For our last blog I would like you to take a look at several of the campaign websites for those seeking the office in 2012. You should compare these sites in terms of 1) their style and appearance; 2) what types of information to they offer and what do they emphasize; 3) what tools are available for supporters to use to help the campaigns and how can supporters take action. Keep in mind that while most will ask you for your e mail address you do not need to enter it, you can always click on an option to go directly to the campaign site (though following what the campaigns do might be interesting now that you all love the presidency!) First it will help to take a look at President Obama's campaign site.
Next you should browse through the leading GOP candidates' campaign sites:
Newt Gingrich
Mitt Romney
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Michelle Bachmann
Rick Santorum
Jon Huntsman
- Do any of these campaign sites affect how you feel about the candidate?
- Which campaign(s) seem to be the most pursuasive? Why?
- What tools or information do you find the most useful/effective for campaigns?
When looking at the websites, what we've been discussing in class about President Obama's media savviness is immediately apparent. I think that the "dinner with Michelle and Barack" situation is a brilliant (although really strange, because the presidency becoming some kind of common media money and publicity stunt is disconcerting in the very least) way to campaign, especially because his possible competitor Gingrich is perceived as somewhat lacking in the interpersonal relationships department. Projecting the message that the President and his wife are just "regular" American couple eating dinner together with a couple of guests (even if the main intent is to stimulate donation) sends a subliminal but entirely clear message that people should relate to him as having their best interests at heart, as he is just like them. It's hard to not feel some sort of kinship for him when seeing that.
ReplyDeleteI also think that Gingrich's website was quite well done, emphasizing his strong takes on policy and the economy. On the other hand, I found Romney's to be fairly unimpressive, as it took a little too much digging to find sections with real content vis a vis policy.
The campaign website that stands out as different as far as style and layout are concerned is Rick Santorum's. Although the way he set up his home page is interesting and eye catching, I don't think it was smart of him to have the menu along the side -- it actually took me a minute to find the menu! I think it's important for the menu to be obvious immediately so that people can easily find whatever information they are looking for without any trouble.
ReplyDeleteAside from that, I think the other websites are fighting for striking the right balance between words and pictures. I found that they all make the essential information overall accessible, but I found Gingrich's layout most appealing. The important words on the page jump out at you in a very clear way, there aren't too many or too few menu tabs to navigate to find what you're looking for, and the home page is reserved for news -- a tactic that I think is smart to keep what's on the home page recent and relevant.
I think Gingrich also does a nice job of putting a large very presidential looking photo on his website. I think that's a smart move, because the image gives the viewer the subliminal message that it's not so hard to visualize this person in the presidential role.
As far as the most useful part of the websites for the campaigns, I would definitely have to say that it's the "issues" section, so that the public actually knows where the candidate stands on issues. I think it's particularly difficult to present that important information in the best way. The most effective presentations seem to be the ones where the information is presented in soundbite or bullet point form -- so that the viewer can get the point quickly and effectively without reading a whole essay.
The Obama 2012 campaign is effective- he brings in citizens from all different minorities and backgrounds praising the past four years.
ReplyDeleteWhile New Gingrich's ad was very short- Just him speaking and not very catchy.. It is important to make your ad's memorable so people who don't vote very often remember you and what your all about when they see your name on the ballot.
Huntsman uses a tactic of bringing Reagan into his campaign ad. This approach is smart because he is comparing himself to a very popular and well liked president. He emulates an american hero, thus many people can relate to him and his ideas. Huntsman also focuses on the failure of the past four years, which is smart for reminding people that change is neccassry
The campaign sites that I found to be most appealing were the sites that were warm and inviting, simple, and contained more visual aids than words. As a result my top pages for candidates were President Obama, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry. Those aspects made me linger on their pages more than the other candidate’s pages and made me interested in looking into them further. Although that was what I gleaned from the websites I do not think that my overall opinion of the candidates was affected in any way. It does not matter how aesthetically pleasing the campaign sites are if based on a candidates values I think he or she will make a lousy president. Although the websites that I liked the most happened to belong to the current front-runners of the campaign it would disturb me to think that it is solely because of their attractive websites that they are succeeding. Such an assessment is incredibly superficial and no one should be voted into office because he can hire people that do a really good job at making him look good.
