Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Microtrends: right or wrong?
There's been much chatter over the course of this campaign about the Mark Penn theory of microtrends. It is widely assumed that with the growth of the Obama phenomenon, and the death of the Penn Strategy for Clinton, Penn was wrong: Macrotrends aren't over - they're just getting going again. Penn argued that, "there is no One America any more... we are flying apart at record pace." Obama's campaign seems to have turned that idea on its head.
However, given the recent "deadlock" in the primary process (perceived or otherwise), there's been an increased opportunity to analyze the breakdowns and internals of polling and primary results.
So my question is this: has Mark Penn been in any way proven right? I'm not talking about his attack strategy, but more specifically his data-driven, research-based targeting of subgroups.
My take on it is this: Microtrends are "real". They're here, and they're growing and diversifying and subdividing with each passing minute. But Penn simply underestimated the extent to which these small trends would be able to fit into a larger macro-pattern, and the extent to which all of these microtrends could be linked by a couple of common factors: newness and change - whether you're left-handed and need a customized device, a health-freak and want to cut your hydrogenated oils, a blogger looking for somewhere different to read and share news, or a Starbucks customer who likes their latte with every conceivable add-on - there is one linking factor: they all want something NEW, and something DIFFERENT.
This, in my opinion, has been the single major oversight of Penn's theory.
Comments (14)
And there is probably the big problem with micro-trends -- sometimes you have a "paradigm shifts" and all those micro-trends will trend macroscopically. Be it something like the internet or 9/11.
Theres an old saying: "Missing the Forest for the Trees".
April 26, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or having "tunnel-vision" ... Microtrends are a waste of time and energy. Micro-targeting micro-groups with micro messages leads to people being offended when confronted with one element that does not meet their standard of "truth".
The "bitter" folks in PA are case in point: they are wedge issue voters who are more bigoted than not, more gun-oriented than, more church-going than not, more cash-strapped than not, more under-employed than not, more anti-gay than not, and more likely to vote on those marginal issues than those which would improve their pocketbooks or wallets.
While they long to be talked to about jobs and food prices and other "bread and butter" issues, the majority of politicians who court them (and win their votes) do it on the marginal issues.
And the politicians who use those issues to "win" do so with no intention of resolving the people's real concerns (jobs, war, etc.) but rather satisfying the politician's aim of getting elected and re-elected, using the wedge issues to splinter and electorate and peel off a vote or two here or there.
Meanwhile, the war goes on, the prices rise, the bridges fail, the schools crumble...
April 26, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. In addition to the use of micro-targeting to exploit, there is also the issue that it is extremely difficult to divide, classify, target then manage each specific group without causing conflicts and losing control. It is by its very nature the "politics of division". Divide and Conquer.
On the other hand, its much easier to glean the common threads that bind us all, and tug on that thread. Of course, finding that common thread and then knowing how and when to effectively utilize it requires a good leader, be that leader a saint or a devil. Bush and Co. did it with fear and terror, Apple did it with the iPod. Not that the two are in anyway related.
April 26, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Microtrends are mostly relevant for micro-targeting, if you talk about political applications. Microtrends have been exploited by the republicans for decades, for micro-targeting direct mail and robo calls. Democrats have been playing catch-up for a long time, culminating with the last mid-term elections for Congress.
April 26, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Microtrends focus on the little trends. Hence the name.
Penn forgot that most Democrats want to end our occupation of Iraq.
Which means that all his little micro groups of Democrats will get over the fact that some like it hot and black and some like it capuccino and some like it latte and some like green tea and some like hot chocolat and some like milk BUT THEY ALL WANT TO BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.
That's what Penn forgot.
April 26, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no mictrotrendologist, but I think Hillary has made at least a few base hits by targeting small but predictable groups very shortly before a few primaries. Think of her tears in NH, the 3:00 AM and Obama ads, and even the primary morning show "obliteration" promise.
The key is picking a trend that's reliable.
