Big Data, Greater Power.
An Ethical Aside to the Bernie/Clinton/NGPVAN Data Scandal
Every once in awhile we get a little blip on the radar screen of the extreme dangers of putting all your eggs in one basket. Or for this example, trusting all of your voter-file data to one vendor: NGPVAN. But while these ephemeral scandals score cheap political points and demand the utmost priority at the time, rarely do we leave situations like these with any concrete lessons.
At the cost of political capital, NGPVAN and the DNC very well could have permanently dismantled the Sanders campaign’s digital efforts, or at least made them start from scratch. To date, it is uncertain what transparent systems exist to demonstrate how NGPVAN handles its clients’ data (except for their glaring errors), and thus no ultimate way to know if the DNC could be indirectly handicapping the Sanders campaign on a regular basis. In their defense, Amy Dacey did a good job explaining away what happened and the steps the DNC took to resolve the issue.
I am certain these questions will float around for the duration of this news-cycle but few will persist in demanding accountability beyond this breach. Politics in general will march forward towards a granulated data serenity where we can know everything about everyone but chalk off the responsibility of managing that omnipotent power to a handful of people we deem “trustworthy.”
Meanwhile, the voting population is quickly becoming more aware of our actions as digital marketers and growing increasingly resistant to our ploys. Process articles like this one on the Walker list reflect a budding media interest in the “deep dark world” behind email marketing and online fundraising.
From a structural standpoint, both parties have come a long way in 10 years, optimizing the online relationship and finding new ways to grow returns with the data they have accumulated. As individuals turn towards the internet, the demand to tap those potential activists and donors who are online grows. And both Republicans and Democrats are succeeding in filling that space appropriately.
My focus here, however, is ethical and prescriptive. Should we or should we not be doing things a certain way? How are we interacting online and who is benefitting from big data? These questions have wider impacts than we understand, not only in the political sphere but also in commercial marketing where our purchases live. Here are the 4 big questions I think DC digital folks should be asking:
1. Have we spent enough time debating the structure? Technological dependence has always been a means to power. In Rituals of Embodiedness, David Walbert explains the mental disconnect between luxury and responsibility; how every willful action we surrender to some technological advancement becomes but a power source to hold over us through our newly created ignorance of the luxury we gain.
The internet was supposed to bring decentralization of power, but in fact it’s consolidated power in the hands of whatever company manages to build the first and/or best standard.
In this respect you can see how easy it is to, say, let the DNC have power over your data platform in exchange for the luxury of not building a data management platform yourself. However, much like an automatic coffee grinder, when the power goes out, you are suddenly struggling to figure out how to grind your own coffee again.
We should be actively debating the way our data is handled and forcing vendors to comply with a comprehensive, transparent system that allows all parties to retain their own data in an emergency. Additionally, the fact that I even have to mention avoiding a monopolization of data is a problem. As a party we should be seeking a competitive market of professional vendors that avoids a consolidation of all data, not strives for it.
Building complex systems that communicate with each other flawlessly is one thing. Forcing everyone under one system is another.
2.Where do we draw the line on sharing information? The more subtle question roaring through grassroots Democrats’ heads right now is, “why the hell are Hillary and Bernie even using the same data vendor?”
Imagine the backlash if donors actually realized they were a) not donating or giving information to the person they thought they were, b) losing half their donation to revenue sharing or list rentals or c) paying consultants that also helped X and Y candidate they did not like.
Imagine a world, ad absurdum, where both the RNC and DNC have data management platforms that grab 70% of the information “they want.” Using their smarts, they have secret meetings with each other and trade segments of data to help complete the other 30% they don’t have (this is of course fictional). Both turn a tidy profit and learn more about their target demographics. Who loses? The donor who does not see the knife in his back.
Media outlets may spin that online fundraising has shady dealings, but they are all done in plain sight. The question is how much longer an ignorant population of supporters will stand by as their dollars get sucked into a DC consultant vacuum.
The mixed pot of conflicting interests has long been a Washington, DC problem, but the paradigm shift towards online everything will inevitably draw vendors into the limelight for their organizational decisions. We should be trying harder than ever to focus, again, on transparent systems that put donors first and fully inform them of what they are participating in, every step of the way.
Lying will only get you so far.
3.Can we combat a shift in online philanthropy ethos and behavior? It is depressing, but my biggest worry as an online marketer is the constant movement towards a smarter and brighter online user. The “Share to show” and “Sign this card” just do not work like they used to.
We seek to measure and learn everything about everyone, but how smarter individuals will affect analytics and information gathering is still yet to be seen. One day we will send an email from Mitt Romney and hardly anyone will actually believe it is Mitt sending the email. To date, those emails still do fairly well.
Instead, the model we should be emulating is similar to many familiar corporate successes, like Chick-Fil-A, Southwest Airlines, or other companies that constantly try to GIVE BACK to their customers instead of take their money.
You will find that, with millennials, emotion and acceptance mean more than anything. Instead of suckering people into your store, the focus has shifted to making the customer unaware that they are even paying. The rewards of using the company are so great that the small transaction you pay is just a minor convenience fee to get you closer to an awesome product.
The future of marketing is giving.
4.Can micro-targeting go too far? What are the consequences? I sat in a recent meeting where we were discussing potential messages to use and were planning to segment two different audiences and send them similar, but opposing messages. (Newsflash: it is insanely normal these days to send your pro-life segment a “Yes, Pro-life!” message while sending your pro-choice crowd a “Yes, Women’s health!” one.)
As our technologies ripen and we become better at understanding what people want to hear, we also become better at strategically messaging them in ways that tell them exactly what they want to hear. People already think politicians lie — so why not email opposite pitches from the same politician?
However, does this devolution of messaging further degrade an already untrusting population? Much like the earlier question of the vendor and candidate, we (as Americans) are quickly learning that every email is a lie and every exciting headline is clickbait.
My worry here is that the same technology we use to track, groom, and segment individuals will come back to bite us like a bacteria that has become completely resistant to our drugs:
A mega-bug, immune to all marketing ploys.
These are just a few of the many questions that run through my head every time a scandal like this happens. There are so many different ways online information can be mishandled that we can rest assured that the DNC / Bernie scandal won’t be the last. My gut says journalists will have plenty to write about before the 2016 race is over.
…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….
If you enjoy what you just read, give it a ❤ and sign up for my weekly newsletter: http://tinyletter.com/politic Thank you!
