Ozean congratulates client Todd Chase on his re-election to the Gainesville City commission.
Anytime a conservative candidate wins re-election in Democrat stronghold of Gainesville, FL is a cause for celebration.
It’s the end of 2013, and that means lists. Lots & lots of lists.
In this Buzzfeed type of world, we present to you:
This article from AdWeek, These Stories Dominated Digital Media in 2013, discussed all the things that the cool, digital media kids are chatting about.
For Ozean, the two biggest take-aways in digital media in 2013 are: the serious & significant amount of fraud in the digital advertising space and the continued rise in the importance of content marketing.
Neuromarketing fascinates us at Ozean Media. The fact that we can now peer into your brain versus only making observations of your actions is really cool stuff.
The biggest take-aways from Neuromarketing in 2013 is the power of metaphors – especially visual ones. We also found the monkey and social media article very interesting.
The biggest take aways from Psychology in 2013 are the power of choice in persuasion and the importance of the anchoring effect.
Finally, we must give credit to BuzzFeed for curating the post that made us laugh the hardest this past week. If you don’t laugh for a good 20 minutes at The Most Important Political GIFs of 2013, then we suggest you see a doctor.
Finally, a shameless plug for one of Ozean’s popular blog posts:
While you are in the reading mode: Don’t forget to check out Ozean’s Political Research Library. We think it will serve your political nerd needs.
To begin, I need you to think of the most stereotypical politician you can. Yes, we are talking three piece suit, monocle, the whole 9 yards.
Kinda like this guy:
This is the guy that asked for a meeting with me yesterday. It was a great meeting….until the walk to the door.
I have friends who are doctors, and they have continuously warned me about the walk to the door accompanied by the “oh, one more thing doc…..”
The one more thing? “and, by the way, I want a digital campaign that will go viral.”
DAMN IT! DAMN IT! DAMN IT!
I haven’t lost it this badly since the request for big data.
Besides my cynical problems with authority, I get a little flabbergasted when people take flippantly very complicated concepts, especially things we do as political consultants.
In an attempt to be more patient, please allow me explain myself.
Besides Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, there are two main books to look at when attempting to understand why and how things “go viral”:
Made to Stick by Chip & Dan Heath
Contagious by Jonah Berger
If we look at Heaths’ 6 principles:
If we look at Jonah’s 6 principles:
“There are six principles of contagiousness: products or ideas that contain Social Currency and are Triggered, Emotional, Public, Practically Valuable, and wrapped into Stories.” (Contagious, Berger)
So as we can see, there is a bit of actual science and heavy lifting that goes into creating a viral video. It is no flippant matter.
I would highly recommend reading all three books, but Heath sums up the main issue we have with politicians & their desire to “go viral.”
As Heath writes, “The most basic way to get someone’s attention is this: Break a pattern.”
According to Alex Patton’s Grand Unified Theory of Political Communication, in order to get a voters attention in this fragmented, cluttered world – we must be novel or shocking (break a pattern).
Immediately, we run into issues with a stereotypical politician’s request to “go viral” !
If you have done any work with politicians, you will find the most risk adverse set of clients you will ever come across.
Let’s think back to our stereotype.
Do you think that guy’s natural inclination is to take wild risks and break patterns?
Getting a politician or candidate to agree to even explore the fundamental requirement of going viral is extremely difficult, at best.
Let’s search out some positive deviance to learn from specifically from the political world:
A Google search of “Political Viral Videos” is illuminating:
Why is is illuminating? In the top 2012 videos – not a single one of them was made deliberately by a politician. Yes, several of them star politicians, but none of them were designed or created by a politician. NOT ONE.
There are two three examples that I can recall off the top of my head of politicians purposefully creating ads that went viral. They also happen to be some of my favorite ads:
We may even include a third:
What do all of these have in common?
The candidates were desperate enough to take risks.
I’ve spoken with the gentleman that created the Demon Sheep ad, and they were desperate to change the conversation at the time of the ad.
Dale Peterson had little money, little name ID and was most likely going to get creamed. What did he have to lose?
Ted Yoho was running against a 27 year incumbent in a Congressional primary and did not nearly have the resources available to him. At the time of the ad, according to what polls you believe, he was down 5-9 points.
