Deft Communications

  • Who We Are
  • Meet Jon Ekstrom
  • What We Do
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • Podcasting/Audio Storytelling

The Sanders Campaign: A Study in Crowd-Sourced Media Tactics

April 7, 2016 by Jon Leave a Comment

This photo is from Philly.com - here: http://media.philly.com/images/BernieSanders3.jpg

More than any candidate for elected office I can remember, and certainly since I’ve been on social media, Senator Bernie Sanders has dominated the discussion of many in my social circle. It’s been remarkable seeing many I’ve never seen politically engaged before, take part in our democratic process. He’s awakened political interest in many, and for that he should be applauded.

Having noted that, some of the narrative surrounding Senator Sanders irks me. In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t count myself among those who #FeeltheBern. I think a voice like that of Senator Sanders is crucial to our future as a country, and reflects a substantial constituency that, historically, has either been marginalized or out and out ignored. His views are an important contribution to the multitude of views of how to make this country the best it possibly can be.

However, no matter how noble his character, I don’t believe Senator Sanders’s approach to governance is the best path forward for America. The reason comes down to a fundamental question of government: How effective do you believe the government is as a provider of goods and services? The guiding principles of how Senator Sanders plans to govern necessitate a prohibitive (for me) amount of faith in the government to be an effective provider of those things that allow for our way of life. Senator Sanders, by declaration of his own platform, wishes to centralize many of the services utilized by Americans under the umbrella of federal bureaucracy.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not some wingnut Libertarian who thinks we need to eliminate virtually all government and privatize everything down to things like fire departments and highway construction. But having worked tangentially with government agencies and directly on issues of public policy for basically a decade, I am uncomfortable with the degree to which Senator Sanders desires to centralize our economy and redistribute wealth. Some government is good. The amount of government Senator Sanders aspires to create were he to be elected President of the United States is excessive, in my opinion.

The above paragraphs are here simply to provide illustration of where I stand on Senator Sanders as a political candidate. I include them to ensure what comes next are not viewed as some opportunistic attack on him or some backdoor endorsement of either Secretary Clinton or one of the Republican candidates. I wish to provide neither. I am, however, fine with asserting on record that I find everything about Donald Trump abhorrent.

Further important context: I like Bernie Sanders the person. He seems sincere in the issues for which he advocates, and the longevity and consistency of his advocacy of those issues is remarkable. In terms of his core beliefs, Bernie Sanders seems to have been true to them for as long as he has held elected office. That’s rare among career politicians, and is worthy of acclaim, regardless of whether or not you agree with him. A man of such startling conviction on the issues he’s advocated for – which notably includes his being on the right side of history in terms of gender equality, racial and social justice, LGBT rights, and the overwhelming majority of issues pertaining to the ethical treatment of our fellow humans – is a man worthy of esteem. We should aim to the same level of humanistic empathy Bernie Sanders has embodied and espoused his entire political career.

But, and that’s where this essay takes a turn, that doesn’t mean he’s immune to calculated political posturing, either. This is a man who has successfully held elected office for more than 35 years, and it’s insane to believe he doesn’t have a keen understanding of how the campaign game is played. And we finally arrive to the place in the essay where I talk about the things that annoy me about Bernie Sanders, of which there are two that really stand out. These opinions are based on my professional experience and relevant work in the public sphere. The purpose of this essay is to provide context and insight that I haven’t otherwise seen anywhere else. So, here we go…

The #Humblebrag of Bernie Sanders flying middle seat coach

By now, you’ve all seen this photo, or one like it:

COqrKlnVEAESFBT

At first blush, it’s totally charming. Hey, look at that! Man of the people! Sitting there in the crappy middle seat just like the rest of us! That’s a guy who gets it. That’s a guy who doesn’t put himself above the electorate. That’s who I want in a president!

But the more I thought about it, the more it annoyed me. Why the hell would Senator Bernie Sanders, a man running for the most important elected office in (probably) the entire world, and a man who is on the road an unholy amount of time, subject himself to the irritations of common air travel? I have two theories, but first a quick digression.

