by Josh Bernoff

We don't normally do political polling. But when we did our last Social Technographics survey I got sneaky. I asked people who they were voting for. The result is a fascinating peek into the minds and social behaviors of voters. The full report is available to Forrester clients here, but I'll share the data we published with all of you blog readers below.

First, for your reference, here's the social technographics ladder again, most current version. As we described this spring, it show how people are at different levels of participation in social activities, and the groups can overlap.

Just as with business travelers, we can apply this to any group of people we can identify. So let's see how social participation differs among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. (For the purposes of this survey we classified people who usually vote Democrat as Democrat and people who usually vote Republican as Republicans -- the Independents are those who don't consistently vote one way or another. There weren't enough third-part types for us to get their profile.) Here's the data (over 10,000 online people surveyed nationally):

Right away you can see there is a persistent tendency for Democrats to participate more fully in social technologies. Looking at the index (all adults = 100), you can see that Democrats are at least 10% more likely to do just about anything involving social technologies. The Republicans are the opposite -- they're a lot LESS likely to participate (like Nixon's "silent majority"). They're 22% less likely to be a social network (Joiners) and 21% less likely to be uploading video or blogging (Creators). These are not extreme differences, but there are definite tendencies here, likely correlated to the fact that Republicans tend to be older than Democrats on the average. Notice that the Republicans are near par for Spectators, though -- they're watching, even if they're not as active participants. The Independents are somewhere in the middle, approaching the average in Joiner and Critic activity.

Now let's look at it by who people are voting for. Here's how the Democratic field looks (these are the top four most popular candidates in our national survey; we included Al Gore in the survey in case he decided to enter the race). Remember, these are the profile of the candidates' supporters.

There are important differences among democrats. One in three Obama voters is a Joiner, which may be helping the my.barackobama.com strategy. Edwards voters (62% Spectators) are the most likely to be consuming social applications; Clinton voters are the least, with only 49% Spectators and 42% Inactives. 34% of Gore voters are Critics -- he ought to connect with them in some sort of community or forum to make them a force for his issues in the general election. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards voters are all rich with Creators (at least 22% of their supporters) -- energize those voters and they'll start getting the Spectators excited.

The profile of supporters of Republicans is perhaps the most revealing:

Note the relatively anemic levels of Creator participation -- no Republican gets above 16%. The Creators are the voters who energize everybody else with their contribution. As we get into the general election, which of these candidates can energize the online social world? (Ron Paul, who didn't get enough votes in our poll to generate a profile, clearly could, but it seems unlikely that he'll get the chance.) It's also interesting that Mitt Romney's supporters are more active than the rest of the Republicans' -- he ought to be doing more than just having his offspring blog.

Interestingly, while as far as I know we haven't been contacted by the candidates since we published this research, we have been getting some interest from other companies. Why? Because marketers see the social drama playing out in the election and want to see what lessons can be drawn for their own brands.

Listen folks -- I can do this type of analysis for just about any group of consumers. What would you like to see next?

by Josh Bernoff

Satellite trucks line up outside the spin room.

During the debate, the spin room is quiet. Most of the reporters are in the "filing center" (another gym next door). The candidates' spokespeople wait around listlessly.

Gather.com's bloggers blogged live on these bleachers while watching the debate on a monitor.

Once the debate is over, reporters and camera crews flood into the spin room. Here, a huge scrum of reporters broadcast an interview with a Hillary Clinton spokesperson.

After a few minutes, candidates themselves show up in the spin room. The first ones to arrive are long shots. Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel showed up pretty quickly.

New Mexico governor Bill Richardson followed.

US Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio appeared with his wife by his side. (Yes, she really is that much taller than he is.)

Senator John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, gave interviews as an Edwards surrogate.

A camera on a huge crane delivered images from way above the proceedings.

by Josh Bernoff

I spent last night in the spin room at the Democratic Presidential debate put on by WMUR-TV and CNN at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. WMUR is a Manchester TV station, owned by Hearst-Argyle.

Gather.com and WMUR teamed up to recruit bloggers to write about the debate. Only about 25 people signed up, probably because they didn't  give the promotion enough time. Gather.com's members chose the 15 best -- five democrats, five republicans, and five independents, all New Hampshire residents.

While this sounded like a good idea to me, when I saw the original blog postings I wasn't all that impressed. But that all changed last night.

I sat in the "spin room" with the bloggers as they covered the debate. First, let me set the stage. The spin room was a college gym with little platforms belonging to each candidate (photos here). During the debate, which happened in a hockey rink right down the street, the bloggers and I watched on a monitor in the spin room. (At one point they showed a shot of us on CNN.)

