On Friday, I had the pleasure of participating on a panel discussion of online engagement at the Chicago Regional Conference of the American Association of Political Consultants.
As usually happens on these types of panels, there are some who like to take the discussion toward a debate of whether or not online engagement can fully replace traditional engagement tools (TV, radio, direct mail, “on the ground” grassroots, etc.)
While I think there are some cases in which online engagement can replace some of the traditional tools (especially in small or under-funded campaigns), the fact is that the media “pie” hasn’t gotten smaller — it’s just being divided up into smaller pieces.
There are more people watching video and getting their news online, and less people getting it off the television. Television viewership itself has become more fragmented, as broadcast news has taken a dip while cable news has risen. Radio is struggling in several markets, and I’ve heard some consultants tell me it’s harder to reach voters cost-effectively through direct mail.
Let me be clear: I think broadcast media and direct mail are effective.
But … putting all your eggs in one media basket in this age of increasing media fragmentation is a mistake.
Can campaigns win solely focusing on broadcast media and/or direct mail? Yes (for now.)
They are, however, missing a huge opportunity to truly engage voters online. Perhaps by engaging them online (more cost-effectively) they can actually spend less money on the traditional tools, with greater results.