Again, ALL DESPERATE enough to take risks and break patterns.
Interestingly, when you study risk & human behavior, humans become MUCH less risk adverse when they “have nothing to lose.”
There is a point to this post.
In every case in which our firm has won national recognition, it was because a client was willing or desperate enough to take risks.
There is something about having your back to the wall.
The problem with risk? We may fail. And as we all know, when one fails on the Internet, one fails for all of mankind to witness and share.
So, before you flippantly request your political consultant to make you a digital media campaign that will go viral, you need to assess your tolerance for risk.
Because, the only way to make a video of your talking head tax presentation ‘go viral’ may be to loosen the screws in your chair so that it collapses ending in an uninterrupted stream of your cussing while a cat slinks by to close the video.
PS Finally, IF we are lucky enough to strike gold and have something go viral, we may want to discuss the value to your campaign of getting 100,000 karma on reddit and 1,000,000 you tube views comprising of people outside your voting district. (but that is another post)
This week, the House passed the Ryan/Murray budget bill by a large majority, and the vote somehow immediately became a proxy in the “GOP’s civil war.”
I admittedly was pleasantly surprised when I read that Representative Ted Yoho (R-FL3) voted for the deal. Rep Yoho is a self described “conservative Christian Republican with a libertarian slant.”, and I would have lost some major money betting on how my Representative would vote on the budget deal.
I see Rep Yoho’s vote as significant.
In the past, I have angered some of Rep Yoho’s supporters because I have dared to be critical of some of his actions.
Sorry folks (no matter how many friends or clients of mine you call to express your extreme displeasure), I gotta call ‘em like I see ‘em, and I still think some of the past actions of Rep Yoho deserve criticism. Specifically, I completely disagree with his tendency towards isolationism in foreign affairs and his ability to get himself into situations that allow the press to paint a caricature of him. However, I don’t think I have ever questioned his political soul. (more on that later….)
If I am going to call ‘em like I see ‘em, I must offer praise to Rep Yoho on this budget deal vote.
In a statement released to the press Rep Yoho wrote:
The American people are tired of Washington dysfunction. Legislating from crisis to crisis has caused a trillion-dollar debt and an acceptance of the status quo. This budget resolution offers a path to reduce the deficit and cut spending in a responsible way,” Yoho said in a statement.
“Getting back to a regular budgeting process allows us the opportunity to cut spending and root out wasteful programs. I look forward to breaking through the partisan logjam and doing what the American people sent us up here to do — bring back the greatness of America.
Well said! Well done! Nice Job! Kudos!
Why I think this vote is significant? Because, this vote is coming from a Rep who was on the tip of spear for the previous government shutdown.
We should have known that if I am defending Rep Yoho and his vote, it was sure to anger some of his more extreme fans. They did not disappoint.
I don’t know who wrote this, but it was sent to me as something that appeared in a Facebook feed.
We all have the ability, right, and some would say the responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable – but this bullshit above crosses line. This is what is wrong with the extreme right & politics in the GOP.
Ted Yoho for all discernable purposes is a tea partiers’ dream. For his brief time in Congress, he has represented their point of view almost 100% of the time. He is the darling. I think he has earned his bona fides and political capital with this group.
THEN ONE VOTE that you don’t agree with him, and you call him a kool-aid drinking sell out?
People like above and the 94 people who ‘liked’ this junk are exactly what is wrong with politics. The absolutism must be rejected. It is killing our country.
Rep Yoho showed with this vote that he thought about it deeply, reasoned the ramifications out, and gave thought to a greater good. I think THAT should be celebrated.
If you disagree, you have that right. However, a more productive manner would be to disagree with the actions – not the man. If your first reaction is decry someone as a kool-aid drinker then you’re just kind of being a jerk.
During each odd number year, I set a goal to get better at my political science craft. Part of that goal is reading. Odd number year = take advantage of some down time = goal of 50 books related to political consulting. In 2013, I exceeded the goal by 5. #humblebrag
I believe the job of a political consultant is to study how people make decisions and then figure out how to affect the decision making process. This means our area for study is wide and vast.
In attempting to categorize the areas of concentration of my reading, I’ve come up with Behavior Decision Making, Cognitive Brain, Game Theory, Political Psychology, Advertising, Neuromarketing, Branding, Argumentation, and Philosophy.