ReplyDeleteI found when comparing the sites that most were very similar, and had only slight variation.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of style and appearance, I’d say that President Obama’s site is the best, with Romney, Perry, and Paul pretty much all tying for second. Gingrich’s site looked a bit more cheaply done and Rick Santorum’s site was a complete unorganized mess. I liked that on Michelle Bachman’s site she has a list of things that she stands for; I found it surprising that none of the other candidates or even president Obama had that. I think that is a very important component to have on the front page of the site because it allows you to very quickly and easily get the gist of what each candidate stands for. What I didn’t like about Bachman’s site is that right as you enter it you see a huge advertisement plugging her book, which I found a bit distasteful and opportunistic. As you enter Paul’s site, there’s a big banner showing how much money is being donated, and then a small ticker underneath showing the most recent donors. I understand that donations are important to a campaign but I found that kind of distracting. John Huntsman similarly has a countdown to the New Hampshire primary and then it sort of offers you a chance to look at what he stands for. If you click on it you go to a page with a numbered list of things he’d like to do/change. I found that more helpful than say, Rick Perry’s site which requires you to click on each individual issue if you want to get more information. In terms of supporter involvement all of the campaign sites have “volunteer” buttons, and some have “make a call” buttons, but the site that stood out the most was Obama’s. On the front page there is a “Take action” section in which it instructs you to “help build the campaign.” It allows you to volunteer, call, host an event, attend an event, and tweet. I thought the “help build the campaign” is a clever way to make people feel very involved in the process, something that helped Obama’s winning campaign last term.
None of the sites really affected my view of the candidates. I am mostly surprised at Rick Santorum’s site because it looks very cheap and unorganized, not something I’d want to spend much time on. I find that easy and quick access to information is the most useful tool in a campaign. In general, the less clicks the better.
When comparing the websites, I chose to look at Obama's site before any of the republican candidates. His websites obviously emphasizes the end of the war in iraq, taxes- they offer a tax cut calculator, health reform, supporting veterans and a speech by the president. The tax cut calculator is very interactive as one is asked if they live in a single or married household, then to enter their annual income. It then displays how much money you will save with the Obama plan and compares it to the amount you will lose if the plan does not pass. Then at the very bottom it takes a stab at Romney's reported tax plan. It is very interesting that he so blatantly calls out Romney unlike any other candidate. Obama is not on the offensive quite yet as he is automatically the democratic candidate in 2012 so his campaign probably has not gone into full swing just yet.
ReplyDeleteAs for the republican candidates:
Gingrich: his home page has nothing to do with his policy, it is all about getting involved with him and donating to his campaign. However if you do some searching, you can find a succinct list of his stance on many issues which is definitely useful.
Romney: he displays all the states that support him (so he claims) and rallies citizens to come out and vote in the primaries. The one thing issue related on the homepage is an image that says "more jobs, better jobs" but everything else is about joining in the campaign. As we saw earlier in the year, the biggest concern for most americans is the economy and the unemployment rate, so it is definitely a strategic move to have that issue front and center.
Bachmann: her site is very unique in that visitors are met with her top 5 priorities on the homepage. She also has a big link to caucus information- a clutch move as the caucuses are rapidly approaching.
The rest of the sites are basically the same. They dont really explain their position on issues up front. Huntsman has a scrolling information most notable is the link to a NYT magazine article that says he has the best chance in the election. Santorum has almost nothing to say except to introduce his family and advertise his "faith, family and freedom tour." Ron Paul displays the amount of funds he has raised, impressive but i'm not sure this really matter to most people- except for those that make it onto the screen for their donations. Perry's site is more of the same.
