In this week’s The New Yorker, financial columnist James Surowiecki has a fascinating piece (thankfully available online for non-subscribers) about the science of political campaigning and, particularly, the revolutionizing of the political “ground game” through micro-targeting.

His central premise is this: until the late 90’s, political PR men had only one very blunt weapon–mass media communications. Flyers/mailers, TV attack ads and scripted phone calls were the only way to go. Now, however, technology has turned micro-targeting into an art. Campaign representatives use data drawn from “shopping habits, leisure activities, voting histories, charity donations, and so on” to identify and target two very specific groups of voters: Those who truly haven’t made up their minds and those who may need an extra push to make sure they get to the polls.  It is a never-ending process that is constantly being reviewed and refined.

Surowiecki’s most important point (and one we’ve noted before) is that TV ads are growing less and less effective—and that fact puts an even higher premium on micro-targeting and the simple act of knocking on doors and engaging potential voters in real-world conversations. Repeated surveys have found that the most personal messages are also the most effective. For example, “Just thanking people for having voted in the past significantly increases the chance that they’ll vote again.”

In this way, the evolution of campaigning mirrors changes in general PR practices.

Read more

The mediabistro blogs collectively asked readers last week, “Do you think paywalls will save newspapers?” After a week, we closed the poll. 1,682 people voted. Here are the results:

° 65% : No, in fact it’ll be the beginning of the end as readers flee to other free sources.

° 20% : No, it’ll generate some revenue but won’t make a meaningful difference.

° 12% : Yes, making readers pay will generate the revenue newspapers need to stay afloat.

Reports BayNewser’s E.B. Boyd, “While the poll may seem unscientific, it was relying on the principle articulated in James Surowiecki‘s The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. The principle says that “a diverse collection of independently-deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts.” (Cribbed from Wikipedia.) Care to elaborate on the results? Sound off in the comments.