Political Campaigns as PR Case Studies

Doug Downs (00:04):

I have a guilty pleasure. I don't talk about it with family or friends because it's kind of something you don't talk about out loud. I don't know why it would be healthy if more of us did. It's a strange fetish, although it makes perfect sense to me. My guilty pleasure is I love politics. Well, I love political campaigns. I don't really care about the politics. I'm one of those people who votes one way, one time, and another way, another time. I'm purple or pink. I love the campaigns because they're basically giant strategic communications exercises for mass audiences with irrefutable quantitative results. The winner of almost any election won the battle of the communications plans. This year, globally, we've had more than 50 national elections. The one I followed the closest was the US election, and while the popular vote was relatively close, at least by percentages, the election result was not.

(01:14):

With Republican Donald Trump winning the electoral college comfortably, the electoral college map looked so red. One pundit, even quipped only Verizon has better coverage. For the Dems, it was shock because they'd hit all their key messages. They had so many celebrities endorsed Kamala Harris. They had so much money for their campaign, a billion dollars apparently. And for the most part, they had very strong media support. Based on best practices, they should have won or at least come very close. And this is what I love about political campaigns. Human behavior is so hard to understand, much less predict because we don't understand our own individual behaviors. Ultimately, our job is the near impossible goal of predicting human behavior in being able to harness that predictably in support of our organizations. But we can't do that only with best practices because those are based on what's happened previously. You can't drive a car looking only in the rear view mirror. That would be clumsy to say the least today on stories and strategies. Why running a political campaign is like a heist. Just when you think you've got it all planned out, human behavior slips in with an unexpected clue.

(02:58):

My name is Doug Downs. My guest this week is Matt Krayton, joining today from New Jersey. Hey Matt. Thanks for having me, Doug. How are you? I'm good, I'm good. I've never been to Jersey. I really have not seen the US East coast very much. How are things in Jersey today?

Matt Krayton (03:15):

So we have another uncharacteristically beautiful day for fall, so it's a little warm and I'll give a shameless plug. It's a great place to visit lots of beaches, mountains, so you pretty much have everything. So highly underrated as I like

Doug Downs (03:29):

To say. It's bizarre that I haven't been, my wife's been to New York and raves about it. And if you go to New York, you've got to see, you almost have to visit the whole Easter seaboard from Boston down to Philly. And even if you can get down to DC that would be great. So Matt, you're the founder of politics. You provide counsel to political campaigns at the local, state and federal levels as well as to clients in the private and public sectors. Most recently you worked on special projects during the 2020 presidential campaign, including having helped President Joe Biden's viral, we just did hat. You've also served as an adjunct professor in Centenary University's business department teaching in their first of its kind social media program. And Matt, I guess we should just disclose you work for Democratic campaigns. That's where your heart is at, and so important to follow your heart. So if folks are listening, hey, everything Matt's saying seems to be coming from the Democrat perspective. Yes, it is. And that's happy to have you on the show. If someone who's worked on Republican campaigns wants to be on the show and talk about the same stuff, happy to have you. I'm absolutely agnostic and I don't want to just focus on the US election because that's been diagnosed a lot in recent weeks, but let's start there.

(04:52):

Where did this go wrong for the Democrat party? Was it the messaging? Was it the celebrity tactics? Was it the overwhelming media support and it worked against what happened?

Matt Krayton (05:03):

Yeah, I mean, it's a really good question and not one that I think we have a full answer to just yet. So there's a lot of work that we're going to have to do to diagnose exactly where things went wrong. I think the most likely scenario at this point, just looking at some of the data and essentially seeing how it shook out in some of all of the swing states is it was kind of a death by a thousand cuts scenario where you had a bunch of different headwinds essentially blowing into the Harris campaign. I will say that I feel like they ran as good a campaign as anyone has in recent memory, and I think it's easy to forget how difficult a job that they had putting a campaign together on a minute's notice and very, very difficult to do that. I mean, because usually again, if you're looking at a presidential campaign from primary all the way through to the general election, you're talking about over a year's worth or sometimes even more worth of preparation for getting into the race, developing policy positions, building out a team, building out infrastructure and all the places that you need infrastructure and raising money obviously.

(06:21):

And they did all of that in a very condensed timeframe. What I think sort of the biggest factors though, kind of just zooming out a little bit in this election is, or a couple of big trends in terms of elections really kind of looking like change elections in the United States every single cycle. And we didn't always see that, right? You would see people get reelected, you would see some degree of satisfaction with our leaders at different points, say for different events that were sort of larger events that kind of contribute to a general malaise. But I think what we're looking at is sort of this broad dissatisfaction across the board and globally, honestly, if you look globally, there haven't been too many incumbent parties across the globe that have fared too well in the last couple of years. So there were a lot of issues.

