process a responsible citizen should go through to vote (knowing one's own values, examining both the statements and past voting records of the candidates, and making a choice one believes is best for the nation) is no longer how voting happens.

And this largely coincides with my objection. People shouldn't vote like they choose a consumer good -- citizenship and government and public policy are not among the things that I think should be engulfed by the market mindset. I'm disturbed that some people might think it's no different than being sold (or selling) clothing, credit, or cars.

I can't blame office runners for trying to engage those who would support them. I can blame them for ignoring those who are not easily engaged by their agenda. Midas's closed loop is indeed a spectre that makes it ever less hopeful that real platforms will openly compete with each other in an election-season marketplace of ideas.
posted by namespan at 11:00 PM on January 20, 2004

A political campaign's #1 asset -- probably tied with the candidate him or herself -- is its lists. Without lists, a campaign is completely worthless. Ideally, those lists come from the party with which a candidate is affiliated. A Congresssional campaign, for example, would go to the state House and Senate representatives that are of the same party, and ask for their donor list. They would go to every city and county party, and ask for their donor and members list. And they would go to the state party, and ask for their donor and members lists for that district. This ought to give them them between a few thousand and a few hundred thousand names, which they can then shove into Aristotle's database (or NGP's, which is my vendor of choice) and figure out how to mine.

This strikes me as pretty reasonable. After all, why join or become active with a political party if you don't want to hear from its candidates? Those candidates that abuse that data through spamming, autodialing, or flooding somebody's house with mail are going to piss people off and not raise money (and thus be unable to afford more mailings, and they certainly won't get elected), so it's moderately self-regulating, in that regard. Incidentally, it's my personal policy never to campaign to somebody via mass e-mail if they have not double-opted in to receive e-mail from the campaign. Just because they've provided their e-mail address to the party or to another candidate doesn't mean that their inbox is fodder for spam, political or otherwise.

Oh, and the data really isn't so hot. We're lucky to get anything more than an address and a phone number, and those are often wrong. Aristotle makes all kinds of claims about the accuracy and richness of their data (I've just started using their felons database -- we'll see how that works out), but it's really not all that exciting. At best, that data can be viewed through census and market data overlays, so that it can be understood that, given their address, they're known to live in an old, rundown neighborhood with an average household income of under $18,000, so you probably don't want to hit them up for a donation, but you do know that they're probably Democrats.

Any database geeks out there that want to try something new, go work for a federal political campaign. You'll be an absolutely essential staffer, and everybody will love you. Also, you'll be paid horribly, you'll work absurd hours, and it'll be the coolest job you'll ever have.
posted by waldo at 11:44 PM on January 20, 2004

one of the reasons why so many people don't vote is because politicians don't necessarily want them to vote.

Uh, yeah.
We have constitutional amendments just for that very reason.

And then there's Katherine Harris and ChoicePoint and in general the practice of not letting felons who have served their time participate in the election process.

Great post Midas. An important issue. What ever happened to the expectation of privacy? Wasn't that in the original 10 amendments?

Oh hell, there's always the Patriot Acts I and II to take our privacy rights away. Anyone hear aWol defending the Patriot Acts last night?
posted by nofundy at 4:56 AM on January 21, 2004

A political campaign's #1 asset -- probably tied with the candidate him or herself -- is its lists. Without lists, a campaign is completely worthless.

Yes ... this is now true - but my point is that it may not be a good thing when its effects on the bigger picture are taken into account. It fact, it may have been the inefficiencies of lists prior to the IT age that kept more people engaged in the process. The inefficiencies and lack of ability to target would mean that the average person would randomly receive mass mailings.

At this point, I think the fact that slightly less than 50% of the population votes (and that's in Presidential-year elections ... for mid-term Congressionals its even lower) constitutes something close to a legitimacy crisis.

I know quite well the marketing tactics used by big business - and think they make sense ... for businesses offering products and services. As politics adopts them (and gets better at them) - it will likely lead to smaller and smaller percentages of the population receiving greater amounts of communications from candidates - and larger and larger percentages of the population receiving nothing at all.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:52 AM on January 21, 2004

...and larger and larger percentages of the population receiving nothing at all.
But isn't that where the media comes in? It would be impossible to go back to door-to-door campaigning and canvassing (except for Iowa, I guess, due to the media attention)--the primary schedules and sheer distances rule it out for most states and counties and cities.

I also think the continuing importance of endorsements, both by bigshots, and unions and associations, also plays an important role in helping people make voting decisions.
posted by amberglow at 7:24 AM on January 21, 2004

I don't have anything useful to say about the introuction of advanced marketing tactics into political campaigns, except in response to:

Anyone who has ever gotten on the mailing list of one political/advocacy organization in the last twenty years has found themselves getting pitched by other "like-minded" organizations.

And all I'd have to say there is that, by virtue of contributing to one or two such organizations, I've wound up on the Mr. Lefty Mailing List, and frankly, I resent being treated like a mark. It makes me not want to participate. As these tactics become more a part of the general campaign process, I expect votes will decrease for this reason as well.
posted by furiousthought at 7:38 AM on January 21, 2004

BluetTrain, I know I'm quoting you slightly out of context here, but:

I enjoy it immensely when companies understand my consumer needs and cater to my every whim.

But they don't: marketing is about doing the exact opposite of that. Marketing is not about packaging what the consumer wants and presenting it to them in a nice well-sorted bundle, it's about packaging consumers and presenting them to producers in a nice little bundle. This is fine if you're a perfect stereotype, but few of us are, and the mismatches result in us being confronted with a lot more ill-targeted crap then we'd like.

That's not really the bad part, though: the bad part is when this happens at the direct expense of real customer service -- the kind that comes from actually answering the phone (rather than putting callers through a labyrinthine voice menu system) and other non-scripted two-way conversations with their customers. The trouble with it is that it's one-way -- it's all "push". They don't actually listen any more than they can help, they just hire companies to bundle you up into a demographic package.

In other words, from a marketer's perspective, you are not so much the customer of their employer's products, you are a product which they sell to their employer.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:15 AM on January 21, 2004

Yes ... this is now true - but my point is that it may not be a good thing when its effects on the bigger picture are taken into account. It fact, it may have been the inefficiencies of lists prior to the IT age that kept more people engaged in the process.

And I never meant to indicate anything to the contrary, Midas -- I think you're quite right.

There is one additional point worth making, I suppose. That's that the underdog cannot rely on the use of lists. For example, I'm working for a race right now that features a Democrat in a race against an incumbent Republican in a district with extremely weak local Democratic committees, to the extent that they don't have any party at all, practically speaking. The result is that the campaign is forced to do intense research to create new lists and get new people involved, activating voters that may not otherwise participate in the process. The hope is not only that they will become involved, but that they will remain involved -- after all, reelection will come up just two years later.

Republicans, of course, work hard to suppress voting, because the people who tend not to vote are poorer and thus more likely to be Democrats.
posted by waldo at 12:12 PM on January 21, 2004