Too much Caffeine in your backlinks?
Google’s new search indexing system, “Caffeine,” has been completely implemented. What this means in a nutshell is that Google can index content across the web, including the social web, far more efficiently and deliver search results that include content that is nearly brand new.
However, Caffeine does not change Google’s search algorithm, so when the number of backlinks displayed in Google Webmaster Tools recently expanded for many sites, SEO masters were left scratching their heads. It turns out that Google decided to increase transparency in this area and has made available many more if not all backlinks for analysis.
Backlinks are important to SEO because they speak to a site’s authority and popularity on any given subject matter. In theory if a site has the most authoritative, freshest content in a certain area, the web will reward that site by linking to it. Thus knowing what all of a site’s backlinks are is key to understanding where a given SEO strategy is succeeding or failing.
Case in point, browsing through CRAFT’s newly expanded set of backlinks revealed that the firm had been mentioned in a story, “Tips for Political Marketing and GOTV Strategy in the Cloud,” that got picked up by PR Newswire. No one actually interviewed anyone at CRAFT for the piece, and while it did generate significant traffic to the site, the resultant spike wasn’t big enough to draw attention in and of itself. However, the story was syndicated through several major news sites and political blogs, representing serious positive exposure for the firm.
Armed with this knowledge a webmaster can further exploit incoming traffic to a set of content, seek out the source of recurring inbound links to establish strategic relationships, and also realize what site content is potentially falling flat or failing to be recognized.
U.S. Department of Labor: Working Hard to Protect the Rights of Illegals
Towards the end of June, the Department of Labor launched an ad campaign explicitly offering government assistance to illegal immigrants who believe that they are not being paid fair wages at their jobs, which they illegally maintain in the United States. In April, the Labor Department initiated “We Can Help,” a “bilingual national awareness campaign to reach out to low-wage and vulnerable workers.” The ad sparked heated controversy amongst Republican lawmakers who view the message as hypocritical, in that it emphasizes the importance of employment standards for illegal immigrants while millions of Americans are out of work altogether. Also, they find the message incompatible with the mission of the Labor Department, an institution that deems it illegal to hire undocumented individuals in the first place. Therefore, insisting that these illegal workers be paid fairly is unsubstantiated by the department’s very own statutes.
In the ad, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis introduces herself and makes a few statements regarding how workers need to be paid fairly for their labor – points that are all well taken. Her notorious statement comes towards the end, when she says, “Remember, every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not. So, call us. It is free and confidential.” A toll-free phone number is then provided and the ad closes with, “We can help.” Solis openly welcomes illegal immigrants to take advantage of U.S. government services if they feel that they are being exploited in the workplace. Another ad in the campaign encourages “exploited” illegals to report their employers to the U.S. government. What these ads fail to address is why these undocumented workers are entitled to taxpayer services when they are breaking the law by residing here.
Representative Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas, made a good point when he told Fox News that “maybe they should focus their attention on protecting American jobs and enforcing our labor laws. After all, it is illegal to hire workers that are in our country illegally.” This raises the point that this type of endorsement de-legitimizes the authority of the Labor Department to an extent, insofar as it is violating its own rules.
This is an especially sore subject for American citizens at this time, with federal unemployment rates lingering around 10 percent, and the real rate including underemployed workers and those who have stopped looking for work at over 17 percent. Americans are frustrated that they are out of work and are struggling, yet the Department of Labor is less concerned about those hardships and is focusing on paying illegals fairly.
Representative Steve King, a Republican from Iowa said in a statement, “It is shameful that Secretary Solis has to be reminded that her primary duty is owed to the American people, and not to those who have illegally entered our country.” It is time for Solis and those who support this campaign to recognize just that – American workers should be the main priority at this time, especially the millions that are currently out of work. Also, the Department of Labor needs to reevaluate its claims on fair pay for undocumented workers given the rules it supposedly works to enforce.