(07:15):

I know people are going to talk about inflation a lot, but I think generally speaking, I mean if you look at the United States economy, we've done a heck of a lot better than most of the world on pushing inflation down, economic recovery after the pandemic. But again, those things don't necessarily always translate to how people feel in their day-to-day lives. So that's sort of the dance that you do. But I think there's some broader trends as well where you see certain demographic groups. I think social media plays a huge role in a lot of this where you're seeing all sorts of content that illustrates these lifestyles that I think are by and large unattainable for most of us. So you see a lot of folks talking about how they're jumping on their private jet for a vacation or just bought this Lamborghini, I'm going to drive around.

(08:09):

And quite frankly, that's just not an attainable thing, and yet you're bombarded with this information all of the time. So I think there is a level of dissatisfaction that we're dealing with that is very hard to put our finger on in sort of traditional ways. But I think the media and information environment that we exist in definitely contributed to, again, that sense of malaise that led to what looks like, again, a change election. So it's like change, but not change at the same time, because kind of going back to something that we had before as well. So those are sort of the broad strokes I think, and we'll find out more.

Doug Downs (08:49):

So Matt's conclusion is that overall change was in the air and that they were rowing against the tide. I wanted to know did he feel that the Democrat party had the right messaging throughout the campaign and did they deliver the right messages with the right spokespeople? I think

Matt Krayton (09:10):

We're going to have to approach the diagnosis of what happened with, again, humility with curiosity, and really try to dig into how some of these trend lines were, I don't want to say missed, but probably buried under other stuff. So in terms of messaging, I think generally speaking, the messaging that the campaign pursued was by and large the right messaging based on the data that we had. So nothing really goes out the door on a big presidential campaign without some degree of measurement focus groups, polling ad testing online with panels and other methods like that. So to the extent that they were pursuing the right or wrong messaging, I think directionally it was probably okay. I think also there maybe was a lack of appreciation for how potent some of the Republican messaging may have been on in particular social issues. So I think the big disconnect is sort of this idea of the economy, which I think when we talk about the economy, a lot of analysis misses the fact that we're not actually talking about the economy itself.

(10:27):

We're talking about a vibe, essentially how people feel in their daily lives. And that doesn't even necessarily have to be from a financial perspective, it's just the economy seems to have taken on this sort of catchall character for how we describe people's lived experiences in the world. So when you have an election where people have economic concerns and they're hearing a lot about social policy, that is, I don't want to say slightly out of the mainstream, but the Overton window hasn't shifted on some of these issues yet for the majority of the population that when you feel like one party's focusing on those things over economic interest, over lived experience day to day, for most Americans, that can create some real tensions and problems. So this is actually a really interesting point is beyond the messaging, but the sort of mediums that we looked at during this campaign.

(11:29):

So on the Democratic side, you had a lot of endorsements from folks who you would consider from legacy media, entertainment, Taylor Swift, Beyonce. So mega celebrities, huge reach. And I would argue too, honestly, like a Taylor Swift or Beyonce endorsement probably did help on the margins to some extent and didn't hurt. But the other celebrity endorsements, maybe not so much on the right side of the aisle though, what we ended up seeing was what we ended up seeing, they really tapped into this, the world of podcasts, the world of online influencers, comedians, these sort of culturally relevant messengers who genuinely, generally I think build stronger bonds with their audience. Now again, we can put Taylor Swift aside or Beyonce aside for a second kind of outliers in that space. But I think if you, again, look at the Joe Rogans of the world, and I'm not saying he endorsed Trump, but Trump obviously appeared on the podcast and it wasn't, I would say universally. I mean, it wasn't a great interview, but it wasn't also, he was there and it wasn't a catastrophe either. So that helps Tony Hinchcliffe, the Kill Tony guy that did the joke about Puerto Rico. All of those people have built these very strong relationships with their audiences, and you see them constantly, especially among young men. And that's where I think we saw the impact on messengers and the mediums and where each of the parties kind of leaned into different ways of communicating with voters through third party influencers.

Doug Downs (13:10):

I love that because there's so much credit has been given to podcasts, which of course I'm all for it. I've worked in podcasts, I love that headline. But truthfully, what you're describing there is niche media that we've gotten to the point where you need to find powerful niche media for this size of an election and use that niche media and the hosts of those as the influencers that they are.

Matt Krayton (13:35):

Oh, a hundred percent. And I think even beyond niche media, if you think about some of the biggest podcasts in the world, a lot of those podcasts, the reach of the actual audio episodes, it's huge. But the knock on reach of those things, on clips on different things that you see on reels or TikTok is amplified a hundred times. And it's very hard to measure truly how much reach some of these people have. And also they kind of lend themselves to these bite-sized moments where traditional celebrities, yeah, there's some of that, but it doesn't automatically translate to that sort of short form video that I think we're used to.

