The efforts spotlight Mr. Obama’s push to harvest millions of cellphone numbers of potential voters through text messaging, a technology that is increasingly moving into the mainstream. And it could have a significant effect in November, when the campaign plans to use the technology to get out the vote.

The campaign is drawing on its technological know-how and its support among younger voters, who as teenagers and younger children embraced the technology — often surreptitiously in their classrooms.

exactly.

~C

I’m curious about just how much influence tech users will have on the rest of the country. Although it varies by media format, the people paying attention to these modes of communication are largely early adopters. Early adopters are often defined as “opinion leaders” who influence the majority in terms of product adoption rates.

I’m curious as to how respect for the opinions of early adopters regarding products might translate to politics. Will the same people who convince their friends and relatives to try out a new gadget be able to convince them to vote for Obama?

The research I’ve seen leads me to believe that the early tech adopters are solidly in Obama’s camp. If the widely accepted Innovation Adoption Curve model is correct, this influential group of people could be instrumental in putting Obama in the White House.

http://bit.ly/jmp0F

i updated my post to include that link. thanks for making my case even stronger. the Triple O team rocks!

~C

good points. i agree with you in principle. but i disagree with your assessment that Obama is just a brand (i.e. “I don’t want a “Brand” running the Country.”)

first of, let’s accept the reality of presidential election campaigns. it’s run as a marketing campaign (whether we like it or not). from the ads we see on TV, radio, internet, to all the talking points of all presidential surrogates. from this perspective, Obama and McCain are both brands (i.e. “Change We Can Believe In”, “Straight Talk Express”, etc.)

second point, branding and marketing are just part of the equation. no amount of branding and marketing will save a product that sucks.

the Obama “brand” was successful in part because of the grassroots approach to marketing, but more so because of Obama’s x-factor: intelligence, charisma, eloquence, life story, etc.

although there is some truth to it, it’s not that “Whichever Brand’s products sell more WINS!” it’s about whichever candidate who have a better personal branding have a better chance of winning.

but no amount of personal branding can cover up a candidate who sucks.

~C

Naw…I don’t want a “Brand” running the Country. I don’t want marketers trying to second guess how to get me to be loyal to their Brand, creating loss leaders to get me into their “store”. Or using sex to get my attention. (Is that next for Obama? Appearing nude on Playboy/girl?) Sorry, I don’t want to be sold. I want to see proof that that there are leadership abilities in the person, not in the “machine” behind the person.

I want a real person. Someone that is more interested in making a difference than his own self-grandeur. I want real people making real world decisions, not based on marketing trends, but based on real hard facts.

Branding is for the Proctor and Gamble’s, the automotive industry, for fashion, music and Entertainers like Oprah and Dr. Phil. The President should not be a “Brand”.

If we turn politicians into Brands, then why not turn the elections into a sales function. Whichever Brand’s products sell more WINS! Sounds democratic to me.

Here’s a link to how short codes are being utilized in marketing strategies. It could come in handy one day

http://gigaom.com/2007/03/16/10-things-to-know-about-short-codes/