John McCain recently released ads hitting Obama on his ties to FannieMae/FreddieMac.

I am not sure where these ads are running, but they are not running in the Kansas City media market.  (The Kansas City market being the 2nd largest in the swing state of Missouri.)

I have a pretty good idea why the Fannie/Freddie ads are not running in Kansas City.

And it has a lot to do with this graph.



So much human activity and trends fit into normal distribution it is almost disconcerting.

If you were to conduct a study of political/current events knowledge of the general public, the majority of public would be grouped in the middle of the bell curve.  (In normal distribution 68% will be one standard deviation away from the mean.)

Michael Barone would be on the far right.

My friend Darlene, who is vaugely aware that some guy named George Bush is President, would be on the far left.

Everyone else will be clumped in the middle with "some" knowledge of politics/current events.  If you are reading this, you are somewhere on the right side of the curve.

People who are aware of Fannie/Freddie as government entities will be to the right of mean.  People who are aware of Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines would be quite a bit to the right.

For a political ad to convert, there must be intensity and believeability.

The believeability is often formed by prior knowledge and inputs formed by (unfortunately) the news media.

Intensity is how much people care about it.

And here is the lesson:  People on the left side of the curve can and do vote.  People on the right side typically have their minds made up already.

An ad that converts addresses what people on the middle and left side of the curve know about and care about.

They do not know about Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines, therefore, it is very hard for them to care (intensity).  McCain's ads hitting Fannie/Freddie will probably not hit air in a swing state like Missouri.

In this youtube age, I suspect a lot of the ads that are being floated around are head-fakes or are being used for earned media in the cable news cycle.

Take this ad for example.

Obama is airing this ad in the Kansas City Media market.

McCain is rotating two ads:

Mavericks

and Dome

"The union's [AFL/CIO] efforts are so calibrated that all mailings are test marketed in advance of distribution to see which are the most effective," writes Leslie Wayne in the national print edition of this New York Times article . (I have no idea why the online version is shorter than the dead-tree version.)

Test marketing direct mail with a series randomized-double-blinds is not advanced calibration in my book--it is the basics.

But very few campaigns actually do it.  That the AFL/CIO mentions it as a point of pride shows how few groups and campaigns actually test their messages scientifically.

What worries me, and should worry McCain supporters and the GOP, is that the left is finally discovering the mathematics of how to win a campaign.

By using mail or other mediums with messages that are proven to convert voters, a campaign can sieze control of or even opt out of the OODA loop .

And when I say proven, I mean proven with mathematical certainty.  No focus groups, no people metered slide shows.  I mean test groups being polled, mailed, then polled again and control groups that have not been mailed.

And you keep doing it until you have dialed in on the words and images that convert voters.

Then you hold those messages until the last 6 weeks, then roll them out, closing the campaign with the message that has had the highest conversion rate.

This is not to discount the need for rapid response.  External events still need to be addressed.  You can never let an attack go unanswered.  (I nearly lost a big one because I blinked and didn't pull the trigger.)

But, when you let rapid response dictate the message, you have an untested message and are working off a guess.  Which is as accurate as a coin toss.

When a campaign begins rolling out messages that are proven to convert, and if the other side is merely guessing, the effects are devastating.

The side that is guessing will rapid response with a message on a hunch.  Which means they have to guess right six times in a row to overcome the tested message.  The laws of probability say you will usually only guess right 1/2 the time.

The campaign that is guessing, unless they get on a run of guessing correctly or external events play into their favor, will lose.

The Unions and various liberal groups appear to have quit guessing. 

In the past few days I've been offering lessons I learned the hard way through managing campaigns.

The biggest lesson was to actually test a message before spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on TV time.

Which brings up the question:  How do you know if a message works?

In the old days it was simple.  There were only a few channels--three to five local TV stations, three national networks, newspapers, radio.

Now there are hundreds of cable networks, blogs, every newspaper can be accessed online.

That creates a lot of noise in the system.  Noise that has to be accounted for.

In the old days you made an ad, focus grouped it and put it on the air.  If it moved poll numbers, you would say the ad worked.

But with all the different channels and all the noise, there are more variables that can move poll numbers.

Therefore, to determine if an ad or message actually works you must control for all the variables.

This can be done in two ways:

A.  Use a series of many random noise signals as a control to determine if you are consistently beating randomness or;

B.  Randomized double or triple blind testing with control groups and test groups.

Since most candidates are not well versed enough in the mathmatics of randomness to trust "A" the only viable option is "B."

(Only the Jacksonville Jaguars understand randomness enough to use the noise signal as a control.)

