President Obama’s 28 Mar 11 Libya Speech Analyzed

Although not declared a candidate, history indicates President Obama will announce his candidacy at some point in time. I don’t remember if President Obama made a specific appeal or was known to draw the Youth Vote specifically and his numbers here indicate he is strongly youth oriented.

Political Messaging
Part 1 – What President Obama Wants You to Believe

Obama's 28Mar11 Libya Speech 9

Political Messaging
Part 2 – What the SpeechWriter Thinks

Obama's 28Mar11 Libya Speech What did the speech author think?

Gender Persuasion

Obama's 28Mar11 Libya Speech gender breakdown

Age Persuasion

Obama's 28Mar11 Libya Speech age breakdown

What is President Obama Really Communicating? – Every politician wants the public to believe they are the best for the job and can get things done.

However, no individual can achieve anything in elected office unless they believe certain things about themselves because without those core, personal and identifying beliefs they will not have the intellectual power, the charisma, the social awareness and sensitivity, the negotiation skills or the creativity necessary for success in public office.

In this case, President Obama:

  • Has an idea of where their town/city/county/state/country needs to be but doesn’t know if they’re instrumental in making that vision a reality.
  • Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and believes they are the only individual who can make it happen.
  • May be considered politically towards the Right by their audience.
  • Is strongly targeting younger voters.
    Regarding the real author of this material:

    • They don’t think this candidate has a real chance of winning anything.
    • They don’t think any amount of fact-checking will be good.

    The original analysis can be found at Obama’s 28Mar11 Libya Speech Analyzed Analyzed.

    Values Generated Are:

    • Political Messaging

      • I Am Leadership Material – 58
      • I Am Electable – 71
      • I Have a Vision – 25
      • I Have a Vision for This Country – 68
      • I Am Listening – 53
      • I Am Listening to You – 54
      • I Can Lead Us to a Better Place – 100
      • I Can Get Us Out of This Problem/Mess/Situation – 85
      • I Am a Man/Woman of The People – 81
    • Speechwriter’s Confidence in Candidate’s Success – -76
    • Speechwriter’s Determination of How Much BlueSky was in Candidate’s Speech – 51
    • Gender Persuasion
      • Male – 40%
      • Female – 60%
    • Age Persuasion
    • ? – 24yo – 47%
    • 25 – 34yo – 89%
    • 35 – 44yo – 47%
    • 45 – 54yo – 25%
    • 55 – 59yo – 13%
    • 60 – 64yo – 7%
    • 65 – 74yo – 4%
    • 75yo + – 2%

Michele Bachmann’s Response to State of the Union Address Analyzed

What’s worth noting here is that the language used was jargonish, resulting in the higher age grouping, something noticed in previous campaigns and speeches. Probably more noteworthy is that Michele Bachmann’s 9 messages are pretty nicely blocked. She’s listening, she’s listening to you, she has a vision, she has a vision for this country and she’s a woman of the people are within nice margins. Compare that with the speech writer’s belief that she’s mostly on the level and you have a very good report, even if that same speech writer doesn’t believe Michele Bachmann is electable.

Political Messaging
Part 1 – What Michele Bachmann Wants You to Believe

Michele Bachmann's Response to State of the Union Address 9

Political Messaging
Part 2 – What the SpeechWriter Thinks

Michele Bachmann's Response to State of the Union Address What did the speech author think?

Gender Persuasion

Michele Bachmann's Response to State of the Union Address gender breakdown

Age Persuasion

Michele Bachmann's Response to State of the Union Address age breakdown

What is Michele Bachmann Really Communicating? – Every politician wants the public to believe they are the best for the job and can get things done.

However, no individual can achieve anything in elected office unless they believe certain things about themselves because without those core, personal and identifying beliefs they will not have the intellectual power, the charisma, the social awareness and sensitivity, the negotiation skills or the creativity necessary for success in public office.

In this case, Michele Bachmann:

  • Has an idea of where their town/city/county/state/country needs to be but doesn’t know if they’re instrumental in making that vision a reality.
  • Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and believes they are the only individual who can make it happen.
  • Is communicating very well to both male and female audiences.
  • Is going after Boomers.