I would say that this year’s main focus was on attempting to read more about how the brain works, makes decisions, and ways to potentially influence voters.
When people find out about my reading goal, I am often asked for recommendations.
Here you go:
(Note: The links provided are NOT affiliate links. They exist only for your convenience.)
Regardless of what the title says, this is not an introduction. There is math, lots of math, lots of advanced math. It is not for the faint of heart, and approximately 57% of the math went over my head. The part I did retain was fantastic.
11. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig, Robert M.
Read this book on my digital sabbatical. It is a philosophy book, but a classic, welcome relief on a beach weekend.
10. Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (Oxford Handbooks) Sears, David
A great anthology on political behavior, group relations, theoretical approaches, and change politics. I admit, I only skimmed the International Relations section.
9. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns, D. Sunshine Hillygus &, Todd G Shields
The science behind wedge issues and cross-over voters.
8. Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman
Additional Reading on the two major systems of the brain.
Behavior Decision Making Theory. A very interesting methodology used by Lau to study how voters actually decide.
I loved, loved, loved this book. In fact, I wrote an entire blog piece about it. Essentially this book tells us that in agreement with cognitive studies that issues mean little in the voters decision making process. Again, a novel methodology to studying the issue.
5. The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election, Sides, John, Vavreck, Lynn
An absolute must read. This book takes a deep dive in Romney / Obama, separating the “political science truth” from the talk show pundits’ “truths”. If you are interested in the science of politics and what really happened in 2012, you should read this book.
If there was ever a book I read this year that made me read every single footnote, it was this one. This is fascinating stuff, but it also carries over into your clients’ request for “big data.”
3. The Thinker’s Toolkit: 14 Powerful Techniques for Problem Solving, Jones, Morgan D.
While this book contains practical methods to critical thinking, the major revelation in this book is that our minds are liars. This book started my year long journey into biases, cognitive research and humility. If you consider yourself a true political analyst, you must do some meta-thinking about your biases and adopt some methodologies to counter them. If the smartest analysts in the world implement methodologies to attempt to minimize bias, political consultants should also.
2. The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom,Haidt Jonathan
While this book is additional reading into the two major systems of the brain and how our brains fool us, the book’s other key insight is the importance of metaphors. It uses the perfect metaphor for the two system brain: the rider and the elephant. This one metaphor wrapped up all the research and reading of cognitive biases into one simple to understand package; thus stressing the need for metaphors. Eureka moment! It has the added bonus of adding to our understanding of human nature and the concept of happiness.
1. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, Marcus, George E.
This was the one book that allowed me to pull together “Alex Patton’s grand unified theory of political communication.” I had just completed reading the book and was ruminating on it while doing a 50 mile bike ride. Then came the Eureka moment, the proverbial lightning strike. I had to stop my bike and find my phone voice recorder as soon as possible. Yes, it was that dramatic. The book is dry and academic, but for me it was the most important book I read this year.
The Prince, Machiavelli, Niccolo
Classic and must be read at least once a year. It is a political consulting law.
Influence, Cialdini, Robert
Another classic, it should absolutely be required reading. Want to learn how to use social proof in politics? This is the start of your journey.
This book significantly changed the way I think about and make sense of the world. It is a discussion of how highly improbable events have massive influence on our lives. Once you read this, you can no longer give ‘guarantees’ and you become aware of the fact that “you don’t know what you don’t know.”
What does screenwriting have to do with politics? EVERYTHING. Political Consultants are story tellers, and there is no better book on the structure of stories and how to tell better ones. Looking how to construct a hero narrative? Look no further, read this.
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, Zaller, John
Read this in college, and Zaller’s four axioms have stayed with me ever since. I normally re-read this every other off year for a refresher.
Noting that political consulting has few professional credentials other than reputation, it is imperative that we take ownership of improving our craft. If you are still relying on decades of accumulated rules of thumb, I think you should make a change in your behavior.
Our minds are tricky little devils, and we owe it to our clients to get better.
Happy New year, and I hope the cycle is prosperous for you and your family.
All of these selections and more are included in the Ozean Political Library.
I am a sinner, a practicing Catholic (because I have not perfected it in any way, shape or form), and I think Rush Limbaugh is wrong about the Pope.