From the blogging perspective, what I found interesting was how the gather.com bloggers rose to the occasion. These were some pretty typical and ordinary people, moms, a student going back to journalism school -- not your hard-core political types at all. But partly because the spotlight was on them, and partly because they got to react to each other, some nice insights came out. Fred Hollander, an engineer whose question on earmarks was posed to the candidates during the debate, found most of their responses unsatisfying -- "Sounds like the democratic frontrunners would continue with the traditional corruption." (How cool is it that a blogger gets his question answered on national TV?) Rebecca Lavoie has a very  nice summary of the emotional style each candidate demonstrated, which is at least as important as issues and positions. Keith Ballingal pointed out that there seems to be an unnatural affinity between the Edwards and Obama campaigns -- and as soon as I read it, they backed each other up again on another point. And David Mirsky, who sat next me, seemed the most prolific with insights during the event.

Seth Godin has complained about the shortcomings of live blogging and I agree -- there's an inverse relationship between speed and value. But these regular old people that Gather has selected are getting better. I can't wait to see what they do with the Republicans.

After the debate was over, the spinning began. The room, which had been mostly empty, filled up with about thirty or forty film crews along with hundreds of print reporters. These proceeded to swarm around the surrogates on the platforms, giving interviews to "spin" their candidate's performance. Eventually most of the candidates showed up, roughly in reverse order of their popularity. Mike Gravel was first, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson soon after. Naturally, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards didn't show by the time I left, about 45 minutes after the debate ended.

Tags: WMUR, Democratic debate, liveblogging, gather.com, bernoff, Forrester Research, Groundswell

Add to del.icio.us

by Josh Bernoff

Seth is a flame thrower. We all know that. Here are some of his thoughts.

The key "Ideas that spread, win." Successful democracy is about spreading ideas and causing action.

Godin says this starts with TV -- interrupt people to put your idea in front of them. This worked. Especially in politics.

The TV industrial complex: Buy ads, get donations, get elected, get more donations, around and around.

Now the world is filled with noise. TV is broken. (Yeah, we know that Seth.) This is why it will cost a billion dollars to elect a president.  The amount of clutter is huge. "We can't just keep branding everything. . . .We can't keep just being spammers."

Political sphere -- still marketing like targeting people in a singles bar. As opposed to romancing people who care about their ideas.

"Permission cuts through the clutter."

Now politicians are realizing they are in the fashion business.

So in politics, stop trying to be average for average people. Instead, start with the geeks and the nerds -- the early adopters. The message starts with the geeks and the nerds.

The key "create stories people want to share."

Also: "people feel good when they are connected with other people with the same ideas."

Turn the marketing funnel into a megaphone for your customers.

His new version of the cycle is this: Be remarkable. Tell a story to your sneezers. They spread the word. Get Permission. And so on.

Seth's critics say he is full of attractive ideas that don't work. I disagree. Seth is a disciple of the new thinking. Listen to him. Take his ideas and shake up your thinking. Yes, he lets you do the real work for yourself. Is that so bad?

Tags: Personal Democracy Forum, PdF2007, Seth Godin, bernoff, Forrester Research, Groundswell

Add to del.icio.us

by Josh Bernoff

Three speakers. First, danah boyd. "Digital handshakes on virtual receiving lines."

Politicans have treated the digital world as a broadcast medium. Politicians have focused on using the digital world to make money.

Candidates making profiles, asking to make friends. But what does friending mean? People collect friends. Friends are who the young peole watch, and who they want to be watched by. But the politicians are not paying attention to what they say.

For example, commenting. Underutilized features. Candidates not looking out to the pages of the people who have friended them.

Properties of mediated public spaces. 1. Persistence. Those statements you made remain. 2. Searchability. You can find everything. 3. Replicability. Can copy anything, make it seem like you created it. 4. Visibility. Creating a whole public life.

Good points, danah, but I don't know any policians smart enough to listen to what you just said.

Second Farouk Olu Aregbe. Started "one million strong for Barack" but does not work for Barack Obama.

Created a group on Facebook. Expanded to links to other content, setting up meetings, etc. Scale became a problem -- didn't want to become a PAC but decided to form subgroups. Raised $15,000 through the MyBarackObama site. Now challenge: how to take the masses of volunteers and channel all the energy.

My take: amazing what young person with energy can do in the social world. These types of folks are going to be powerful, suddenly.

Matt Stoller, "The Making of the Netroots." -- runs myDD.com. An unabashed liberal. "Crazy uncle" type candidates do best online, Howard Dean, even Ross Perot. Unlike a "broadcast" politician, they got people talking to each other. Second, appealed to the people who felt betrayed by the system.

Talked about the rise of moveon.org, starting in response to the Clinton impeachment activity. "civic partricipation is how we built our political process" -- that is, this popular movement is feeding the new liberal activity. He calls it "the open left." "As important as the growth of the new right" -- direct marketing which fueled the new right in the 70s and 80s.

"There is power here," says Stoller.

Stoller, as I see it, is issuing a challenge. Why is it that the liberals are using online organizing more effectively than conservatives? Show me a counterexample.

by Josh Bernoff

Speech by Friedman is called "Politics Is Flat II: What Happens When We All Have A Dog's Hearing?"

"Just finished the 3.0 edition of 'The World Is Flat,' will come out in August." Fascinating, Friedman is continually updating the book. You need to sell a lot of books to do that.

New chapter: "If it's not happening, it's because you're not doing it." About the moment when the CEO has the first encounter with thousands of active people, using the Internet to create change. "Social entrepreneurs" is what he calls them. Example: activists up against TXU Corporation's plans to build coal-powered power plants. Environmentalists got in the middle of multi-billion dollar leveraged buyout of TXU -- they get a seat at the negotiating table. "The world's biggest buyout rode on the approval of the only two people -- environmental groups -- that had no money on the table."

He also laments the loss the personal contact, "social downsides" due to the productivity that technology has brought to the world. "What happens when we can hear everything whispered about us?" -- that is when we all have dogs' hearing. "What happens when all your neighbors have blogs of their own -- and everybody is a public figure?"

I have to say, I do worry about this. Funny how privacy and reputation are somehow repeated in so many of these presentations. Everyone needs to develop a thick skin and skepticism. The trend of transparency and of online character assassination are two sides of the same coin. Get used to it.

Finally, a new chapter on how people need to have judgment to interpret what they find on the Internet.

More great quotes:

"The fundamental business rule of the flat world is: Whatever can be done, will be done. The only question is whether it will be done by you, or to you."

"I would argue that the most important competition going forward is going to be between you and your own imagination. Your ability to act on your own imagination. What people imagine really matters." The companies and countries that thrive will be those that enable their people's imagination best.

Friedman is a great, great speaker. He ties individual people, corporate examples, and builds them into trend analysis. Basically, our model for Groundswell. If only we can be anywhere near this good . . .

Tags: Personal Democracy Forum, PdF2007, Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat, bernoff, Forrester Research, Groundswell

Add to del.icio.us

by Josh Bernoff

Benkler talked about the distribution of the physical infrastructure for computing (e.g. Seti @ Home). Behaviors that were once on the periphery: social motivations, cooperation, friendship -- move from periphery of the economy to its core.

Now the same is happening with content. "Important because it decentralizes authority to act, paralleling what technology/economy has done for practical capacity to act." To work outside of markets, social sharing and exchange replaces what companies and markets do. (Sounds like the Groundwell).

In media, this democritization takes place as sites point a spotlight on what's really happening with politics, e.g. talkingpointmemo. People online blocking the airing of anti-Kerry documentary by Sinclair by threatening a boycott of advertisers. A "self-organizing" system.

This speech struck me as philosophy -- interesting, not necessarily practical. Still, an interesting framework for understanding the Groundswell.

by Josh Bernoff

The Pew Internet & American Life Project's Lee Rainie presented lots of data. I love data! Key factoids (highly subjective choices, and he talks very fast):

• Twice as many people use Internet as their primary source for political info in 2006 vs. 2002. 15% vs. 7% of the population.
• Broadband users under 35 are equally likely to cite the Internet vs. Television as the most important source of news.
• 21 million, 15% of entire Internet population, have watched political videos.
• 14 million people created or shared political content in 2006.

Quick analysis: 2008 is the tipping point for online politics. In 2008 what's happens online will drive a lot of the media coverage. In 2012, it will displace a lot of that media coverage.

by Josh Bernoff

"The World Is Flat" author Friedman interviewed Google CEO Eric Schmidt. "Where are you going?" asks Friedman. Schmidt of course began by flogging universal search.

Schmidt: "As you use iGoogle, we learn more and more about what you do, who you are." He calls this a powerful notion of a computer that knows how you think.

(Schmidt made a funny aside about how no one was looking directly at him -- they're all on their computers.)

Regarding politics, Schmidt is hopeful that the Net will help, because everything a candidate does is recorded and analyzed -- and that disinformation can be debunked by the masses. Now Google is your resume -- everything is there. Of course that could be a problem with youthful indiscretions -- Schmidt says, tongue in cheek, "At age 21, everyone should be able to change their name."

In fact, among youth, the problem is "over-sharing" -- a serious issue of too much revealing what they are doing. I guess politicans will be drawn, counterintuitively, from the ranks of those who were shy when they were young.

"We will earn that people can be falsely charged and still be innocent." (I'm not so sureabout that.) And second, "We will be living with the historical record." This applies to everyone, not just public figures.

Schmidt points out that people's biases mean that repeated accusations "become" the truth. This is a great insight. Defending yourself will become an incredibly important skill.

Friedman talked about the Bahraini election -- Google Earth showed just how big the palaces were to the general population.

Schmidt discussed about the “great firewall” in China and how Google dealt with it. “This is an issue with more than one legitimate point of view.” Google decided to enter the country. If they need to omit a result, we tell the Chinese citizen, this information was omitted (and the citizen probably finds a way around it). But the arrival of broad access to information has to be good for China opening up, according to Schmidt.

Friedman: "What have you learned since buying YouTube?" Schmidt's answer: "The incredible complexity of the professional media world." That is, all the different rights associated with content. (Note to Schmidt: we could have told you that before you bought YouTube.) Also, Schimdt says, the incredible impact of video (versus text). Finally, that people consume video in smaller bites, very different from the structure of television.

Friedman: "How do I get hired at Google." Schmidt: Call me. More seriously, "We decided to put in a scientific way of finding the best talent. Everyone needed to have something unusual about them." Actually hired a Rocket Scientist. So originally, they wanted people beyond a normal corporate view. "The best lesson I have learned. . . . The most important thing is what kind of person you are getting." Schmidt believes you want people who have a broad range of interests. My comment: does this really work, and do they actually do it? You need some hard-nosed businesspeople, too, and my experience is they have plenty of those. Based on this comment, Google will be inundated with resumes from people who have bicycling or collecting vintage Clintoniana or some other weird hobby.

In response to a question from Jeff Jarvis, Schmidt says YouTube is featuring "YouChoose" for political videos and will feature one of the debates. Suggests that the politicians put all their bits of video on YouTube. Good idea! Of course, then they will get edited and remixed by unauthorized viewers . . .

Our analysis: Google looked very positive -- "do no evil"-ish -- because Tom didn't push very hard. I wanted to hear more about the copyright issue.

Tags: Personal Democracy Forum, PdF2007, Eric Schmidt, Thomas L. Friedman, bernoff, Forrester Research, Groundswell

Add to del.icio.us

by Josh Bernoff

Memos from the Personal Democracy Forum

Larry Lessig, the Harvard Stanford professor and wizard of new thinking on property rights, kicked the conference off with what mathematicians call the "Law of the excluded middle" -- the idea that in today's discourse you have to be for or against something -- you're for profit or you're against it, for example.

A good example of this is the "some rights reserved" flavor of the creative commons license.

Now he's optimistic that copyrights -- and the non-excluded middle ground -- become part of the discourse in 2008. For example, should the content of the presidential debates be free -- creative commons "by attribution" license? As he said, like Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." metaphor. Even in satirical contexts.

"This is a radical change in the opportunity for people to participate in the political process," he said. But it threatens networks' control of the news.  For example, NBC refused permission to use a 1-minute clip of President George W. Bush from NBC news.

Lessig calls this ability to quote from the debates, visually, is a crucial element of democracy. But he concedes that allowing networks' content to be available to all is, in a way, a tax on them -- they paid to collect that information and package and broadcast it. His solution -- put the debates on public channels and other networks that would support this kind of distribution -- like PBS or CNN. "If proprietary networks can't live by these principles," he says, then don't give them the debates.

"We reject the proprietary in some contexts," according to Lessig, and debates are one of them.

Our analysis: Lessig is onto something. I don't think he will win on these issues in the 2008 presidential election. But he will expand the debate, and is making progress on this issue. I also don't believe, as Lessig does, that copyright will become an important issue in this campaign. But politicians like Barack Obama have supported the idea of allowing the content from the debates be freely available. Debate content, excerpted, twisted, and otherwise modified, will appear on YouTube. Lawsuits will follow. And that -- over the next several years -- will move these issues into the debate.

Tags: Personal Democracy Forum, PdF2007, Larry Lessig, bernoff, Forrester Research, Groundswell

Add to del.icio.us

by Josh Bernoff

I'll be at the Personal Democracy Forum on Friday

Let me know if you want to get together. Comments here or by email.