When I worked in my corporate job, I was on the road probably 25% of the time on average. One week a month I had a take a trip by plane. When you’re on the road even that much, you become intimately familiar with the indignities and hassles of air travel. Traveling one week a month (or about 30 flights a year), afforded me certain perks that made the experience notably less terrible. Early check-ins, priority boarding, less rigorous security screenings, and seat upgrades were among the benefits realized. Not having to experience the full headache-inducing rigmarole of the air travel jamboree helped me do my job better, which brings me back to Senator Sanders.

Why the hell is a man whose travel schedule certainly puts me and my worst stretches in corporate communications to shame by a mile, traveling in this way? Two theories:

1. His logistics team hasn’t mastered the airlines’ self-created loyalty system and Senator Sanders is bargain hunting airfares as if he’s the average rube family who goes on one flight every two years. Those poor folks always end up at the back of the plane in middle seats that aren’t even together, victims of seasoned business travelers who navigate the system much more efficiently and score choicer seats with better benefits. Given that we’re talking about a team of relentless political operatives who have to know the ins and outs of almost everything to run an enterprise this enormous with any degree of efficiency, this option seems unlikely.

2. Bernie Sanders is deploying a brand proposition and shamelessly pandering to his constituent base, who are eating this populist shit up with a spoon. He emboldens his Average Joe street cred by flying in the middle seat of coach and gives the people who already love him yet more fodder for sticking it to those they believe are oppressing them. It’s either craven opportunism, or, now that I think about it a little further, it’s possible Senator Sanders is trapped by his own persona where if he were to upgrade to first class like any rational thinking person who travels enough to earn those upgrades would, any photo taken of him in that seat would demolish his mystique. Think about your own life and how you feel about air travel. If your job required you to fly constantly, wouldn’t you take the free upgrades every single time? Of course you would.

Bernie Sanders either can’t upgrade because he’s actively grandstanding to curry your favor, or is trapped in that seat because seeing him anywhere else would diminish (at least a little bit) your fondness for him. Either way, I know if I had to travel this way as much as Senator Sanders does, my job performance would suffer. Is the brand proposition worth it, especially if you’re 74 years-old? It seems it is, considering just how much I see people post about this, which, also allows for a lot of crowd-sourced publicity. This brings me to my second big gripe…

The conspiracy of the lack of mainstream coverage of Senator Sanders’ campaign

Before we dive headfirst into this one, I’ll grant that some of the coverage choices by mainstream cable networks of the Presidential campaign are baffling. For instance, CNN chose to show Donald Trump’s empty stage instead of Senator Sanders’ speech that same night, and the Sanders campaign rightfully showcased this. That, to me, is poor journalism and justifiably fuels the anger and fear of cronyism felt by Sanders’ constituent base.

Despite that, the claims of lack of coverage are not only overstated, but completely ignore the fact that this is exactly how the Sanders campaign wants you to feel through a calculated media strategy. How do I know this? For starters, I’ve worked in media relations for the last decade and understand firsthand the importance of developing a coordinated coverage plan designed both to embolden your client’s (or in this case, candidate’s) public persona. Second, I understand just how challenging it can be to differentiate your candidate in a crowded political landscape, especially when you’ve got someone like Donald Trump dominating the coverage. I’m no Trump fan, but I acknowledge that his one true gift is understanding how to keep himself at the top of the news and garner a remarkably disproportionate share of the headlines. His abilities in this arena are truly unparalleled.

So, why no coverage for the Sanders campaign? Because that’s exactly what they want you to think. It’s not that the media is denying the Sanders campaign coverage, it’s my professional opinion that the Sanders campaign is actively discouraging it in order to play up the conspiratorial suspicions of his followers. Wall Street is gouging you! Corporations are pillaging this country! And The corporate media is complicit in this. They’re in Wall Street’s pocket!

The first time I had this suspicion is when 9News anchor Kyle Clark posted this commentary detailing 9News’ many attempts to reach the Sanders campaign, and their flat out refusal or inability to respond. Clark suspected that the Sanders campaign was surprised by its own success and overwhelmed by the volume of media requests they received.