In fact, Rush Limbaugh is so wrong in relation to what he said about the Pope’s words, he should apologize.
It is always dangerous to discuss politics, let alone religion in such classy company; however, when one combines the two, one can get in real trouble.
Before we start, here are my biases: I am a practicing Catholic – that is I’m trying. In no way do I hold myself out to be a perfect Catholic or Christian. I am a highly flawed individual that attempts to strengthen his relationship with God, Christ and his teachings, and at times fails miserably. Please, do not accept this blog post as preachy or holier than thou.
I simply like this Pope. I like his style, and I am not the first to mention it.
In case you don’t want to click, these many articles – all with similar titles – are making the basic same points:
The Pope has the goal of building a church by appealing to people, the GOP should have the goal of building the party by doing the same.
However, last week in the midst of Black-Friday and the commerce surrounding it, the Pope released another document. This document is called the “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), a 50,000-word statement that calls for church reform and addresses a myriad of issues. It is a remarkable document that ranges from money to the role of women in the Church, and yes, I am such a nerd that I read it.
I have listened to Rush Limbaugh off and on since I was in college, and I fully realize he is in the rating business.
However, I think his reading of the document (if he read it at all) is wrong. He went so far as to put his comments online: here is a link to Rush’s rant about the Pope.
Here is an excerpt from his rant:
Now, if government wants to deregulate and get out of the way, then job creation will take place. What is capitalism? The value of anything is established in the private sector. That’s where the value of money is established. That’s where the value of work is established. The value of whatever it is you want to buy or trade, the private sector, capitalism, is where that value is established, not by government proclaiming it.
Here is the problem, Rush is flat wrong.
In my opinion, Rush never quotes from the document, but instead quotes from a press story about the document and then goes on to make a political statement.
In Rush’s own words, he states:
But the pope here has now gone beyond Catholicism here, and this is pure political. I want to share with you some of this stuff.
“Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as ‘a new tyranny’”
The problem with Rush is fact: If you read the document, you will see that the word “capitalism” is never mentioned in the entire 50,000 words. Not once. Do a search, and I will wait.
So, I ask you, “who is making the pure political statement?”
He is speaking, not of capitalism, but of those of us who place consumption and markets above all else.
As you may recall, I have written a strong critique of Libertarianism and why it is wrong, and I think, in my humble opinion, the Pope is saying some of the same things in a more eloquent way.
Here is some of what the Pope actually wrote:
56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.
60. Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric.
Markets are a relentlessly efficient way of allocating resources and maximizing profits. They are ruthless, merciless, and cold-hearted. There is no value judgements being made by markets, just allocation.
The Pope is NOT critiquing capitalism per se, but how human ideologies and human behavior react to markets. The Pope is warning those who place free-markets above everything else that it may be time for a tune up.
Before you start calling me a commie, I believe in free-er markets, just not absolute unfettered, unregulated markets. There is an important difference.
I think this Pope is offering a PhD level course on how to change a large institution steeped in tradition and values. As many have said, I think the GOP could learn a lot from this Pope – especially when it comes down to how to chose what to talk about and more importantly humility.
I would urge Mr. Limbaugh to actually read the document and not a press story about said document. Please don’t fall into the trap we accuse many liberals of falling into. Why trust a press article, when the source document is there for all to read?
Mr. Limbaugh you made a mistake, you should NOT twist or trust a press article to make a political point, and frankly I think you should apologize.
Happy Holidays to all. As you shop, keep in mind the Pope’s words regarding unbridled consumerism, you may just have a happier holiday!
PS. You should follow the Pope on Twitter! (I find it tremendously amusing that one can follow the Pope on Twitter!)
Over the Thanksgiving weekend, during a Tofurkey induced political-nerd Internet session, I came across a copy of the CIA’s Training Manual & Handbook written for their analysts entitled: Analytic Thinking & Presentation for Intelligence Producers. Analysis Training Handbook.
The handbook was originally published in 2000, and I was enthralled with the document. After all, in a sense, political consultants are producers of Intelligence. It just happens to be political consultants trade in mostly open-source intelligence.
At first, I felt I was being respectfully subservient. I was going to go behind the door and learn the secrets to being a great CIA analyst.
