Trumblog

It’s not as if search engine marketing is cutting edge anymore or that that only a select few know about it. SEM is mainstream and that’s why I’m puzzled about the results of Rimm-Kaufman Group’s report Search and Politics ’08.

According to the study:

• less than 50% of the Presidential Candidates are using SEM, and
• more Republican candidates are using SEM than Democratic candidates.

I’m surprised about the Democrats not taking advantage of search because of past performances of Democratic candidates online and activity on social networking sites. They just seem to get it better. The fact that SEM hasn;t taken off for politicians is puzzling because SEM is so cost effective (only paying for actual clicks), so targeted (the SEM campaign can be developed where the intent of searcher’s query can be addressed on the landing page), and so easy (the big 2 Google and Yahoo!, and most other engines, make it simple to set up and manage an account). It seems like a natural for a cash strapped, individual focussed political campaign.

I work with brands and search so I’m going to look at candidates the same way. Obama is a brand, Giuliani is a brand, Clinton is a brand, Romney is a brand, Edwards is a brand. They have brand messages. They hope that voters react positively to that brand and the expectations of what that brand will deliver and therefore select that brand with their vote.

The beauty, or problem, with how we elect a president is that the low turnout for primary elections leads to the most committed members of each party having alot of power in selecting the candidate for each party. That power comes from their turning out at the polls because they are actively engaged in the political process.

When a consumer is actively engaged with an issue that a brand is a participant in, that is a surefire way to make a connection. But beyond that, an actively searching consumer is also one who is in the sales cycle, someone looking to buy product or a service. That’s why search works and why it would work with these engaged voters.

Let’s say that the primary issue that I’m using to select a candidate to vote for is global warming? I’m not looking for information on a candidate, but am searching for information on the issue that I am passionate about. An ad is served to me from a candidate. That tells me that the candidate is thinking about this issue and appealing to people like me. If I click through, their well selected landing page describing their position on the issue hopefully appeals to me and earns my vote, or at least a favorable impression of the candidate. I now know that the issue that this candidate cares about the same issue I do, wants my vote, I may even know their position on the issue and because of my interest in a particular issue and awareness that there is a candidate to vote for I am also more likely to vote. Slam dunk, and I haven’t even gotten to targeting!

I live in Massachusetts and I see campaign ads. Why? Not because my vote will have much to do with the selecting of my party’s candidate, thanks to my state’s primary. being the 34th. I see those ads because candidates are trying to hit southern New Hampshire and that means hitting me too. With SEM you can target exactly who you want to reach. I can make sure that my ads are displayed in New Hampshire and Iowa and only those states. Again I only pay for the clicks and impressions that I am trying to reach.

The benefits are so clear and yet I don’t see why more politicians don’t get it. But then I have clients who don’t either.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...