P O L I T I C S O N L I N E The Expert Interview With Michael Cornfield INTERVIEWER: DAVID ABEL INTERVIEWEE: MICHAEL CORNFIELD DAVID ABEL: Hello. You're listening to PoliticsOnline Expert Interview. We're here today with Michael Cornfield, who is a political scientist who specializes in the study of media and American politics. And he's also senior research consultant at the Pew. Michael, thanks for joining us. MICHAEL CORNFIELD: Glad to be here, David. DA: Well, the Pew report that you authored has caused quite a stir, I think, with political pundits like myself and others. If you would, briefly, just start out by telling us about the Pew and maybe some of the big findings you've found. MC: Well, the Pew Internet and American Life Project has been working with Evaliant Media Resources and the Campaign Media Analysis Group. And we've been monitoring more than 2,000 commercial websites on a daily basis since January 1st of 2004, looking for political ads. We wanted to see whether this would be a breakout year for online political advertising. And what we found, through August, suggests that the answer is no. While there are - there are more dollars being spent and more ads visible in 2004 than there were in 2000, it's gone from one drop in the bucket to two drops in the bucket, which is an increase of a hundred percent, but still not much. The primary players in presidential politics this year - by which I mean the Bush campaign, the Kerry campaign, the campaigns of all of the people that ran in the primaries, the national parties, and even the 527 organizations - combined, spent less than three million dollars in online banner ads between January and August. And put that three million dollars into some sort of context, that's about - that's less than one one-hundredth of what they've spent on television. DA: Right. MC: So there's been some creativity. But we haven't seen - and there's been some strategy. The buys have been smart. But we haven't seen the sort of breakout in online advertising that we have in online fundraising, or even online sort of rapid response skirmishes through video ads and email. And I don't really know why this has not broken out yet, but it just hasn't happened. DA: And that was my next question. I guess that's what everybody's wondering, is why is it, especially people who have websites who would like to take some of those dollars. One of my thoughts on this is the rise of blogs and a lot of political websites. Do you think that - that they are somehow getting the word out for candidates and... MC: Well - sorry to step on you there. I think the blogs speak to people who are already engaged. And the big selling point for online ads is, you know, three quarters of the American population now has access to Internet. And so there are tens of millions, if not a hundred million people who are online, who are doing all sorts of things, but not plugging into the political blogs, not going to the campaign websites, not even going to news sites that much. And online advertising is a way to reach them through the Internet, the people who aren't paying attention. And maybe, you know, it's - we're still in a mindset where that, because television reaches out to people, and in most senses, when people use the Internet, they're doing the choosing, not the station or the advertiser, online advertising falls between the gaps of people's perception of what the medium can do. People see the Internet as user-driven. And they think, oh, well, if it's user driven, since I go where I want to go, it doesn't really make sense to try advertising. But that's not entirely, entirely true. Wherever you end up going, if you - if you're an AOL subscriber, you start with AOL. Or if you're going to look for something, you're very frequently going to Google or going to your local news site that you rely on. If you want to, you know, have dinner out, you go to the news site that has all the restaurant listings. So we still seem to be a cycle away from - from the perception within the, at least the top level of the political world here in the United States, that online advertising works. And I added "United States" because I've heard that, in Germany, online political advertising is much more extensive than it is here. DA: Well, yeah, we know that a lot of countries, even South Korea and others, are kind of leading the way in a number of issues, even e-government and e-voting, those type of things. But, yeah, essentially I've not studied online advertising too much in other countries. But in your research, or through your analysis of just political ads in general, have you found a type of ad that is most effective? And I'm talking specifically about maybe banner ads versus text ads. Or is there something that kind of catches the undecided more than something else, or... MC: Well, I don't really know the answer to that yet because I don't know how - I haven't been able to see, you know, where - what my spider can uncover with CMAG is where the ads run. And we can estimate how much they paid for them and what they look like. But what I don't have are access to the log files that would tell me, you know, here is the clickthroughs. And we don't have any sort of marketing studies that said, yeah, there was better brand recognition thanks to this online advertising buy in politics. So I don't - I don't really have that kind of evidence yet. One thing that I have some raw data on that I wasn't able to include in the report that I do want to look at are sponsored links. Which is to say, if I go to Google, and I type in the term "the economy," that come the search engine's top ten listings; but also on the same page come advertisements, sponsored links. And it - although there hasn't been a lot of money spent on this, there is some interest on the part of the campaign. So I just haven't been able to do anything definitively yet. DA: Okay. Well, just one more question about ads and the undecided voter, which everyone's trying to find these days. Do you think that online ads can be as effective, or even more effective, than television ads? And I know we probably won't be able to measure that till after the elections. But, I mean, what are the benefits of an online ad versus a television ad? MC: Well, there are several. First of all, they're much less expensive, so they're more of an option for some campaigns. Second of all, television ads, particularly once you get to where we are now, close to election day, there are only so many ads that television stations can carry. They get full. So online advertising beg- may go up a little bit as we get close to the election because there's money to be spent, and there're people to be reached. And television and even radio slots are filled. But the big advantage of online advertising, as opposed to television, radio, or direct mail, are two. One is instant response on the part of the viewer. You're sitting