It’s a fine theory, and it’s possible Clark is deigning to accuse the Sanders campaign of chicanery because that would be a) speculative, and b) sort of off-brand for a respected political reporter, but I think it underestimates the shrewdness of the staff hired by a man who’s been a professional politician and campaigner for more than 35 years. Is it realistic to think these folks are overwhelmed by simple interview and comment requests from local news stations? Please. The first thing you do as a communications professional on any project likely to receive media inquiries is write an FAQ document to address the most common ones. It’s a totally rote task to check off the list, and it’s part of the interplay game between reporters and those seeking coverage. It’s the system, and while it’s flawed, anyone who’s worked more than six months in this vocation understands it and can accommodate it.

Which is why I think the Sanders campaign is so diabolically brilliant. They looked at the landscape, saw their potential slice of the coverage pie, recognized it would be miniscule against the Trump steamroller, Hillary Clinton’s more than two decades working in the political front and center, and the clown car of Republican primary candidates, and said fuck it, let’s go in the opposite direction. Let’s actively seek the least amount of mainstream coverage possible and plant the seed in the minds of our constituents that we’re victims of corporate media stoogery.

It’s a strategy that’s not only cheaper and much less time intensive from a simple tactical standpoint, but plays into the already-existing fears of your followers. You galvanize your position as the outsider and inspire thousands upon thousands of pissed off social media posts from your most fervent believers. In essence, you’ve crowd sourced your entire media relations practice and created a brilliant brand differentiator for your candidate in a way that money and traditional media tactics cannot buy you. From a purely professional standpoint, my hat is off to whoever is in charge of this for the Sanders campaign. You’re doing incredible work.

It’s impossible to manufacture something like this without everyone seeing right through it:

CSrdWq5UYAAJlGA.jpg large

That’s got to come from outside the campaign, and while you absolutely cannot have any campaign fingerprints on it or else the whole jig is up, it’s only through a) having a populist outsider candidate with a motivated grassroots following, and b) manipulating the environment so that something like that can come into being. How do you do that? Well, I have no firsthand knowledge of what the Sanders campaign did or didn’t do, but here are some tactical choices I’d make to facilitate this. Don’t directly invite any media members. Make obtaining media credentials an arduous pain in the ass. Rope the press off into a crappy vantage point. Make the campaign unavailable for questions before or after the rally. These are but a few of any number of simple-but-dastardly things you can do to ensure lack of mainstream media coverage and empower your followers to do the jobs the media is supposedly falling down on.

Can I confirm the Sanders campaign is actually doing any of this? Of course not. It’s possible they’re feckless, as implied by Kyle Clark’s editorial conjecture, and unable to handle the demands of a relentless onslaught of inquiries from all across the country. Maybe it’s a staff of newbs who don’t have a good handle on the interplay between event logistics and media relations. Or maybe the entire corporate media complex is conspiratorially working together to silence Bernie Sanders and his supporters to ensure the status quo is maintained. Does any of that seem likely to me? Absolutely not.

Bernie Sanders seems like a good dude. But he’s running for President of the United States, an act that requires an abnormal amount of narcissism, self-regard, and incisive tactical acumen. And you have to surround yourself with a whole team of people wired in a very similar way. Using only the knowledge and insight I’ve gained in my chosen profession, it seems likely that the Sanders campaign is taking an oppositional approach to its media relations strategy and solidifying the Senator’s brand in the process. And they’re doing an amazing job at it.

So the next time you lament the craven machinations of any of the other candidates or wring your hands over the unfair treatment your candidate receives, perhaps you should think critically about how maybe you’re acting exactly the way your preferred candidate’s team wants you to. Politics is a game played with live ammo. Don’t think one candidate is coming into this without weapons of his own.

Filed Under: Media, Politics

The Insanity and Banality of the Iowa Caucuses

February 1, 2016 by Jon Leave a Comment

The Iowa Caucuses logo: https://twitter.com/iacaucus2016

I doubt anyone who reads this doesn’t know that today the Iowa Caucuses occur. If this is, in fact, news to you, I salute your reclusive commitment to avoidance of current events coverage. To the rest of you, I suspect you feel as exhausted by this process as I do.