However, as I read the document, it became apparent that what I had stumbled upon was the government’s version of Strunk & White.
It is a good read, but you will learn no secrets, only helpful hints such as:
Again, there is nothing earth shattering, but it is an interesting read.
The part that I found most interesting is the section entitled “Developing Analytical Objectivity.”
In a world filled with talk radio and infotainment, it is an important point to raise awareness about.
We have talked extensively about the cognitive nature of our brains and some of the fallacies and tricks our brains play on us – especially in the political arena.
This warning given to some of our country’s brightest thinkers acts as a reminder that if the smartest person in the room must protect against biases, so must we.
While there are no state secrets in the document, we all can use a refresher on how to write and think more clearly. I strongly urge you take a quick read.
Read and enjoy for yourself.
I got myself into a little trouble yesterday with some comments on Senator Harry Reid’s redefining of the cloture rule so that a mere majority of the Senators present is needed to limit and debate and move on, the so-called “nuclear option.”
I hate that he did it, and I think my Democratic friends will rue the day they did it, when they return to the minority shortly.
For me it was a case of the Democrats not being able to win, so they changed the rules. Straight up Kobayashi Maru! (warning: that was nerd talk, look it up!)
However, none of that got me in trouble. Later in the evening, I was thinking about it and wrote on facebook:
If I am truly being honest, I hate what Harry Reid did with the nuclear option, but I kinda respect that he found his cojones. I hope the GOP finds theirs. Reid is straight up gangster politics. #respect
Yes, it was a flippant comment, but I was completely unprepared for the backlash from my conservative friends. There were expressions of strong dislike for Senator Reid, accusations were thrown out, but I was completely unprepared for one comment.
One went so far as to say that me and people ‘who think like u r causing the downfall of our country.”
Really, the downfall of our country? Come on, you give me way too much credit.
However, instead of writing “You, Sir, are feeble minded person located smack dab in the middle of the bell-curve when rating intelligence!”, I thought I would explain myself more.
Again, let’s start with it was the wrong move. I want to make that clear before I get blamed for the Kennedy assassination today.
When we do both of those things: We must congratulate the Democrats on their raw, Machiavellian political calculation. Remember, one of the biggest sins you can commit in politics is to under-estimate your opponents.
Here is the calculation:
BOTH sides at one time or another have flipped flopped and threaten to use the nuclear option; therefore, the Republicans can’t do jack squat about it without hurting ourselves or looking like big babies.
Yes, Republicans could STILL use the Senate rules to slow the Senate to a crawl – make them read each bill and that kind of crap. Problem? Republicans would only look spiteful.
However, here is the REAL danger and Machiavellian calculation: the move that both parties have discussed, but the Democrats actually had the cajones to do – could “work”.
When I say “work”, I mean the Senate starts confirming people. We may hate the nominees’ values, etc, but they will get confirmed. The American people see this movement and re-act favorably to the movement. After all, people are tired of a gridlocked nation, and deep down most reasonable people will admit a President should have his choice of people unless they are disqualified due to scandal, etc.
This leads to the biggest danger for the GOP – when things start moving, obstructionists will realize they can’t just obstruct, leading to the biggest horror of them all:
The US Senate moves to a reasonable, sound, common sense, bipartisan Chamber that it was designed to be.
So, when you are honest and you look at just the politics as Niccolo would, one must reluctantly tip their hat to Senator Reid.
We have heard your request, and we are making some small changes to our website.
As you may know, we love the science of politics. We are true political nerds, and we embrace that aspect of our personalities.
Many of our blog posts are driven by what political studies, political research, or political books we are currently reading. Some are even driven by Ozean Media’s original research.
Over the past year, we have been asked repeatedly to create a central library of our research.
You asked for one place for all political research, and we listened.
Today, we announce the opening of the official Ozean central repository of all political information & political library.
On one convenient page, you will find Ozean’s Political Case Studies, Ozean’s Original Political Research, and links to any political science studies that Ozean discusses or cites in our political blog.
BTW, did you know Ozean’s blog was listed by Campaigns and Elections Magazine as a must read? You do now!
The political libray is a work in progress, and Ozean hopes you will bring any errors to our attention by contacting Ozean.
Enjoy the homework.
No need to thank us, you’re welcome!
Link to: Ozean’s political library