Regarding the real author of this material:

  • They don’t think this candidate has a real chance of winning the race.
  • They believe the candidate is on the level most of the time.

The original analysis can be found at Michele Bachmann’s Response to State of the Union Address Analyzed Analyzed.

Values Generated Are:

  • Political Messaging

    • I Am Leadership Material – 64
    • I Am Electable – 72
    • I Have a Vision – 42
    • I Have a Vision for This Country – 78
    • I Am Listening – 51
    • I Am Listening to You – 65
    • I Can Lead Us to a Better Place – 100
    • I Can Get Us Out of This Problem/Mess/Situation – 79
    • I Am a Man/Woman of The People – 90
  • Speechwriter’s Confidence in Candidate’s Success – -62
  • Speechwriter’s Determination of How Much BlueSky was in Candidate’s Speech – 8
  • Gender Persuasion
    • Male – 48%
    • Female – 52%
  • Age Persuasion
  • ? – 24yo – 0%
  • 25 – 34yo – 1%
  • 35 – 44yo – 1%
  • 45 – 54yo – 2%
  • 55 – 59yo – 5%
  • 60 – 64yo – 9%
  • 65 – 74yo – 18%
  • 75yo + – 34%

Buddy Roemer Homepage and Text Analyzed Thursday, 9 Mar 11 3pmET

We learned that Buddy Roemer announced his candidacy today so analyzed his home page. The age results seemed odd to so we then analyzed his Free page and got similar results. We then checked the tool. It was working, then checked other sites and it gave reasonable results for them.

One thing we’ve learned and demonstrated is that website design plays a very great role in how people respond to a message, so as a last effort, we pulled the text from Buddy Roemer’s homepage and analyzed that by itself. What we learned (and share here) is that Buddy Roemer’s site designers aren’t benefitting him. We’re betting his donations would increase dramatically with a new site design.

Here we share NSPA‘s analysis of Buddy Roemer’s Homepage as presented online and then just the text of that page, offering some evaluations/comments along the way.

What we analyzed – Buddy Roemer’s Homepage on 9 Mar 11 3:00pmET

Buddy Roemer's Homepage

Buddy Roemer’s Homepage Political Messaging
Part 1 – What Buddy Roemer Wants You to Believe on Thursday, 9 Mar 11 3pmET

Buddy Roemer's homepage 11amET, 4 Mar 11 9

Buddy Roemer’s Text Political Messaging
Part 1 – What Buddy Roemer Wants You to Believe on Thursday, 9 Mar 11 3pmET

Buddy Roemer's text 11amET, 4 Mar 11 9

The differences between the homepage and the text are one of the clearest demonstrations of a message getting lost in the wrapper, content getting lost in the form or simply “the site hurting the marketing efforts”. The strongest political message communicated by the homepage (top chart) is “I Have a Vision for this Country”. There’s a cluster of messages at about half the value of “I Have a Vision for this Country” and the “Listening” messages — the most obvious person-to-person messages — are down about a third of the value.

In short, the homepage is signaling the “Buddy Roemer has a vision for this country” message so strongly that all other messages are lost in comparison. This is not a good thing in most cases.

Now consider the Text only analysis (second chart on this page). The strongest message is “I Can Get Us Out of This Problem/Mess/Trouble” and it’s beautifully clustered with “I Can Lead Us to a Better Place” and “I’m a Man of the People”. Buddy Roemer’s text achieves something marketers and social media experts would die for — It basically communicates similarity, commonality, hence trust, and an ability to simultaneously get us out of trouble and lead us to where we need to be. This is a very charismatic messaging cluster. I don’t know if Buddy Roemer has had any evangelical training and this triad is the heart of good evangelical testimonials; I’m just like you and I know how to make it better for you.

Nicely done, that, and not seen on any of the other analyses.

Note also the great differences in the Listening and Electability messages. He’s not listening on his homepage but in “person” (so to speak), he is, and he’s electable to boot.

The differences in the visioning messages are also fascinating. I’m willing to bet the site designer had a vision and their non-conscious message got embedded in the site (our technology has been alerting companies to non-conscious negative messages embedded in promotional and marketing material — messages that drive clients, customers and prospects away rather than bring them in — since 2001).