Aside from these advertisements’ blatant disregard for the legitimacy of the U.S. legal system, the message being sent perpetuates a relentless propaganda machine that is driven by the current administration. Throughout Obama’s presidency, Americans have been subjected to relentless propaganda, whether it be in the form of emails sent out by the White House website prompting citizens to adopt the president’s health care overhaul, or a street sign placed at Roadwork projects throughout the country endorsing Obama’s Reinvestment and Recovery Act. It seems like whenever the administration is unable to get the support of the American people, it resorts to producing taxpayer-funded advertisement campaigns, which only increase the hostility and distance between the wants and needs of citizens and the ultimate agenda of the federal government.
Sometimes a “Feel-Good” Ad is Not Good Enough
Crude oil has been gushing from a faulty wellhead into the Gulf of Mexico for over 70 days now, and a viable solution to the problem has yet to be introduced. BP’s CEO, Tony Hayward, has been receiving immense criticism left and right for his actions since the spill, or lack thereof. In an effort to appease the understandably angry masses, BP launched an “apology” ad campaign. While the campaign is a nice gesture, it provides little assurance to viewers that an end is in sight.
In the beginning of the ad, Hayward’s voice is heard as a photograph of the oil in the ocean is shown. He says, “The Gulf spill is a tragedy that never should have happened.” He goes on to introduce himself and admit that BP takes responsibility for the disaster. The ad primarily focuses on clean up efforts and volunteerism, with a series of photos displaying the clean up. Hayward directly apologizes to the viewer and closes with, “We will get this done. We will make this right.” The ad is effective in that it conveys a feel-good sentiment to the viewer. The creators were also smart to include a Louisiana native employee in a second apology ad to send out the apologetic message, which translated as sincere, as opposed to a distant British board member apologizing, who is most likely not personally affected by the disaster.
What’s missing, however, is any mention of a plan to move forward with actually stopping the oil from spewing into the ocean. Currently, it is estimated that if the wellhead is removed and not capped, up to 100,000 barrels of oil could leak into the ocean every day. What is needed is a plan of action, not just pledges to clean up the mess.
It has been reported that BP spent $50 million for the advertising campaign, another number that has angered many people who believe that money should be spent on relief efforts. These ads also aired almost two months after the spill started – quite late for an apology. The ads probably would have stemmed criticism of BP if they had been released in a timelier manner.
All in all, the most important element of the “apology” is missing: a plan of action, which does little to comfort those who are being directly affected by the spill. Jobs are being lost, animals are dying, and the environment is deteriorating; all of this could continue for at least two years if that wellhead is not capped.
It’s all well and good that Hayward comes on the television and says he’s sorry, but that does not change the reality that tens of thousands of barrels (millions of gallons) of crude oil are going into the ocean twenty-four hours a day, and have been for the past 70 days. People are starting to ask questions, and this vapid attempt by BP to assure people that the mess will get cleaned up is undercutting and underestimating the intelligence of the American people. We want to know what BP is actively doing to stop this spill, not simply that waste is being collected as it washes up on our shores.
BP needs move forward in devising a plan that will stop this disaster, rather than spending tens of millions of dollars on advertisements in attempts to reconcile the backlash and hostility it’s receiving. Apologies, whether sincere or not, will not fix the situation. BP needs to stop putting out ads saying they are sorry and run something that tells the American people what they are doing and what they plan to do to stop this crisis.
Tea Party Candidates and Women: Victorious in the Primaries but Face Challenges Ahead
In the recent slew of primary elections that took place throughout the country, two groups particularly stood out as victors in the races: women and Tea Party candidates.
Several women won high profile primary races, including Carly Fiorina for California Senate, Meg Whitman for California governor, Sharron Angle for Nevada Senate, and Nikki Haley for South Carolina governor. Americans are fed up with the status quo and are selecting candidates who can offer the American people something new, something fresh. Women are a minority and the Tea Party movement represents something radically different from the current administration’s game plan. Perhaps these wins are representing the need for change from Obama’s “change.” It remains to be seen whether or not these candidates will be as viable in the fall.
