Microtargeting or Haircuts?

Okay, political junkies, what would you rather read this morning? A penetrating analysis of how microtargeting of potential voter groups is helping Mitt Romney's campaign or a tell-all about what John Edwards pays for haircuts? Haircuts are winning hands down despite the putative demand for substance and rigor in journalism from the American public.

Let's start with the haircut story, in which John Solomon tells us that Edwards has paid stylist Joseph Torrenueva as much as $1,250 (including travel expenses) for a haircut, although some have been free. This after the earlier reports of a $400 haircut clearly damaged Edwards politically. Large numbers of readers have filed comments, many of them critical of the story for being insubstantive and further proof that the mainstream media have abandoned their responsibilities. All of those who wrote seem to have read the story, even though (unlike the microtargeting story) it did not run on the Front Page. In the online world, of course, that does not matter. Just the fact that the haircut story exists does.

"This is news?" gmckinney asked. His comment, the shortest, sums up nicely what a clear majority of those who have written have said.

Bukkonen shouted, that "YOU MENTION IN THIS STORY THAT EDWARDS' HAIRCUT HAS ATTRACTED AS MUCH ATTENTION AS HIS POLICIES. AND WHY IS THAT?!? MAYBE BECAUSE TRIVIAL POLITICAL REPORTERS LIKE YOU KEEP WRITING ABOUT IT!!!"

And MMF6 asked, "Is this the Washington Post or The Onion?... next up "How Giuliani Decided to Abandon the Combover'."

HoaLu suggested that the "WaPo staff must be bored and have a lot of time on their hands. Why did this become news? Did he steal anybody's money to pay for his haircut? Last time I check it is not illegal to do that. so what is the problem?"

Now to substance. Chris Cillizza takes a close look at the kind of research that companies trying to sell things have done for years and that politicians have adopted so they can figure out how to pitch themselves to specific clusters of voters. Alex Gage was employed by the 2004 Bush presidential campaign to analyze battleground states, which led to effective message targeting, and is given credit by many political observers for helping Bush win re-election. Now Republican Romney has hired him. There is a relative paucity of comments on this story, and most of it seems to come from those unhappy with the state of the country or with the fact that a Republican holds the White House.

dunnhaupt observed that, "The old adage that all elections are local still holds true. A message that may be tailored to fit one locality could turn off voters in another."

And lackeylocal asked, "But will it work a second time?"

windrider2 said that "Well, this explains why Bush talks out of all sides of his mouth and never tells the truth. It also explains why I kept getting GOP campaign calls despite my insistence that they stop calling... The difference between commercial consumerism and political consumerism is that for commercial consumers, we have lemon laws and can force a company to take back a defective product. Not so with politicians; once you vote 'em in, you're stuck with them..."

gandalfthegrey wonders "how these microtargeting techniques work when the voters generally sense that there is something of greater overarching significance that is needed by the country, something more important to the 42 year-old than lowering taxes?..."

And bourassa1 said, "No wonder companies would love to know who voted for Bush in 2004. Imagine the advantages of having a list of people who've already proven that they'll believe anything."

All comments on the haircut story are here.
All comments on the microtargeting story are here.

No comments have been posted to this entry.

The comments to this entry are closed.