That requires selecting random samples that are exposed to the message at the appropriate level of Gross Rating Points then comparing the results to a random sample in a control group.

For television, that would require running ads in isolated, cheap markets in non-battle ground states.

In its simplest form it works like this:

Two media markets of similar demographics are selected.

One is the test market, the other is the control market.

A poll is run in both markets.

The ad is then run at 1,000 Gross Ratings Points in the test market.

After the ad run is completed, both markets are polled again.

If the ad really works, if it really converts voters, the test market will out poll the control market by a statistically relevant margin.

This process takes 10-11 days.  It also removes the guess work from deciding on whether to drop a couple million dollars in TV time in a key state.

(When the Obama campaign made buys in some unusual states, I suspected they may have been using them as tests.  Or maybe they really thought they could compete.)

I learned the hard way that if you do not truly test a message, you are just guessing if it works.  You can get on a run of guessing right.  You can also get on a run of guessing wrong.

If both sides are just guessing randomness is in control of the election.  Or, more precisely, randomness and the noise is in control of the election.

So, the next time you look at an ad and say it is good or bad, or think a candidate should run a certain type or ad or use a certain message--are you willing to bet a couple million dollars your hunch is correct?

I'm not.  Which is why I test everything.

This two-minute-long Obama ad is set to air nationally starting today.

This ad, unlike his previous rapid response hitting McCain, has been tested.  The ad itself has not been tested, but the message has.  And I'm willing to bet the message converts.

It converts because it follows the well worn path of every--and I mean every--story, fable, folk tale, movie and novel.

Psychiatrist Carl Jung and his disciple, Joseph Campbell, analyzed ancient and modern stories and found that every story has the same elements.

Campbell called it the path of the hero or the monomyth .

Obama is skipping a couple of steps on that path, but he is following the basic arc.  More than anything else, he is addressing a basic human need--the scapegoat, the villain, the enemy.

He sets up the natural environment and conflict, "Wall Street's been rocked as banks closed and markets tumbled."

Then establishes the innocent victim/sub-hero and villain in one sentence, "This isn't just a string of bad luck. The truth is that while you've been living up to your responsibilities Washington has not."

The call to adventure with a bit of the elixer comes next, "Here's what I believe we need to do."

And another call to adventure, with a foreshadowing of the cave, "Doing these things won't be easy. But we're Americans. We've met tough challenges before. And we can again."  The voters are also the hero along with Obama.

Then, he, like all heroes, returns with the elixer, "bitter, partisan fights and outworn ideas of the left and the right won't solve the problems we face today. But a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility will."

I seriously doubt the writers of this ad worked through the stages to craft the ad.  Talented writers do it naturally.  I, being a workman, have to consciously build it piece by piece.  Which means I can recognize it when I see it.

This ad speaks to humans in the way our brains are hard wired to understand things.

Humans need someone to blame.  Humans refuse to see randomness, we refuse to see a string of complex events for what it is.
Humans will rarely blame themselves or accept the ill winds of fortune.  I'm suprised they didn't spend another sentence defining the villain.

The campaign that establishes the narrative first on the economic issue will take control of the OODA loop.
Obama is moving in that direction with an expensive ad buy.  Two minute blocks of time are very expensive.  He rolled the dice on an untested ad hitting McCain on the economy earlier this week and is doubling his bet with a big buy.

McCain will now have to see this bet and raise it.  He will have to use the same path but establish a different villain--Obama and Biden's cash connections to Fannie/Freddie and Wall Street and other lenders.

McCain will have to show that he has been the hero all along, and make a similar call to adventure with the voters.  He can claim that 'Drill Baby Drill' has already brought down gas prices.  He has already delivered some results and now it is time to complete the path by taking on and vanquishing the villain.

Does this all sound bizzarre?  I know it does.

But think for a moment--doesn't every movie, TV show, novel and play follow the basic arc and flow?  The successful ones do.

Why would a political campaign and campaign advertising be any different?  After all, the recipient of every story is a human.
 

First Obama's

Now McCain's....

The Obama ad was slapped together and at the very most ran through a focus group.  Focus groups are horribly unreliable way to determine whether an ad converts into votes or moves polls.

The McCain ad was also slapped together, but the overall message could have previously been tested and ready to go.

What do I mean by testing?  When I test something it is a double blind with a test group and a control group.  That is the only way to know if an ad converts into votes or moves poll numbers.

Obama and McCain are both playing rapid response to the headlines, which means Wall Street and the financial markets and major institutions in the banking and investment arena are now driving the OODA loop .