In Nevada, Sharron Angle, the Tea Party-backed candidate, was victorious over the more established and once-ahead candidate Sue Lowden. Angle will face Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. It has been reported that Democrats, who were once fearful of Reid’s ability to win in November due to nationwide frustration with the direction in which he has led the Senate, are relieved that Angle won because of her conservative views. Angle has a lot of great ideas in terms of taxes, our involvement with the UN, and Social Security. However, some of her other ideas, like bringing back prohibition will be an easy target for Reid’s camp when it comes to attack advertisements. Her association with the Tea Party’s negative image perpetuated by the mainstream media could have detrimental effects on her performance in the general election.
As the election slowly inches closer, advertising for all of the candidates will become more heated and competitive. It is certain that the gender of the candidates will not be attacked in these advertisements, insofar as that would certainly be the kiss of death for the perpetrator. However, many of the women won because they chose to tact very far to the right in order to win their primaries in swing states. It will be difficult for them to tact back to the center when it comes to the general election.
It is likely that the Democrats will also target the Tea Party movement in an effort to distort the Republican record. One characteristic of the Tea Party movement is that it is a very loose conglomeration of local groups without a central control mechanism, and therefore if a Tea Partier shows up to a rally with a sign displaying Nazi symbols, it is difficult for the group as a whole to fend off those types of negative associations. Democrats will likely blanket those associations across the entire Republican party.
The “anti-Tea Party” mantra will become one of the focal centerpieces to the liberal advertisements that will surface as the election draws nearer. Will it work? It could have a negative effect on Republicans running, even if they are not associated with the Tea Party. It will be up to those candidates to remind Americans of the harrowing situation the Obama administration has placed our nation in and to show Americans that the few extreme stereotypes associated with the Tea Party do not represent them, nor a majority of the movement’s members.
In the 2008 presidential election America put the first African American into the White House – a truly remarkable and historical event. This election cycle, we have the opportunity to put more women and more candidates that represent the grassroots in office – an equally exciting prospect. Time will tell as the elections move closer whether or not America will embrace that opportunity once again.
*Photo Credit: Magana/AP
Changing Media Changing Attention Spans
A question came up the other day with a friend of mine who asked me “who writes letters anymore?” Thinking about it with the exception of Christmas cards and a few notes on birthdays I realized that I in fact don’t. It’s not just that I do not write letters, it’s my attention span, like countless others, is unwilling if not incapable of sitting down and writing a concrete thought on a piece of paper.
The New York Times recently wrote a terrific, if not horrifying profile on the affects of technology on humans. It concluded that our brains were not built to multitask, in fact, just 3 percent of the population is. According to the Times, those folks are deemed “supertaskers.” As a result, our society has been changed in ways we never could have imagined. A 2008 study found that people consumed about “three times as much information each day as they did in 1960.” And that “computer users at work change windows or check e-mail or other programs nearly 37 times an hour, new research shows.”
This information, while shocking, isn’t completely surprising.
Think about it: e-mail, cell phones, iPads, MP3 players and yes the Internet have all contributed to a society that is transfixed on the need and want of being busy. People more so than ever crave information and the “dopamine squirt” resulting from the new information coming at your fingertips can be addictive.
Understanding people’s attention spans can be helpful for how political and communications consultants communicate to our audience, the voters.
Jon Henke, a Partner here at CRAFT wrote back in March “we read differently online. The mental cost imposed by marketing language is just too high” and that “online communication has to be fast, personal and authentic.” Point is, whether it’s online communications or direct mail and TV unless you are targeting your message and doing it in a way that reaches people quickly and in a catchy way you’re losing.
