By Katie Paine
In the interest of full disclosure, I live in New Hampshire, I'm a political junkie, Facebook is a client, and I support Barack Obama. So shoot me or ignore me, but there are
still some interesting lessons to be learned about the last two debates before the New Hampshire primary.
First, the facts: ABC News teamed up with local NH affiliate WMUR and Facebook to put on back-to-back Republican and Democratic debates on the Saturday before the New Hampshire
primary. The network tapped the social networking site last fall, in turn allowing Facebook members to follow in ABC reporters' footsteps on the long road to the 2008 presidential
elections. Benefits include direct access to ABC's election coverage, as well as the option to discuss campaigns via a Debate Group tool. Together, ABC and Facebook sponsored the
January 5 presidential debates in New Hampshire.
On the night following the ABC/Facebook-sponsored showdown, Fox held a Republican-only debate.
Given the timing of the debates (three days after the Iowa caucuses and two days before the New Hampshire primary) combined with a lot of frustration with formats featuring too
many candidates and not enough issues, both ABC and Fox decided to limit participation.
ABC executives set out very clear criteria for inclusion in its sponsored debates; you could only participate in the debate if you met one of the following criteria:
1. A showing in the top four in Iowa.
2. At least 5% support in the most recent independent polls in New Hampshire.
3. At least 5% backing in a recent national survey.
And, while some candidates were upset that they weren't included, most observers understood the rationale, even if they didn't like the outcome. More important, ABC
spokespeople appeared on "The Exchange," arguably the most influential radio show in the state (and with 5,000 visiting journalists as well) to defend their position.
Then there was Fox's Republican-only debate on Sunday night. Fox executives did not set forth any specific criteria for inclusion; rather, they simply decided to exclude Ron
Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, and Duncan Hunter, a conservative California congressman. Talk about alienating your base: The New Hampshire Republican party withdrew
its support from the debate and severed its partnership with the network.
"We believe that it is inconsistent with the first in the nation primary tradition to be excluding candidates in a pre-primary setting," said New Hampshire GOP state chair
Fergus Cullen.
Hunter himself chastised Fox's decision to exclude him by referring to network reps as "knuckleheads" on his official campaign Web site.
With that, here is a breakdown of how both approaches fared in the media and public spotlights, and how communicators can take said approaches' subsequent outcomes to heart
when developing their own event-planning strategies. PRN
CONTACT:
Katie Paine is the founder and CEO of KDPaine & Partners. She can be reached
| ABC News/Facebook: Fortune Favors the Bold
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Grade | Comments | Advice |
| Extent of coverage | F or A, depending on your?perspective | ABC took a risk and it paid off big time.
The controversial decision boosted awareness and viewership of the debates, and ultimately 1 million people downloaded the U.S. Politics Facebook application. |
If properly handled, controversy could be
good for your cause. Key words: if properly handled. Know what you are getting into before you jump in head-first, as you might find the water to be surprisingly shallow. |
| Effectiveness of spokespeople | A | Charles Gibson, the moderator, was terrific,
and ABC representatives were reasoned and clear in their explanation of why (and how) they made the decision to exclude certain candidates. |
As long as your explanation is clear and
rational, and if your spokesperson is cool and clear-headed, you can keep the kicking and screaming to a minimum. |
| Communication of ?key messages | B | ABC was trying for a better, meatier debate
with longer time segments for each candidate and each topic. In the post-debate debate over whether it worked, most blogerati and pundits agreed that it did. |
If your intentions are good, your approach
transparent and your reasoning clear, there is a strong likelihood that your initiative will be well- received. At the very least, your motives won't be misunderstood. |
| Management of ?negative messages | C | The biggest negative message surrounding
the issue was that the networks shouldn't decide who was a viable debater and who wasn't. However, ABC's partnership with Facebook boosted its credibility with the social media world and probably neutralized some of the negatives. but it was still seen by millions of people as a move to marginalize candidates before NH voted on them. |
Make sure you explain your decisions to
more than just the mainstream media. Today, new media platforms just might be the best way to reach your target audience and, in turn, to convert them into your biggest allies. |
| Impact on customers | A | The Democratic debate was seen by 9.36 million
people, according to Nielsen Media Research. The Republican candidates' debate drew 7.35 million views. Both were the most-watched debates thus far in the election cycle. Facebook and ABC reported over 1 million downloads of their U.S. Politics applications and traffic was so heavy to the site that it crawled to a halt shortly after the debate. |
Just because you annoy some people doesn't
mean you won't still see great results. Don't shy away from something just because it could incite opposition. Sometimes just getting people to tune in or talk about you is enough to win the battle. |
| Impact on employees | A | According to ABC News crews, they saw only
good from the entire event. They felt that their approach was different and effective. |
Ultimately, results and ratings matter more
than negative messages. |
| Overall score | B+ | ABC and Facebook took a risk but ended up
with a better product and generally rave reviews. |
Some storms you can weather as long as the
end justifies the means. |
|
Fox News: Popularity Contests Popularity |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Grade | Comments | Advice |
| Extent of coverage | F | In choosing to exclude both Ron Paul and
Duncan Hunter, Fox News executives provoked the candidates' multitude of followers to rush to their defense in the blogosphere. Their impassioned cries reverberated throughout social and mainstream media. |
Don't just consider the person you are excluding
from an event, but all of his/her constituencies. Also, remember that word of mouth is the most persuasive medium around, and it is only aided and abetted by digital communications platforms. |
| Effectiveness of spokespeople | F | Fox spokespeople were nowhere to be found,
so the New Hampshire Republican party drove the messages, all of which were negative. |
Don't leave the talking to your partners,
no matter how tight you are with them. If it's not coming straight from the horse's mouth, it will be taken with a grain of salt--and then some. |
| Communication of ?key messages | F | Because Fox executives didn't respond well
to the controversy, the message that the network was curtailing voter access and manipulating the primary was "primary," so to speak. |
If you don't get your messages out there,
who will? Answer: your competitors. But, in doing so, they will never fail to put their "perspectives" on your messages. |
| Management of ?negative messages | F | There wasn't anyone to manage the negatives,
so the media just had a field day. |
Lesson 1: Make yourself available. Lesson
2: Make yourself even more available. Lesson 3: Don't become invisible. |
| Impact on customers | B | The debate boosted Fox's ratings by 1 million,
which brings us to an obvious conculsion: Controversy is good for ratings. |
Ultimately, ratings and ad spend is what
needs to be measured; more often than not, they are assisted by controversy. |
| Impact on employees | B | There was probably very little impact on
employees given the other news going on at the time. Chances are that management enjoyed much of the controversy, even if it did make some employees cringe. |
Again, success is defined by what it is
you're measuring and what you want your outcomes to be. This was not a horrible result given the heat of the controversy. |
| Overall score | D | By not providing a spokesperson and essentially
ignoring the entire kerfuffle, Fox executives fanned the flames of controversy and alienated a key political ally. However, in this case, their bad decision sparked the controversy that, in turn, picked up views. By that definition, it wasn't entirely a bad event for the network. |
Be clear about what you expect the outcome
to be. If an event is not or does not become controversial, make decisions based on the desired outcomes that were identified in the planning phase. Don't try to start a fire in the heat of the moment. |