Chasing Those Online Vibes
How the campaigns are approaching digital this cycle
Over the last two decades, I’ve noticed trends in how innovative a campaign's strategy is. Some are more willing than others to take risks and do things differently. Others get stuck in their old ways and become more risk-averse. It all comes down to the candidate and their senior leaders.
In 2004, Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, Ed Gillespie, and President Bush were heralded for their innovative use of microtargeting to place ads (offline, I might add) more strategically. In the 2008 cycle, the original frontrunners, including Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, were very cautious about taking risks. Instead, it was an underdog campaign of Barack Obama, who was willing to embrace the Internet and all its eccentricities to vault him to the top of the ticket. Credit to Obama’s 2012 team for not resting on their laurels and being willing to be innovative again. Theirs was the last campaign to see scores of positive headlines for their use of digital and data.
Then came Trump in 2016. Again, it was an underdog campaign with consultants who weren’t necessarily of the political class who ran the campaign like a business. They made online vendors compete with one another to show the value of their work. Stop performing, and you were out of there. Hillary’s team had more of an attitude that they knew what they were doing and would call you if they needed help. They never called.
This is playing out again in 2024 but with a few twists. Here’s how I’m noticing the campaigns approach digital this year (and how the platforms might get dragged into the fight).
Sidenote: Before we get into the digital, it is worth noting that there are few swing voters to persuade in this election. There are some, and I’m not saying the campaigns don’t have some folks to convince, but I think the winner will be decided by who does a better job of getting their side out to vote and the other side to stay home. This is also about raising money and building email lists. You’re going to see this reflected in the online strategies.
Battle of the online influencers. In some ways, the campaigns have little control over where the online culture current flows. Both are working with influencers, but in many ways, they have limited control over where those online take the conversation. They can try to influence it by engaging with content creators, but they don’t dictate it. Harris has been smart to lean into and amplify the memes others have started. Trump’s numbers on platforms like TikTok are still bigger than Harris’, but time will tell which gets more of their folks out to vote. Both also utilize vertical video to stream events such as conventions.
Tech platforms’ algorithm changes will come under more scrutiny. It used to be that the vast majority of content you would see in your feed came from the people and organizations you follow. TikTok changed all of that, and many feeds are fueled by unconnected content - things the platform thinks you will want to see because you’ve watched/engaged with similar stuff. Expect both sides - and the media - to ask why certain accounts are getting more reach than others.
A tale of two digital ad strategies. This one is a head-scratcher for me. I do not understand what the Republicans are doing. Recent numbers show that the Democrats are vastly outspending Republicans online. Republicans are spending more on television. If you look at where people spend more of their time, it is not on traditional broadcast. This is especially true if you look at where some of those few persuadables are. According to my friends at Causeway Solutions, those voters mostly watch streaming platforms and are on platforms like TikTok, Snap, and Reddit. The only thing I can think of is that online platforms aren’t raising the money for Trump like they used to, they have less money to spend because of legal bills, and they have old-school folks like LaCivita who don’t understand digital. Plus, if it is a turnout election, many of their voters - who are older - do still watch it. So … we shall see.
Got ad transparency? You have heard my rant before, but where’s the transparency on digital ads for streaming and other online platforms? We risk not having a complete picture of this spending because we only look at places like Facebook, Twitter, and Google that voluntarily created these databases.
What did the campaigns pay for? Questions have come up over what the Trump team paid for regarding promotion for his conversation on X with Elon Musk. People struggle to know if influencers were paid to post content or are doing it because they like the candidate. How should access to events like conventions or fundraisers be disclosed? This is a problem beyond just the tech companies, but they will be under pressure to require campaigns and influencers to disclose.
Pushing boundaries. The Harris team recently came under scrutiny for rewriting news headlines and turning them into ads. Trump is well-known for being willing to push the boundaries of a platform (though he mostly does that on Truth Social now). The heat will turn up on platforms to explain why specific tactics do - or don’t - violate their rules.
The blurring of broadcast and streaming/OTT/CTV. It is worth noting that according to AdHawk by Priorities, both sides are also now spending more on connected TV (here’s a handy primer on the difference between streaming, over-the-top (OTT), and connected TV (CTV)). Most people watch content on various devices, some via broadcast, cable, and the internet. Separating this all out is going to become more challenging.
Paid spend versus organic reach. My friend Tatenda, who worked with me at Facebook and now runs her own organization called the Voter Formation Project, always reminds people that it's not enough to pay attention to ad spend—you need to look at organic reach as well. This is very true when you take point number one into account. TikTok, for instance, does not allow political ads, but there sure is a ton of political content being posted. In many ways, I think organic reach will be much more important to pay attention to even though paid is easier to track.
Who are the algorithms targeting? Platforms will be asked why certain accounts or pieces of content are getting more reach than others and how these algorithms are choosing who to show the content to. Are women getting more Harris content and men Trump content? Are specific issues being shown to different age demographics? The campaigns can control some of this, but a lot sits with the platforms too. Regardless, if something goes viral we need to remember it’s because people liked it and wanted to share it and then the algorithms picked up on that.
Reality TV campaign. Jessica Yellin made a good point on Instagram this past weekend: “Both parties are campaigning on mood, personal traits, and vibe.” They’re trying to make them seem unscripted, but they are much like reality television. This fits with what people want to watch online. Mark Zuckerberg has long said that people have told them they don’t want politics in their feed, so perhaps the politicians are adapting to that.
Joy versus fear with a side of snark. It’s long been argued that tapping into people’s negative emotions gets more engagement than tapping into positive ones. That theory has been tested since Harris took the nomination, and the online vibes have become more joyful. That doesn’t mean they aren’t going negative against Trump, though - they’re just doing it through snark and with a smile on their face - including on TruthSocial. Trump, on the other hand, keeps tapping into his usual fear campaign.
This will again raise the question of whether engagement-based platforms spread more fear and hate than positive content.
AI is more in the headlines than the campaigns. For all the hype about AI, it is still very early days. Part of this is that larger AI platforms like OpenAI, Google, and others don’t allow political use, and bespoke campaign vendors are just getting up and running. This doesn’t mean the campaigns won’t use it; it just won’t be a centerpiece of it. Let’s talk again in 2028.
Experiment. Experiment. Experiment. Harris’ team has launched a WhatsApp channel to target Spanish-language voters. Both have been on podcasts. These teams will try many different tactics over the next few months to reach voters in various ways.
Everything I mentioned above is a tactic—and tactics are only as useful as the candidate and the senior advisors on the campaign utilize them. A great example is that the Harris digital team is the same one Biden had. But with a new candidate, they have a whole new vibe to capitalize on—and the campaign is letting them do so without rounds of approvals. Meanwhile, Trump is doing a lot online, but you also see glimmers of his old-school approach to digital ad spend.
Regardless of who wins, expect a lot of dissection over how the winner used the internet to achieve that victory (and the role the platforms might have played in that as well).
Please support the curation and analysis I’m doing with this newsletter. As a paid subscriber, you make it possible for me to bring you in-depth analyses of the most pressing issues in tech and politics.
excellent overview and analysis