April 26, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thinking about it further, I realize that although the Penn/Microtrend approach purports to respond to the diversity of society, it is nonetheless a top-down form of campaigning. It takes individuals, splices them into their likes and dislikes, their needs, their wishes, and their hopes, and then it provides a top-down answer to those niche ideas.
When you have a campaign that, by contrast, is built from the grass roots like Obama's, people have a tendency to coalesce around far bigger issues, under larger banners: "end the war", "change", "hope" - etc. These aren't top-down imposed ideologies in response to niche tastes - they are the points of common interest between diverse groups. And when you leave it to the grass roots to decide what is important - it turns out they go with these bigger issues.
We saw the same thing to an extent with the weird bunch who supported (and, heads up, CONTINUE to support!) Ron Paul. But Paul voted against making schools gun-free zones, so we can put all of those people under the "lunatic" umbrella. Macrotrend = nutcases.
April 26, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"end the war" is a message for microtargeting as much as other topics, like NAFTA, healthcare, etc, etc. Very few voters actually care with equal passion for ALL of these issue at the same time.
Republicans will use patriotism, experience, "one of us", liberal, etc to microtarget a million messages about Obama for the general.
April 26, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think "end the war" hits slightly too many people to be microtargeting. It's probably more apt to call it mesotargeting, since you're right that it's still just a fraction of the whole.
April 26, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that variability in policy focuses are different from microtrends. "People who want to end the war" isn't a Microtrend: "40-50 year old married suburban male business executives who want to end the war because they see it as damaging the economy, which jeopardizes their position as family breadwinner" IS a microtrend.
If you decided that those married suburban men were your key to winning a particular election, then you'd craft a message tailored to them specifically, which is different from talking about Trade in the Midwest, Immigration in the Southwest, or Mass Transit in the Northeast.
April 26, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the fact that you throw some demographics on top of "end the war" somehow transforms or changes the argument.
Penn's point (and it's not his invention at all) is only that politicians used to operate using the lowest common denominator in the past, so they focused on issues that were important to the largest number of voters. Penn is essentially proposing the next step for Democrats (and already the status quo for Republicans), which is nothing more than a segmentation of voters into smaller groups based on priority of issues.
You could build this segmentation model based on focus group and polling or you could build it based on "grassroots" feedback. It doesn't make a difference how you do it, as long as your final model is reliable.
That's how you start to get into groups based on economy, traditional values, liberalism, feminism, etc, etc, and you could drill it down as minutely as you like.
And regardless of how you build your model, your messaging is ALWAYS going to be top-down, that's how campaign organization works.
Personally, I think the reason McCain will win in November (if he runs against Obama) is because he will use this system in a completely different way. He will keep pounding every single voter with a stark and dramatic choice. And since it's no longer a primary then, he will leave it to RNC to worry about micro-trends and micro-targeting.
April 26, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ending the Iraq War" and "Getting Bush Out of the White House" are trends that spans across many different demographics. They are the common threads that bind the many different micro-threads together to create a "rope".
April 26, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe it's responding less to "diversity" than to the segregative nature of our society. In spite of the fact we consider ourselves to be "integrated," we don't worship together, we still do not live together as seamlessly as we could, we do not educate together (our campuses may house students of differing backgrounds but they, again, are not as seamless as we'd like), we don't recreate together, our televisions habits and tastes are different, and so on.
Are NASCAR-watching, security-minded, soccer-playing, Wonder Bread buying, Wal-Mart shopping moms better than university-educated, executive job having, college-loan paying off, two kids in dance class, urban living, church-going moms?
It's more desirable -- at least according to the experts -- to be part of a microtrend ("you're unique and special and we need you!")than a macrotrend ("you're part of a predictable large voting bloc [like African Americans] and we don't need you -- at least not now, and besides we already know how you'll vote.")
But macrotrends create movements.
April 26, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"End the war" is a macrotrend. "End the war and carry a big stick" may not be a microtrend, but it's a subset of "end the war." Split those voters off and you've diluted the whole issue.
April 26, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment