The political blogosphere is buzzing about Obama campaign manager . Soren Dayton argues the lessons of the Obama campaign were “” while Patrick Ruffini finds that the important lesson is that “.” Although it is quite true that these are some critical lessons, as a business nerd and student at Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business, I think there’s a massive lesson that pundits are missing: Obama for President wasn’t run like a traditional campaign, but instead like a huge corporation. I don’t believe that any campaign on this level was ever able to accomplish this with nearly the same success as Plouffe and company.
Plouffe makes this unmistakenably clear throughout his interview:
There are business analogies. One is, we’re a startup, we had to go from zero to 60 in a matter of weeks. Our company, if we were successful, would only last two years at the most. … We had over 5,000 employees… And we were an organization about accountability. Down to the entry-level staffer, we measured their job performance based on metrics.
What specific trends that the most successful modern corporations employ were echoed by the Obama campaign?
- “Know your customer.” I’ve probably heard this from my entrepreneurship advisor a thousand times now, but only because it is perhaps the single most important phrase in business. Obama’s campaign really knew its customers – just look at the way it outreached to young voters.
- A consistent message and high-impact branding. These two go hand in hand. Take Apple, a highly successful company even despite the recession, for example: they have a simple but highly memorable logo, effective messaging (i.e. “Get a Mac” ads), and a well-designed and innovative website. Barack Obama’s branding and messaging was as good as any corporation.
- Job performance measurement and personal accountability. Think quarterly or annual reviews at your place of work. As quoted earlier, Plouffe confirms the importance of this in the Obama campaign: “Down to the entry-level staffer, we measured their job performance based on metrics.”
- Fiscal accountability. Successful corporations have very specific budgets, and virtually all spending is highly scrutinized. Plouffe notes that, “People on the campaign could not make more than a certain amount—$12,000 a month… If you were a deputy you got paid X, if you were an assistant, you got paid Y… From a fiscal management standpoint, Obama was very clear that he did not want to end up with a debt in the primary or the general, so we just planned accordingly. We didn’t spend beyond our means.” (emphasis added)
- A willingness to take significant financial risks and depart with the norm to be on the cutting-edge. This sentiment was echoed by the Obama campaign at many levels. Team Obama got the idea of , which is quickly becoming the premiere business model of leading corporations like IBM, Boeing, BMW, and Goldcorp. In addition, as Patrick and Soren point out, Obama invested the campaign’s resources in a very unique way – remember the ?
- A corporate infrastructure. Since when does a political campaign have both a – let alone a Chief [Anything] Officer?
In business, constant innovation is crucial. Fall behind and your competitors will likely crush you. Find a decisive edge and you stand to profit immensely. Plouffe’s comments and the results of the election demonstrate that business and politics are actually two very similar animals.
Last 5 posts by Aaron Marks
- Onward and Upward: Building a Sustainable Majority - January 22nd, 2010
- Dear Young Voters: This Is What You Get When You Don't Vote - December 1st, 2009
- The Youth Vote and the 2009 Elections - November 6th, 2009
- The Best of the Post-2009 Election Spin - November 5th, 2009
- Introducing NextGenGOP Executive Director James Kane - October 20th, 2009
I completely agree with the assessment of the Obama campaign as a business. I’ve heard it described as the biggest (perhaps the only major) successful start-up in the past two years. I don’t know that I agree with that (although I can’t think of any other big, recent start-ups). But it certainly was a successful “business” by any standard…and undoubtedly it beat the McCain campaign across the board, from organization, to message consistency, to embracing technology and social networking, to the ground game. We have a lot of catching up to do in the next 2-4 years.
What’s with you having to pick apart and contradict everything Patrick says?
Everytime Patrick comes out with something – it seems like you make some big post stating how he is wrong – and how your idea is better.
Every campaign is run like a business – well, every _serious_ campaign is run like a business.
But in the end, it’s a campaign – you’re asking for votes.
Thanks for the comments, but I just don’t see how that’s the case. I mention what Patrick and Soren say about Plouffe as examples of how the “blogosphere is buzzing about Obama campaign manager David Plouffe’s interview.” I don’t pick apart or contradict anything they say — indeed, the only thing I say here is that “it is quite true that these are some critical lessons.” I also acknowledge their point that, “Obama invested the campaign’s resources in a very unique way.”
In fact, I implore you to find a blog post, except perhaps for “Forget the Ideas Czar or Network: We Must Create Ideas Through Peer Production,” in which I “pick apart and contradict everything Patrick says.”
Well, counting the “forget the Ideas Czar” post – and this one – that makes two.
From my standpoint – it doesn’t seem like there was a lot of time between the two (maybe 2 weeks).
Also – to me – the tone of them seemed the same “Patrick said this – here’s why he’s wrong…”
I feel like there’s been more than two – but I’d have to go back and search.
Obviously, you’re free to write and post and think what you’d like.
I’m just pointing out how it looks to me. Do with it what you will.
But the point is, I don’t say he’s wrong in this post. Quite the contrary, in fact, as I say that, “it is quite true that these are some critical lessons” — in other words, I acknowledge that the points raised by him and Soren and accurate and important.
I then argue that “I think there’s a massive lesson that pundits are missing,” — however, this isn’t just targeted toward only Patrick and Soren, but essentially *all* pundits. Never do I say that the points raised by Patrick and Soren are wrong or unimportant, because they are not; rather, I simply say that there is an additional lesson that hasn’t been noticed. In other words, I am expanding upon their thoughts, not shutting them down.