Political consultants have to always be thinking about engaging voters in a way that is conscious of their attention spans, or lack there of. Doing so means being fast, engaging and edgy if need be. Here at CRAFT we’ve created dynamic advertising content. These ads catch viewer’s attention by tying the ad directly to the viewer and reminding them how it affects them. This is how you keep your audiences attention not by using cheap gimmicks.
The challenge going forward is finding new and creative solutions for connecting with an increasingly attention deficit audience. And with greater media platforms arriving day by day expect the audience to be even harder to engage. Point is this: if you blink you may just be missing the next big thing.
CRAFT’s 50 Political Journalists To Follow On Twitter
Two weeks ago, CRAFT brought you our much talked about list of 50 Bloggers To Follow On Twitter. Now, we have compiled a list of the 50 Political Journalists we recommend our clients follow. For those who use Twitter, it serves as a constant source of news and information. These political journalists contribute to that in both traditional and new media channels.
Follow the Twitter list here: @CRAFTdc/craft-s-50-journalists.
(In no particular order.)
- Jonathan Martin (POLITICO), @jmartpolitico
- Karen Travers (ABC News), @karentravers
- Fred Barnes (Weekly Standard), @fredbarnes
- Ben Smith (POLITICO), @benpolitico
- Josh Kraushaar (POLITICO), @politicojosh
- Mike Allen (POLITICO), @mikeallen
- Shira Toeplitz (POLITICO), @ShiraToeplitz
- Patrick Gavin (POLITICO), @pwgavin
- Chris Cillizza (Washington Post), @thefix
- Jamie Dupree (Cox Radio), @jamiedupree
- Marc Ambinder (The Atlantic Monthly), @marcambinder
- Taegan Goddard (Political Wire), @pwire
- Mark Knoller (CBS News), @markknoller
- Rick Klein (ABC News), @thenote
- Chuck Todd (NBC News), @chucktodd
- Jon Karl (ABC News), @jonkarl
- Major Garrett (FOX News), @majoratwh
- Rick Leventhal (FOX News), @RickLeventhal
- Mark Preston (CNN), @PrestonCNN
- Sam Feist (CNN), @SamFeistCNN
- Candy Crowley (CNN), @CrowleyCNN
- Andrea Mitchell (NBC News), @MitchellReports
- John McCardle (Roll Call), @McCardleRollCall
- Jake Tapper (ABC News), @jaketapper
- Joe Scarborough (NBC News), @JoeNBC
- Glenn Thrush (POLITICO), @GlennThrush
- Luke Russert (XM Radio/NBC News), @RussertXM_NBC
- David Gregory (NBC News), @DavidGregory
- Martin Kady (POLITICO), @MKady
- Karen Tumulty (Washington Post), @ktumulty
- Ana Marie Cox (GQ Magazine), @AnaMarieCox
- Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo), @JoshTPM
- George Stephanopoulos (ABC News), @GStephanopoulos
- Dana Bash (CNN), @DanaBashCNN
- Byron York (Washington Examiner), @ByronYork
- Jim Martin (CNET), @JamesCO
- Eric Kuhn (CNN), @KuhnCNN
- Aaron Blake (Washington Post), @FixAaron
- David Drucker (Roll Call), @DavidMDrucker
- Peter Hamby (CNN), @hambypCNN
- Erin McPike (National Journal), @ErinMcPike
- Reid Wilson (Politics Nation), @PoliticsNation
- David Weigel (Washington Post), @DaveWeigel
- Phil Elliott (Associated Press), @PElliottAP
- Salena Zito (Pittsburgh Tribune), @SalenaZito
- John McCormack (Weekly Standard), @McCormackJohn
- Terry Moran (ABC News), @TerryMoran
- Garance Franke-Ruta (Washington Post), @TheGarance
- Michael Calderone (Yahoo! News), @mlcalderone
- Olivier Knox (AFP), @OKnox
- Christina Bellatoni (Talking Points Memo), @cbellantoni
CRAFT’s 50 Bloggers To Follow On Twitter
Here at CRAFT, clients often ask us who to follow on Twitter. While every campaign is different, following a small core of state and national bloggers from the onset can be an effective way to help grow your Twitter presence. Below is a list that we share with our clients. There are many other prominent and interesting bloggers out there. We invite you to comment and suggest others that should be included. (This list is not in any ranking order.)