at your computer, you can click over to the website and get more information and become an email listserv subscriber, or a donor, or a volunteer. And the other advantage is is that you have unparalleled targeting opportunities. You can target by geography. You can target by demography. You can even target by behavior, by which I mean some way - there are some companies that will let you know, and your own data may tell you, who has previously responded favorably to you. And you can go back to them. DA: All right, well, let's move on to what I think is probably the biggest talk of the 2004 elections. And that's the Internet bloggers and some of the rumors that have been spread by them. Obviously there's - I guess the most recent controversy is the Bush bulge and the mystery pin from the last debate. Do you see anything bloggers are doing that are impacting the way traditional media does politics reporting? And do you think that will have an effect on - a potential effect on undecided voters? MC: It could. But first let me say that, in addition to the bloggers, you also have perceptions and topics that percolate up from the Internet from the discussion groups. They don't have the cachet any longer that the blogs do. And they don't have the sort of the second-tier celebrity glamour that's associated with them because bloggers - bloggers are often individuals. And when there's an individual, you can profile them. But a lot of the - a lot of the topics that the mainstream media and the campaigns cotton onto come from the discussion groups, not just the blogs. And to me the big example of that is the discussion of whether or not there's going to be a draft. The President has gone so far during one of the debates as to go out of his way to say that, you know, the Army's going to remain all volunteer. And Howard Dean and John Kerry have talked about this. And this did not - this concern that there's going to be a draft did not originate with the bloggers. It originated in discussion groups, and through email. So there's more that comes in from the margins and comes in from the Internet than just the blogs. As for the Bush bulge, there is some agenda-setting and - going on through the - through the bloggers. Both citizen chat groups and bloggers had a - had a big role in what's known as Rathergate. But this is all still too new, though, to be able to talk about it definitively. DA: Yeah, it's definitely some more interesting topics, I think, sometime, than the traditional things we talk about with elections. One other question I had for you, relating to the final days of the election and what could be done online. And that's the mobilization. I know a lot of groups such as MoveOn.org and America Coming Together are really active in kind of integrating offline, on-the-ground work would - with online coordination. Do you have any thoughts on that, or do you think it's going to be a effective way to reach out to those who haven't registered or voted before? MC: I think that the fusion of old-fashioned canvassing and door-knocking with data mining and using the Internet to send very microtargeted walk lists to your canvassers, to your field operations, I think ultimately this could be the biggest story of all. I think this could be the future of political parties and political organizations, the birth of the digital political machine. And it's one that I'm watching even more closely than online fundraising or online advertising or blogs and discussion groups. So I'm glad you mentioned it because I was going to bring it up if you didn't. I think that this targeted grassroots thing is potentially huge. Because what it means is that you can get your vote out. And getting your vote out is much more how you win than - than through persuasion. DA: Right. And I've seen, at least from MoveOn and America Come Together seem to be the most public about what they're doing, it seems to be very effective. Also I know that MTV's Rock the Vote is when they - when they put out their numbers, I mean, they're reaching upwards of a million-plus people who've never registered before. MC: And don't forget the Republicans. The Bush-Cheney campaign has had a tremendous get-out-the-vote operation, getting out early votes, as well as votes on election day. They've been using house parties that they sponsor to develop - to beef up their ground troops. And then they use the Internet to guide what it is they're going to say and whose doors they're going to knock on and when they're - when they're going to do it. So it has - it's had less publicity than the Democratic versions. But the Republicans are doing it, too. DA: Do you think that the publicity or less publicity is due to how the left, the right run their campaigns? I know we always hear that Republicans tend to run a top-down-style, controlled, command campaign. Do you think that that contributes to the publicity or lack thereof? Or do you think that maybe the left is doing it better? MC: I don't know who's doing it better, but I do agree that there's sort of a Republican tradition of being a little more closed-mouth about what you're doing than on the left. DA: Okay. Well, I've just got one more question for you. Obviously there's been a lot of innovation on the Internet, even the post-Howard Dean era. And I guess the final question I had for you is, when people look back on the 2004 election, do you think that there will be a defining moment and something to change the campaign or influence it in one way, one direction or the other? And do you think the Internet is - will be involved in that? MC: Well, I think there're going to be some lasting legacies. And we've just touched on some of them, the new discussion environment with the blogs, the small donors being courted and responding through the Internet, the data mining and the walk lists. It may not lend itself to the sort of one memorable moment because not everybody is on the same website watching the same thing at the same time, as we have with television. But even if there is no sort of memorable moment that we can all point to and go, yeah, that was - that was big, these underlying trends are, even if they're dispersed and you can't see them, they do add up to something significant. DA: And I think, for listeners out there, if you want more information about what's going on out there, you definitely want to check out what the Pew's doing. And Michael... MC: Pewinternet.org. DA: Pewinternet.org is the place to go. They've got some wonderful research on - and also the latest report on Internet and politics. And I suggest you to check them out. Well, Michael, that's about all the time we have today. I appreciate you for joining us, and we hope to have you back soon. MC: Thanks for having me, David. END INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL CORNFIELD Transcribed 10/19/04 • Elaine Farris • 760-248-2070 POLITICSONLINE/MICHAEL CORNFIELD 12 1