Abstract
When we look at recent election campaigns in Europe or at the presidential elections in the United States, for example, we see that successful campaign concepts are always about voter mobilisation. Although the focus of the political debate in this regard is on the allocation of resources, the use of social media and television budgets, it is actually another question that is essential: how do we reach and target the right people? The answer to this question is as simple as it is old: face-to-face communication and personal conversation. In this respect, political parties based on a strong party structure are at an advantage: they generally possess vast databases full of contacts and further information details. The only challenge is to make good use of these resources.
Keywords
Introduction
When we look at recent election campaigns in Europe or at the presidential elections in the United States, for example, we see that successful campaign concepts are always about voter mobilisation. The candidate who does a better job of convincing followers to cast their votes on polling day wins the elections. Although the focus of media attention and political debate in this regard is on the allocation of resources, the use of social media and television budgets, it is actually another simple, yet crucial, point that is at the core of it all: how do we manage to reach people and convince them to vote for us and, more importantly, join the political battle on our side?
Canvassing: personal contact is the key
Before we talk about the impact of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other forms of social media, we have to ask how we can reach and target the right people. The answer to this question is as simple as it is old: face-to-face communication and personal conversation. In Austria we have an old saying, ‘Durch's Reden kommen d'Leut zam’, 1 which illustrates this idea very well: there is no substitute for canvassing. Even, or maybe especially, in our digital age, people are still dependent on personal conversation and human interaction–-and there is a significantly greater chance that someone will remember us if we come to the door or talk to people on the phone, as opposed to only reading about some distant person on a leaflet or brochure. Although this is a general strategy, it is especially true when it comes to reaching elderly people, who are often not as familiar with the modern tools of communication as the younger generation but who constitute an increasingly significant portion of the electorate in many European countries.
This proverb can be loosely translated as ‘Talking brings people together’.
A phone call or a knock at the door is not only the best way to motivate people to vote and get involved, but it is also a good way to get to know the people, their interests and potential, for example by asking questions about their party preferences, frequency of voting, and contribution and policy interests. Clearly, canvassing is very time-consuming during a campaign, but it is worthwhile. The central challenge in this context is, therefore, how do we succeed in collecting as many contacts as possible during a fairly short election campaign, and which contacts can be identified as the right ones?
Data collection: 2 a multistep concept
Having a name, an address, an email address and a phone number is definitely a good start but is certainly not enough. It is essential to identify the right people and to meet them in their own living environment in order to be able to make propositions specific to them. Here, a multistep concept comes into play: the full scale of points of contact ranges from low-threshold options such as the ‘Like’ button on Facebook, to voluntary participation in telephone campaigns, all the way up to donations, personal full-time commitment and membership of the party. For instance, some people might not be willing to write a letter to the editor, but they might be interested in volunteering for a telephone campaign or for sharing specific content online; others might be more inclined to donate and yet others are more open to other forms of personal involvement. Finding out who is interested and willing to do specific things is the central task in this context.
Today data and information can be bought ‘in bulk’ from commercial providers. Although this is widely used by political parties in the United States, it is difficult and problematic in many countries, due to strict privacy regulations.
Modern technologies and microtargeting
Obviously, modern technologies have made it easier to target people more accurately than was possible in the past. Target groups can be identified more closely, and activity protocols help to establish a contact history and better identify people with high potential for further communication and activities. The ‘backroom number crunchers’ for instance, who helped President Barack Obama during his 2012 re-election campaign, have come to prominence for their gigantic databases and meticulous information gathering. Microtargeting techniques were employed to learn as much about potential voters as possible in order to target groups of people with messages tailored to them. If, for example, someone can be identified as being specifically interested in environmental issues, it might be a good idea to inform that person about recent accomplishments in the field of renewable energies instead of bombarding him or her with the latest news about the progress made on the Nabucco natural gas pipeline. This may sound self-evident, but it is only possible through a large database hosting specific information.
Addressing the privacy issue
Something that should be considered in this context is the issue of privacy. Although the very limited and rather lax privacy regulations in the US favour large-scale data collection and data buying, it is often a more difficult and more time-consuming job in Europe. Due to European and national privacy laws, getting the consent of the targeted individual and/or having access to public data is mostly indispensable. In Austria, for instance, political parties have access to the central register of voters for campaigning purposes. Although this provides only limited information, it is a start. In order to build a more in-depth database, being able to rely on to a strong party structure and the information provided by members is very helpful. This still might not be sufficient to microtarget people like the Americans do, but it should certainly be enough to conduct a successful door-to-door campaign, which in turn should help in further developing the database for future campaigns.
Managing the data
A database is never really complete. It has to be updated and renewed constantly. In general this can be done in both a quantitative and a qualitative fashion: adding new contacts and accumulating more information about preexisting contacts is one important way of enhancing a database. Another way is to upgrade contacts from lower levels of involvement to higher levels and thus change the quality of a contact. For example, someone who has previously posted regularly on Facebook might also be encouraged to comment on articles or write a letter to the editor of a newspaper; someone who has hitherto donated €50 might be persuaded to donate €100 the next time and so on. Creating and maintaining data is a skill of any campaign manager and is indispensable. The art of an excellent campaign, however, is to know how to mould numbers and data into votes, and this happens on the doorsteps of people's homes.
Back to the simple knock on the door
Former President George W. Bush owes his election victory of 2004 to a large extent to the mobilisation of his followers; so does President Obama in 2012. The coalition that essentially contributed to Barack Obama's election victory in 2008 (African Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans) remained largely intact in 2012. Hence, Mr Obama was evidently able to mobilise large parts of his core constituency of 2008 again in 2012 even though it has been noted that the gap was significantly narrower than it was four years ago (New York Times 2012).
In the context of voter mobilisation, the media mix used by campaign planners and the various online strategies are being widely discussed. In fact, however, they are merely the tools used to identify the households in which those people live, where one wants to actually get in touch with them, be it over the phone, via email or in door-to-door campaigns. In this respect, the numbers published by the Obama campaign are impressive: they claim to have registered close to 1.8 million new voters in key battleground states; they made more than 125 million personal phone calls and accomplished close to 700,000 canvassing shifts (Stewart et al. 2012). Clearly, the sheer numbers do not tell the whole story; the message and the charisma of the candidate play an important role in every campaign. However, getting out to the voters and reaching as many citizens as possible is vital for every campaign. It is often overlooked in this respect that, in spite of all the fancy new tools, which were also used in these campaigns, rather old-fashioned techniques were employed when it came to getting in touch with people. As I underlined at the beginning: there is no substitute for canvassing.
Strong party structures can be an asset
It is therefore crucial not to confound tool with goal. It is not the Facebook appearance itself that leads to success but how one can use the Facebook contacts. In other words, an election is not won by having 35 million Facebook ‘Likes’ (as the Obama Facebook page has) but by making good operational use of this loose network. In this respect, political parties based on a strong party structure are not old fashioned per se. They are at a significant advantage: they generally possess vast databases full of contacts and information details. The Austrian People's Party (österreichische Volkspartei, öVP), for instance, has more than 700,000 members, about 70,000 functionaries and local party branches in every community in Austria. The challenge, though, is to make good use of these resources.
The US is not the only country where successful door-to-door campaigning works. What we have to do in order to make good use of this instrument is to translate the ‘American way’ into a ‘European way’, or rather several ‘European ways’. During the recent regional elections in Lower Austria for example, thousands of functionaries of the öVP went from door to door in an effort to get in touch with people (Renner and Bonavida 2013). The strong and decentralised party structure of the öVP is clearly advantageous in this regard. Functionaries at many levels can be persuaded to canvass and are more likely to know the person who opens the door. This makes it significantly easier to address personal interests even without the help of elaborate data, mined by complex algorithms. The campaign in Lower Austria proved to be very successful: the öVP managed to reach the people, retain the absolute majority of votes and thus meet its self-set election goal. Clearly, what worked in Austria might not be the right formula for every country. Depending on the party's structure and its strengths, as well as the political, societal and legal environment, every campaign will be challenged to find the most appropriate way to best reach the citizens.
In order to further illustrate the advantage of a strong and decentralised party structure in regard to door-to-door campaigning, I would like to briefly address a referendum which was held recently in Austria.
The case of the Austrian referendum on conscription
In January 2013, Austria held the first referendum at the federal level in the history of the country. The question was fairly simple: should compulsory military service and the alternative civilian service be abolished and replaced by a professional army and a ‘paid social year’, or should conscription as a means of recruiting and the civilian service be retained? The two major political parties in Austria–-the öVP and the Social Democratic Party of Austria–-held opposing views on the subject. The Social Democrats favoured a professional army, but the Austrian People's Party supported conscription.
With respect to the öVP's campaign, it was clear from the beginning that mobilisation–-as is the case in so many elections today–-was essential. Despite polls showing a slight majority in favour of the well-established system, a lot of potential voters were undecided or unclear about whether or not they would cast their vote at all. In this regard, the öVP managed to make excellent use of its structure and the party's traditional strength. The öVP is represented in every community in Austria, and about two-thirds of all mayors in Austria belong to this party. It was thus possible during the campaign to reach the people directly and personally and convince them of the importance of the upcoming decision on many different levels. The mobilisation below the line, for example in direct conversations, at community events, with direct mailings and through telephone campaigns, instead of through large-scale poster campaigns and mass-media advertisements, proved to be especially successful.
In addition, it was helpful that the message was fairly simple–-yes to security, no to experiments–-and was supported in different forms by all the branches of the party and all nine regional organisations. The communication worked from the highest level down to the community level, such as in conversations at the regulars’ table at pubs and inns all across the country, yet another indicator that a good party structure can be very useful.
The grand finale of the factional mobilisation campaign was a tour by party leader Michael Spindelegger through all nine Bundesländer, the federal states in Austria, in the last two weeks before the referendum. At countless visits to civilian service facilities, numerous swearing-in ceremonies for young recruits, New Year's celebrations, balls and other festivities throughout Austria, he was able to convey the message and urge people to make use of their right to vote. In the end, the referendum brought a clear vote for conscription (almost 60% of the electorate) and a landslide victory for the öVP. Clearly, the reasons for this success are manifold, but the mobilisation efforts below the line–-through face-to-face communication on all levels, which was made possible to a large extent by the strong party structure of the öVP–-certainly tipped the scales.
Conclusion
In this brief analysis I hope to have shown that voter mobilisation is essential for every election campaign and that personal contact is the key to a successful mobilisation effort. The costly and elaborate campaigns in the US have clearly set a new standard in this regard. That said, we–-as European campaign strategists–-should not feel intimidated or discouraged by the tools and funds American campaigns have at their disposal. New social media tools and campaigning gadgets are only a means to an end, and good party structures can compensate to a large extent for overflowing ‘campaign war chests’. It will undoubtedly also be paramount for European campaigns to create and maintain a solid and reliable database, whether it is based on a strong party structure or built by arduous data collecting (which are not mutually exclusive). European privacy laws alter the conditions under which data can be collected and used, but they by no means render it impossible or futile.
I have repeatedly emphasised that door-to-door campaigning is necessary for every modern election campaign. It is what makes personal contact possible and fruitful. This is probably the most important lesson to be learned from the American campaigns: in order to mobilise voters and to win elections, we have to meet the citizens where they live–-face to face, on their specific topics–-and get talking to them. The way future election campaigns can accomplish this goal will differ, depending on the structure of the political party, the regulatory framework and societal preconditions. In the case of the öVP, a strong and decentralised party structure combined with a well-maintained database has proven to be a promising way. The future will tell how political campaigns in Europe will tackle this challenge and how successful they will be at it. The federal elections in Germany and Austria later this year will certainly be of great interest in this regard.
Footnotes