It is very interesting that as each candidate is trying to make a name for themselves on the national stage, they fail to do anything to set themselves apart. While they all have links to their stance on issues, very few of them display them upfront which is an interesting decision. Even more interesting is that Obama's site is the most sleek and clean looking. It is very patriotic and exciting. So while Obama is obviously the most well known as the current president, based on his website, i would say that he is the most likely candidate to accumulate supporters through the internet alone.
I will admit that I do not often peruse either the presidents or presidential candidates websites.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, none of these campaign websites affect my decision on a presidential candidate. A website is so obviously a tool for an election that I can not base my opinion and ultimate decision off a web design lay out. I have to wonder how often any candidate even sees his/her own website.
However, I will say that Obamas website is particularly advanced and easy to use. It has interest additions and catch phrases more than just his political views such as "dinner with Michelle and Barack". Kudos to Obama and his staff for being so creative - not that my kudos means much :). I believe that Obama once again is advanced on using social media techniques and will potentially reap the benefits for doing so by getting the young "social media obsessed" vote.
I would have to agree with some of my classmates above me who had stated that the current GOP candidates websites were all quite similar. While some were more inviting, in my opinion Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, I dont think that any was different enough to have the "wow factor" that Obamas has.
I find that useful tools would be memorable ads and catch phrases. It is also nice to have the “issues section” easy to find and easy to understand so a viewer can leave the website with a clear idea of the candidates platforms.
Even after going through all the candidates websites I will say that I am not convinced that a website is really going to have any convincing affect on a voter.
The sign- in page of the Obama campaign website displays a picture of him and his wife smiling at each other. Above the picture it says “Dinner with Barack and Michelle”. This immediately gives the campaign a homey inviting feel. He uses a snapshot of his family life in order to seem more relatable. I thought that this was very effective in that it is a ‘heartwarming’ approach to a complicated campaign. On the the homepage of the site, there are various Obama success stories that you can click on and each is an attempt to prove Obama’s effectiveness
ReplyDeleteOn the other Hand Newt Gingrich’s sign-in page shows a picture of him speaking to a massive crowd. It seems very impersonal and not at all as inviting as Obama’s homepage. Whereas Obama’s website homepage is a collage of pictures demonstrating his successes, Gingrich has one central icon in which again he appears to be preaching to a crowd.
The opening picture to Mitt Romney’s online campaign is a picture of him greeting a crowd along with his wife. This picture is a combination of Gingrich’s and Obama’s techniques. The banner above all of his web pages is a statement on which you can click that reads “ We have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in.” He offers information on how he does plan on changing the economy by changing the ‘fundamental’ way Washington manages its money.
The rest of the Republican candidates: Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman each have homepages that are similar to those of Gingrich and Romney. Their websites display them greeting or speaking to crowds. I would say that on the most basic level, marketing based solely on appearance, Obama’s website is the most appealing. It gives a different perspective to the candidate than the other websites do. While all the other candidates market themselves very formally and officially, Obama opens his website with a glimpse of his family life and invites others in for a meal. Additionally, his homepage has many more pictures than those of the other candidates. This keeps the viewers attracted to the website and interested in learning more.
I think that appearance is one of the most important elements to a campaign and that based on what I saw, Obama’s campaign seemed the most interesting and persuasive. Opening the website with an invitation to dinner definitely gave a specific feel to Obama’s page that made him different from the other candidates.
In general, I'm not a fan of campaign websites. Don't get me wrong, they're fascinating to analyze, from a strategic, political, and even aesthetic perspective. But these sites are so contrived and rely on strategists to frame them in a way that speaks most directly and personally with the voters. With that in mind, my analysis of the websites was very surface-level -- literally. I looked only at the home pages, since many voters like myself seldom click on any of the options on the page anyway. There were a few themes that stood out to me, so here's a basic breakdown:
ReplyDeleteTo preface, I tried to identify key issues and values that define the Republican party, like family values and devout patriotism. With those in mind, I was able to compare and contrast the seven candidates in question (all relative to President Obama).