- Allah Pundit @allahpundit
- Michelle Malkin @michelleMalkin
- Erick Erickson @ewerickson
- Andrew Breitbart @AndrewBreitbart
- John Hawkins @johnhawkinsrwn
- Instapundit @instapundit
- Moe Lane @moelane
- Jim Geraghty @jimgeraghty
- Ben Domenech @bdomenech
- George Scoville @stackiii
- Dan Riehl @DanRiehl
- Ed Morrissey @EdMorrissey
- Caleb Howe @CalebHowe
- Patterico @Patterico
- Jim Hoft @gatewaypundit
- Michael Goldfarb @thegoldfarb
- Phillip Kleir @philipaklein
- Tabitha Hale @pinkelephantpun
- Mary Katharine Ham @mkhammer
- Scott W. Graves @ScottWGraves
- Jimmie @jimmiebjr
- Nansen Malin @nansen
- Hugh Hewitt @hughhewitt
- Duane Patterson @radioblogger
- Melissa Clouthier @MelissaTweets
- Stephen Green @VodkaPundit
- Just Karl @justkarl
- Robert Bluey @RobertBluey
- J.P. Freire @JPFreire
- Ali A. Akbar @ali
- Liz Mair @LizMair
- Jon Henke @JonHenke
- Patrick Ruffini @PatrickRuffini
- Soren Dayton @sorendayton
- Katie Harbath @katieharbath
- Matt K. Lewis @mattklewis
- Dan McLaughlin @baseballcrank
- Matthew Sheffield @mattsheffield
- Seton Motley @SetonMotley
- Matt Margolis @mattmargolis
- Amanda Carpenter @amandacarpenter
- Katie Favazza @KatieFavazza
- Mark Tapscott @mtapscott
- Sean Hackbarth @seanhackbarth
- Jill Stanek @JillStanek
- Jay Cost @JayCost
- Ace of Spades @AceofSpadesHQ
- Pejman Yousefzadeh @Yousefzadeh
- Andy levy @andylevy
- Jordan Raynor @JordanRaynor
- Rory Cooper @RoryCooper
- Kevin Madden @KevinMaddenDC
Specialization
Organizations often run into a wall when they try to expand their advocacy into new media. A common reason for their failure is their insistence on running their internet operation in-house.
That approach is fraught with problems.
First, at a structural level, most organizations are not designed for the direct advocacy and campaigns at which blogs excel, and many organizations (like 501(c)3 orgs) face strict legal restrictions on such activity.
Even if the organization has some legal elbow room, large organizations have institutional barriers to effective new media advocacy that are part and parcel of the bureaucracy. Everyone wants to have input or tell you what you can’t do, when what you really need is a clear, interesting voice and the ability to nimbly take calculated risks.
Which brings the organization to the problem of who can act as that voice. A prospective hire’s ability to build an audience and move the needle on an issue isn’t immediately obvious unless he’s already done it.
As you might imagine, that’s a rare commodity. So we have many organizations demanding somebody to handle new media for them, and a limited supply of proven talent.
So the impulse to run their own new media operations forces organizations to choose between (a) competing for a small number of bloggers who have demonstrated value and (b) hiring someone who’s unproven in new media based on some other, dubious criteria. That’s a choice between high costs and low probability of success.
The foolishness of that would be obvious in other contexts. You don’t buy a TV station when you want to communicate, nor do you put the new kid on your staff in charge of marketing to the 18-34 crowd just because he happens to be young. You go to the professionals and you buy some of their time.
Focus on your strengths, not your weaknesses. Don’t frustrate yourself trying to make your organization do something it wasn’t designed to do. In short, embrace specialization.
