In a recent AdExchanger piece which stated that attribution is irrelevant to political marketing, the author claimed that “A big part of the problem is that the nature of voting defies measurement.” Ubimo has a differing perspective on the scope of the political landscape and the potential that current measurement technology has to inform future presidential, state, or senate campaigns.
Each election year we are at the mercy of the measurement technology that was in play the previous election period. So too will the 2020 political marketers be at the mercy of whatever we choose to employ in today’s race. We would all prefer to be able to connect specific voting habits back to ad exposure, but the technology is currently not there. However, we feel that it’s a missed opportunity for political marketers not to use attribution during this 2016 election period.
The payout will come into play between now and the 2020 election period, and will pay dividends for the party who measures the messages and formats driving people into action in 2016; specifically, to political rallies, making donations, and the visitation at voting booths. Mobile-first technology has empowered a few advanced political agencies to precision-target voters from precincts that are more likely to skew towards their party’s direction.
We have worked with key political agencies during these elections to target early voters and re-message them when they are attending political rallies. Other tactics involve targeting Supervoters who are more likely to attend rallies, conventions, and events, to re-message them the day after an event, leading up to voting, or at times when fundraising, messaging, or awareness is most essential. Some of the more savvy political agencies are actively using today’s precision mobile targeting to drive the vote.
For others, omitting to add a data layer of attribution is simply due to a lack of foresight, not insight. The measurement will enable political marketers to test 2016 strategies so they can master house and senate races, hit the ground running in 2020, and understand which causes, messages and formats drive voters into a form of physical action.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “By failing to prepare you are preparing to fail”. Even the losers of the race will have valuable insights to learn and pay forward. To quote Martin Van Buren, “It is easier to do a job right than to explain why you didn’t.” Which side will have the foresight to do the job right in 2016? Equally, which side might have a lot of explaining to do?