Tag lines, logos, etc are very important in a campaign. They identify a candidate, and provide supporters with a symbol, quite literally, to stand behind. What struck me was that every candidate had his or her name, and in some cases a slogan, at the top or center of his/her page...except for Romney. His logo was barely noticeable, and could go completely missed if one isn't paying close attention. This might not seem like a big deal, and Romney is a leading candidate so recognition might not be an issue for him. But we as citizens want and need that slogan or the logo to stand behind and support.
Next, when selecting a candidate of choice, many people want to know his or her 'story'. Familiarity is important, so the candidates must present themselves as 'family people' and moral individuals. President Obama has his 4 years as president and his last campaign to show for himself. In addition, one can sign up to win a dinner with the Obamas. Gingrich devotes a side of his front page for his wife, Callista's involvement. Rick Santorum has several pictures of him and his family on his home page. The other candidates invite you to 'meet' them if you click on a link that presumably takes you to their bio page. But there's nothing on the home page that would give you any indication of their personal life.
As for patriotism, every website features the colors red, white, and blue appropriately, and there's a good number of American flags in sight.
Finally, what was so important about Obama's 2008 campaign was his incredible technological aptitude, which his opponent, Senator McCain terribly lacked. Fast forward to 2012, everyone seems to have caught up. Blogs, interactive features, Facebook, Twitter... you name it, it's there.
Ultimately, these websites are extremely important, but what's more important is how they inspire the voter. Now that we've looked at these sites, what are we going to do with the information that's been given to us? How are we going to do our part to make a difference in the 2012 elections?
These website give us the tools, now it's our responsibility to use them.
- Elana Honick
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama’s website is very strategic. It uses and promotes what Obama has already accomplished and done for the country in order to boost his website and ultimately his campaign. This strategy is quite obvious, but at the same time unique since no other candidate has the ability to do so. All of the other candidate’s websites’ revolve around what they promise to do in the future. On the home page, the website brags in 2 places about Obama’s achievements in regards to health reforms as well as emphasizes the “end of the war in Iraq.” Furthermore, regarding the style of the website, it was constructed in a very personal way- his twitter, handwritten signature, “dinner with Barack and Michelle” all appear on the home page and contribute to the personable nature of the website and the feel that Obama has been going for all along- that of connecting with the people.
ReplyDeleteRegarding style, Newt’s website is very different. His website is much more formal and we see very little into his personality. It features many news stories, simple Times New Roman font, etc. and ultimately doesn’t tell us anything about Newt as an individual. All I think of when I look at his site is, “Whoah, he’s so formal.” From his website, he seems to be lacking a personal connection with the people. Moreover, Newt’s website does not expressly show what Newt has done or will do, but more provides news clips that show what Newt believes in. I believe this can be done more efficiently and effectively; tell me straight up from the first page of the website what Newt stands for!
Next, Mitt Romney’s site falls somewhere between Obama’s and Gingrich. It is a bit more personal- there are hyperlinks to “connect with Mitt” on facebook, twitter, flickr and tout. Also, there are videos posted on the homepage as opposed to simply pictures of him speaking like on Gingrich’s website. Furthermore, the font isn’t simply a Times New Roman font- it is more playful and personable- if a font could be personable ☺
Perry’s website I find even more poorly constructed than Gingrich. Perry’s website is a little more modern stylistically however, the home page says almost nothing about what he is hoping to accomplish. It contains some recent news stories however contains very little concrete information about what he hopes to do and hopes to accomplish.
Despite these are merely comments about the homepages of these candidate’s websites, their homepages reflects their styles and goals for the presidency and relationship with the people. Therefore, I think that Obama’s is the most successful. On the homepage is information about his actual presidency, his past achievements, his goals for the future, as well as demonstrations of his wishes to connect with the people.
As many of you have said I thought Obama's website was clearly the best. His website is easy to use, clean cut, and strikes a good balance between portraying Obama as a family man and "presidential looking". After Obama, I didn't find any of the Republican candidate's websites to be strikingly impressive. I thought Rick Santorum's was a bit sloppy and Gingrich's too impersonal. I also thought Michelle Bachmann would benefit from having a picture of her and her family on her home page.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important for a candidate to have a good website but that's obviously not enough to win an election or a primary, and my personal opinion about the candidates didn't change much from looking at each of their websites.