One of the hazards of a campaign responding rapidly to events is that a lot of money and time can be wasted on a message that does not convert.

Visually, I give the edge to Obama's because it looks cheap.

The most effective ad I've seen this election cycle is really low budget.  I have ceased to be amazed at how well un-slick ads convert.

Message wise, well, it doesn't have much of message.  All it says is that there is a lot of bad stuff happening and yet John McCain thinks everything is O.K.  It does not explain how and why Obama, who does understand the economy is broken will fix things.

The McCain ad is a little more artsy, acknowledges there are problems and that you can trust him to protect your money.  At least it has a discernable message and I think the message has been tested.

Will these either of these ads convert?

Visually, I give Obama the edge, message wise McCain wins because it is actually has a message.

The IndyMac visual in the McCain will be lost on everyone but the most die-hard news junkies.  Most Presidential voters are not news junkies and far from die-hard junkies.

Both campaigns at this stage are willing to drop millions of dollars and a message week with untested ads.

Personally, I think spending that kind of money and time on an untested message disqualifies one from holding office.  They are running those ads based on guess, a hunch, a gut instinct which will only be right about half the time.

Net result--it will be a wash.  Random and external events will have a greater impact than these two ads.  Wall Street and the media covering it are in charge of the OODA loop for now. 

Back when I first started running campaigns I would do stupid things.  Stupid things like decide to run an ad or send a piece of direct mail because we thought it looked "good."

If I could, I would go back in time and slap some sense into myself.  I spent hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars airing ads because we thought it looked good or the focus group seemed to like it.

These days, I live by the mantra "it doesn't matter if the candidate likes it or not.  Does it convert?"  As in convert voters or convert into sales.

After testing a lot of ads and a lot of direct mail, I have developed a sense of what does convert.

This ad, does not convert.

An obviously angry man, complaining about another supposedly angry man, does not convert.  There are ways to make it convert...but they ain't got it yet. 

Most campaigns do not test ads.  They may focus group an ad.  Or even people meter it at a mall test.

But I have found that focus groups are bullshit.  People just make shit up.  Half the time if you people meter the ad, then have a focus group discussion, the results will be the exact opposite.

A focus group is only useful to find out how people will talk about an ad around a water cooler.

The people meter is slightly more accurate.  We built a people meter with a built in lie detector--yep, just like the cops use--but even it is not as accurate as a good old fashioned randomized double blind--test group, control group.

Sure it takes time.  Sure you have to do some math.  But you find out whether the ad really converts before you drop a million bucks in TV time.

Brave New PAC may or may not be airing this ad.  But if they think a youtube viral is a test, they don't know how to use a graphing calculator.  (Which is what you need to do a proper test.)

If they tested it, it would have found its grave in the small, remote, isolated TV market they tested it in.  Or, that may be the reason it is on youtube.

If you want McCain to win, play the ad on youtube again and again.  Maybe it will encourage them to blow a couple million bucks on an ad that does not convert.

Ed, makes an excellent point about the Obama campaign's burn rate and the cost of raising money.

Back when I managed campaigns , which seems eons ago, but was just a few years, 1/3 of a campaign's energy and 1/2 of the candidate's time was spent raising money.

In a lot of my campaigns the candidate would focus on what I called 'The Families.'

Which were literally families and groups who could bundle together $10,000 or more.

I, as the campaign manager, spent half my time working the next tier of $2,000 individual donors.  The finance director did $1,000 and below, and his assistant did anything below $500.

And of course there were finance events, fundraisers, one-on-ones, etc.

But the big lesson of fundraising is that even very wealthy people have a tap-out level and, the real important part is that every dollar raised is a dollar that cannot be raised again.

Obama's campaign now finds itself in a position that it is becoming harder and harder to raise the money.  After raking in millions, a lot of people are maxed or tapped.

Obama himself, like my candidates, only personally solicit a small group of people.  For him these will be extremely wealthy people with a large circle they can tap and bundle.

But the time he spends working donors is time he cannot be out earning media, giving speeches, going over his speeches and policy issues and, most important of all, resting.

As the money gets harder to raise, the Sr. Campaign staff will have to spend more time concentrating on money, which means unless they are very disciplined, other things will slip like message and organization in key states.

The McCain campaign not only does not have to worry about money, but all those staffers whose energy was focused on finance are now freed up work on organization in key states.

A campaign is about people, money and time.  McCain doesn't have to worry about money anymore.  So it can now maximize time cultivating people who are the backbone of the organization efforts in Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, etc.

While Obama will be spending time between events calling donors, McCain will be calling key state, county and city organizers.

Votes win elections, not dollars raised.