Doug Downs (14:19):

I love what you're describing, and you compared Joe Rogan, Dana White, and how they've connected with their audience in a way that perhaps maybe Taylor Swift hasn't, maybe she's wonderfully famous and obviously loves, she's in, as you and I speak, she's putting on a concert in Toronto and they shut down the 4 0 1 section of the 4 0 1, which believes me causes chaos in the city. So I'm not saying she's not loved, but maybe there isn't this, I will do anything for Taylor Swift feeling amongst her supporters election wise, as there might be for Joe Rogan's supporters. They're just different kinds of influencers.

Matt Krayton (15:00):

Yeah, I think that's right, actually. And not that Taylor Swift's fan base wouldn't do anything for Taylor Swift or that didn't have, again, some impact, but I think

Doug Downs (15:14):

Some positive,

Matt Krayton (15:15):

Some positive impact for the Democrats. But I think ultimately Taylor Swift is a talented musician, and it's not like, but she's

Doug Downs (15:25):

Not one of us. She's not one of us.

Matt Krayton (15:27):

Well, that's part of it. But I think the bigger issue is when you look at these influencers is that they actually talk about, not necessarily political issues specifically, but they talk about things that are political adjacent or politics adjacent or social adjacent, and they are constantly reminding young men about their station in the electorate, their station in life. And I think that's a huge difference where you have these guys like Joe Rogan or some of these other folks who speak to those types of issues in almost every podcast.

Doug Downs (16:06):

I agree. I think the Dems are going to have to find the influencers who don't just perform for me, but those that I feel, walk with me. What about the role of traditional media then? You're welcome to disagree with me, but I do feel the overwhelming majority of traditional media was overtly supportive of the Democratic campaign. There's always Fox News that certainly goes the other way. For the first time, it felt like that was a negative. Not only did it not help, it felt like maybe it hurt.

Matt Krayton (16:44):

Yeah, I mean, I would say it was sort of a double-edged sword. So at times it did feel like there was a positive frame around the reporting about the Harris campaign, but I will say that in the lead up to Vice President Harris becoming the nominee, it was not a universally positive sort of environment. So they had created this sort of confusing narrative around politics. I'll give you an example, personal example, and I won't name names here, but I had gotten a call from a reporter at one point before President Biden decided to not seek reelection. And the premise of this reporter's question was, there's all of this economic development activity going on in the Philadelphia region, Southeast Pennsylvania, unprecedented amount of economic development, infrastructure, manufacturing, different clean energy initiatives. And the premise of the question is, well, will President Biden get credit for it?

(17:48):

I thought to myself, well, that's an odd frame for it. It's as if these things fell from the sky and all of a sudden you're asking me if someone will get credit for it, rather than saying, the Biden administration did X, Y, and Z, and that's why these things are happening, rather than asking will they get credit? So I think the impulse of more traditional media outlets to cover things as a horse race constantly and find the conflict and everything made it very difficult for Democrats because it feels like a conflict when there is no conflict. We had a bipartisan infrastructure law, for example, pass bipartisan, so it was supported by members of both parties. It is broadly popular if you pull the provisions within that, the inflation reduction act, same thing. And yet you still have these, where's the conflict? Where's the fight? How can we figure out where the horse race is and frame this in a way that looks like this versus that type situation?

(18:48):

Rather than just making a plain statement of, here are things that happened and here's the effect of those things. It's more who's going to get credit or who's up or who's down or who's winning or who's losing. And that is not necessarily, in my view, the most productive way. So I think that edge of the sword definitely cut against Democrats. And then by the time vice President Harris got into the race, yes, there was some reporting about her, the rallies and the excitement around her campaign and all of those things. And that was fine. I think that was great. But again, that wore off eventually too. There were stories about, oh, well, what does she say about her past positions on this or that, and why isn't she doing more interviews? It's like, well, again, we're talking about running a campaign in a matter of weeks rather than a matter of over a year. And the other thing too, to keep in mind in the United States is that we have a vast ecosystem of local news too. A lot of them are owned by a company called Sinclair, which happens to have a little bit more of a right-leaning bent. So when they report news on your local affiliate for, I don't know, one of the broadcast networks that news is sometimes tinged a little bit with a right-leaning viewpoint.

Doug Downs (20:07):

Excellent, excellent points. I really appreciate this today, Matt.

Matt Krayton (20:10):

Yeah,

Doug Downs (20:11):

In our previous episode, our guest, Adrian Cropley of the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence left a question behind for you, I'd really like to leave behind.

Adrian Cropley (20:23):

What's the thing that scares you the most about our future in PR?