Firstly, I really liked the way Obama had his website set up; I found the different ‘roll-your-mouse-over-it’ tabs to be a quick way to get a sense of what this candidate is about. Only 3 of the 7 Republican contenders chose to format their websites in this way (Bachman, Paul, & Romney), though they did so in a much more minimal way. I think that those who did choose to format their websites like this make it easier for the public to definitively know what that candidate’s main focuses are. Santorum, Perry, Romney and Gingrich’s websites all had a lot of blue, which I found funny only because that color is generally associated with Democrats, not the GOP.
ReplyDeleteSupporters or visitors to Obama’s site can click on the ‘State’ tab, choose their own or another and find out what Obama’s campaign is doing there or news related to the election and that state and again, Bachman and Romney’s are similar, now adding Huntsman to those who formatted like this. All the GOP candidates’ sites include a biography page with the exception of Santorum. To me, that shows that these candidates are proud of who they are and where they come from (apparently except Santorum…) and offers me, the voter a window in.
The sites as a whole actually make me feel more inclined to hear what the candidates have to say for the most part (some just make me frustrated).
Campaign websites are an important aspect in a presidential campaign. I find it interesting and appropriate that all of the websites are in the color scheme of red, white and blue.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the style and appearance of the campaign websites, I think that President Obama’s website has the best layout, it is the easiest to use and has the nicest appearance. President Obama, as we discussed in class, introduced the idea of using the internet as a significant campaign tool, and the appearance of his website proves to me that he will always be one step ahead in using the new media to increase his popularity. All the other websites are also very well done, but the one I am least impressed with is Rick Santorum’s website. I find that Santorum’s campaign website is not as neat looking as the other candidates websites.
I think that the most important information the candidate wants to convey is on the homepage. In that respect, I most appreciate Michele Bachmann’s website. I really like that the first thing I see when I open her page is the “Why Michele” column on the right.
Lastly, all of the websites have links allowing supporters to get involved with the campaign. This allows more people to help the campaign because they can personally donate time and/or money.
The main thing I noticed from looking at all these website is that it’s all in the details because all these websites have the same general setup.
ReplyDeleteI found president Obama’s site the most aesthetically pleasing. It was very easy to find out how to get involved. The website is trying to depict Obama as like a “cool” Patriotic American. It playing at our emotions , with the cute picture of him and Michelle, the picture of him saluting, and the video of the girl telling her story. The “I’m in” button was a nice touch to.
In my opinion the candidate with the best website is Mitt Romeny.
If I had to rank them from best to worst I would say, Romney, Santorum, Perry, Newt, Huntsman, Bachman, Paul.
The pictures on Romeny’s homepage are effective as painting him as a hardworking down to earth guy. His homepage news stories are set up to effect the short term, the upcoming Iowa and New Hampshire votes (and playing up his Nikki Haley endorsement.)
Newt’s Website reflects his strong personality with “Solutions not attack ads demand it.”
Ron Paul’s website looks like an annoying popup that you can’t close. His homepage does a very bad job of helping a person navigate/find the more informative parts of his websites.
I think campaign websites do effect how I feel about a candidate on a kind of subconscious level. When looking at the websites I couldn’t always pin point what exactly it was that made me like one over the other.It would probably be more effective for someone who isn't politically aware because it paints a positive picture of the candidate that they can control. I think the most important role of a campaign website is to present the candidates views and and to make it easy to contribute to the campaign.
I agree with many of the above statements that Obama's website is easy to use, patriotic looking, and very eye catching. As we learned in class, Obama's 2008 was ground breaking in terms of his use of media in his campaign. Back in the 2008 campaign, Obama was called "the Communicator in Chief" by many. I think this name is very appropriate and says a lot about Obama. I think his campaign's communication skills and ability to reach out to the public are unmatchable, and I think his website is a testament to that.
ReplyDelete