Watching this ceaseless dog and pony show drag on and on all throughout Iowa – and, to a slightly lesser extent, New Hampshire – not only has me fatigued of every candidate, but has undermined some of my faith in democracy. Because this strikes me as an insane way of electing a president.

This is not to say the most important job in the world doesn’t deserve a thorough and exhaustive vetting process – it absolutely does – but is this the best we can do? Candidates started showing up in Iowa as early as 2013 to garner support in the first stop of this turgid slog of a campaign season. That’s three years courting voters, who, when it comes time to actually elect a president, account for a mere six electoral votes out of 538 possible. Throw in New Hampshire, and that number climbs to a robust 10.

That’s a lot of photo ops in front of ethanol fueling stations, “ad hoc” stump speeches at pizza joints, and town halls filled with people I have a hard time imagining exist in real life. I’ve voted in every election I possibly could since 2000 and work tangentially in government and politics, which is to say, I’m much deeper in this shit in a very real way than the vast majority of the general populace. And I’ve attended exactly one rally in the last 15 years.

Who are the people who show up to these things again and again, having had the option at one point of nearly two dozen candidates across both major parties? Who can stand having the traffic screwed up in their town that frequently?

It was in partially answering this question that I adored Will Leitch’s piece, “Iowa Electorate Is Sophisticated—and Impressively Modest” for Bloomberg.com. In it, Leitch paints a picture of a citizenry neither particularly enthralled with, nor irritated by, the constant chattering and to-do of the process of the Iowa Caucuses. They simply accept it as part of their lives.

While that isn’t terribly surprising – humans, no matter our circumstance, will generally find new equilibrium – I was charmed by their resigned acceptance. Leitch describes two scenes of benign indifference in the piece that stood out to me. The first sees a group of ladies who hold a monthly lunch at a pizzeria completely nonplussed by a Rick Santorum pitch in another part of the restaurant – they recognized what was happening, but kept on with their routine regardless. The second sees Leitch stumble upon two teenagers who’ve found a secluded spot in the parking lot of a Ted Cruz rally to make out in their car. I used to make out with my girlfriends in the parking lots of trailheads after hours when I was in high school. Had I lived in Iowa, co-opting a parking lot where people’s attention is diverted strikes me as a fine idea.

Compare this to the Cracked.com article from yesterday entitled “4 Ways The Presidential Race Has Destroyed Iowa,” as misleadingly inflammatory an article title as there ever was. Granted, the story involving Carly Fiorina appropriating an elementary school field trip to use the kids as props as she stumped for right-to-life policy is sort of grotesque, but stating that this process has “destroyed Iowa” is ridiculous.

The general thrust of the article is true, though. The focus given to Iowa is disproportionate to its overall effect and influence on the general election, and that we spend up to three years hearing about it is ludicrous. As for what to do about it, I’m as clueless as anyone else. Is this an indictment of a 24-hour news cycle? Probably. Does this beckon an overhaul of how we elect candidates? Maybe.

All I know is that virtually every sane person I know is already burned out on this presidential race, and we still have nine whole months to go. And since every candidate has already delivered more than a couple fistfuls of shallow platitudes, keeping with that spirit, here’s one from me:

Whoever your dog in this fight is, I wish them the best, and may they succeed not only in these Iowa Caucuses, but New Hampshire, and on to your party’s nomination. I’m confident they’ll be successful in transforming this country for the better, as they so claim. You know why? I’ll give the last, radically rational words to Will Leitch:

“This election is a big deal for the rest of us. But here in Iowa, it’s just another part of the landscape. Not something to ignore. But not something to get all that worked about, either. This strikes me, as it turns out, as the sanest way to react to this presidential election, and all of them. The trains will still run, the guitar will still need to be practiced, the car will still need to be parked, the Price Is Right live show must go on. Listen to the Iowans. Even when we’re all gone.”

Filed Under: Culture, Politics

Copyright © 2023 · Agency Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in