Matt Krayton (20:30):

Yeah, I mean, I think what scares me, I wouldn't frame it as fear, just I guess apprehension perhaps of what's come. I mean, at the end of the day, we're, as practitioners of PR, strategic communications, we're going to have to figure it out one way or the other. And if we don't figure it out, then we become obsolete. So I think the things that are especially scary to me are threats to trust, generally speaking in the PR landscape. So how do you build trust with audiences when you were bombarded with not even necessarily misinformation or disinformation, but you're bombarded with all sorts of different information, and it's very hard to sift through

Doug Downs (21:20):

Just data and messaging all the time. I don't know how many emails you wake up to in the morning, but for me it's 50 or 60 and then my social media feed and I'm just bombarded with info,

Matt Krayton (21:32):

Yeah, every day. So we're bombarded with info. A lot of that info isn't great. And also we don't have necessarily the tools or the context to, and I say we as the populace of the globe people, the people, we don't really have the tools or time to evaluate a lot of this information that we're presented with, which is increasing every day. So it's going to become very hard to identify things that are not authentic, that are not produced by human beings, but produced by ai. So DeepFakes are pretty scary, to be honest with you, because I mean, we did some polling a little while back and asked people if they thought that they could identify a deepfake if presented with it on the internet. And most people actually are pretty honest about it and said, no, I don't think so. We don't think that we can identify something that's a deep fake or generated by ai. So

Doug Downs (22:30):

That's really good. That's a great step actually.

Matt Krayton (22:34):

Yeah, the bigger question is then how do you deal with those issues? So I think that's definitely something that I am frightened about because I'm not sure that we have the capacity both globally and domestically to develop a policy regime that both encourages growth, innovation, and creativity, but also puts guardrails on some incredibly powerful technology that can be used for bad purposes. And that's a very hard thing because I think that requires some application of a moral frame around it. Like how do you approach these issues? What sorts of things does a society do, we feel are unacceptable, or what type of risk do we feel is acceptable in these spaces? And I'm not sure that we have the capacity to do that, particularly because the policymaking process is quite slow and technology develops quite rapidly. So those two things are constantly intention with each other.

(23:35):

And it's frightening because I think left completely unchecked, we could end up in a really bad spot where these new technologies at our fingertips could be extraordinarily used for the wrong purpose. Now, there are a lot of good things too that AI could be used for, and I think we have to be careful in terms of emerging technology to not choke off that innovation and choke off the good things that could happen as a result of it. So those are the things that really frighten me. And I think over the next four years, we're going to see a lot of developments in the space in the United States, and I'm not really sure what the disposition of the incoming administration, incoming Congress regulatory bodies are going to be toward it. I think by and large, probably pretty hands-off pretty

Doug Downs (24:22):

Free speech.

Matt Krayton (24:23):

Yeah.

Doug Downs (24:24):

Matt, I appreciate this. Your turn. What question would you like to leave behind for our next guest?

Matt Krayton (24:29):

So this is somewhat related and something that I've been thinking about a little bit, but over the next five years, where do you see a PR firm or PR practitioner business models going? Where is our business going? Given that, again, AI has become so prevalent, we have all of these access to all of these different tools, and the demands on the profession have shifted quite a bit, given that, again, legacy media is not quite what it used to be. So I wonder, I'd be curious to see what your next guest has to say about how they feel business models in the PR space will adapt to these new realities or continue to adapt to these new realities over the next five years.

Doug Downs (25:20):

That's a five star question. I wish I'd asked that. So perfect. Thanks, Matt. I really appreciate your time today.

Matt Krayton (25:26):

Thank you, Doug. Thanks for having me.

Doug Downs (25:30):

So here are the top three things I got from this episode with Matt Krayton. Today, the messaging and the public sentiment was disconnected for the Democrat Party in this recent election. The Dems messaging was data-driven and directionally sound, but they probably underestimated the potency of the Republican messaging on social issues. And a significant challenge was addressing voters' vibe about the economy, which extends beyond financial metrics to broader lived experiences. Number two, the influence of non-Traditional media Republicans effectively leveraged podcasts online influencers and culturally relevant messengers, particularly resonating with younger demographics like young men. While Democrats had endorsements from high profile celebrities like Taylor Swift and Beyonce, these lacked the relatability, the grassroots connection, seen with various podcast hosts like Joe Rogan. And number three, the challenges with traditional media. Traditional media's tendency to frame politics as a horse race created narrative conflicts, even when bipartisan successes like infrastructure initiatives should have been clear, wins stories and is a co-production of JGR Communications and Stories and Strategies podcast. If you like this episode, please leave us a rating, possibly a review. Thank you to our Gold Star producer Emily Page. And lastly, do us a favor forward this episode to one friend. Thanks for listening.