But Buddy Roemer in “person” is communicating that he’s going to do something for us because he’s one of us. It’s not so much a vision as a confidence in his ability to get things done.

Just based on that alone, Buddy Roemer needs to get “in front” of his website.

Buddy Roemer’s Homepage Political Messaging
Part 2 – What the Content Designer/Author Thinks on Thursday, 9 Mar 11 3pmET

Buddy Roemer's website 4pmET, 4 Mar 11 What did the Content Designer/Author think?

Buddy Roemer’s Text Political Messaging
Part 2 – What the Content Designer/Author Thinks on Thursday, 9 Mar 11 3pmET

Buddy Roemer's text 4pmET, 4 Mar 11 What did the Content Designer/Author think?

In both cases the material was scrubbed for BlueSky — nothing scores this low unless it was intentionally scrubbed. Social mores and constructs require about 2-5% BlueSky for information to be acceptable in general communication — but what we also learn is that Buddy Roemer in person has much more confidence than in homepage (as it were).

Again, Buddy Roemer’s site isn’t helping him achieve any political marketing goals.

Buddy Roemer’s Homepage Gender Persuasion at Thursday, 9 Mar 11 3pmET

Buddy Roemer's website 11amET, 4 Mar 11 gender breakdown

Buddy Roemer’s Text Gender Persuasion at Thursday, 9 Mar 11 3pmET

Buddy Roemer's Text 11amET, 4 Mar 11 gender breakdown

Here we see that Buddy Roemer in person is communicating more to males than to both genders equally. I’m not aware of his historical constituency nor the latest trends in voting populations hence have no idea if, in this metric, he’s better in person or in homepage

Buddy Roemer’s Homepage Age Persuasion at Thursday, 9 Mar 11 3pmET

Buddy Roemer's website 11amET, 4 Mar 11 age breakdown

Buddy Roemer’s Text Age Persuasion at Thursday, 9 Mar 11 3pmET

Buddy Roemer's text 11amET, 4 Mar 11 age breakdown

Here’s the real eye-opener, something that caused us to actually look at the site itself (NextStage rarely looks at marketing material of any kind. We rely on our tools and technology to make evaluations then either it or we advise based on those evaluations. The moment we, as humans, look at something our biases, our prejudices, our opinions and non-conscious likes and dislikes change our advice from “here’s what your audience needs you to do to make this work” to “here’s what we think you need to do to make it work”, and unless a bunch of researchers are your target audience, what “we think” doesn’t matter and what your audience thinks does).

So the discovery here is that Buddy Roemer’s text is reaching a reasonable demographic but his homepage isn’t reaching anybody.

Sad, that, because his actual text message (as evaluated by the NextStage Political Analyzer Tool) is a good one.

What is Buddy Roemer’s Homepage v Text Really Communicating? – Every politician wants the public to believe they are the best for the job and can get things done.

However, no individual can achieve anything in elected office unless they believe certain things about themselves because without those core, personal and identifying beliefs they will not have the intellectual power, the charisma, the social awareness and sensitivity, the negotiation skills or the creativity necessary for success in public office.

In this case, Buddy Roemer’s Homepage:

  • Has an idea of where their town/city/county/state/country needs to be but doesn’t know if they’re instrumental in making that vision a reality.
  • Has an idea of where their town/city/county/state/country needs to be and does not believe they’ll be part of the leadership that takes it there.
  • Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country but doesn’t have a clue how to make it happen.
  • Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and aren’t convinced anybody — including themselves — knows how to make it happen.
  • Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and believes they are the only individual who can make it happen.
  • May be considered politically towards the Right by their audience.
  • Isn’t going to reach anybody.

Regarding the real author of this material:

  • They think this candidate has a slim chance of winning the race.
  • They really worked this to remove any BS before publishing.

Versus Buddy Roemer’s Text (changes from the Homepage analysis are in red):

  • Believes their leadership will only be as good as the staff they can bring with them.
  • Has an idea of where their town/city/county/state/country needs to be but doesn’t know if they’re instrumental in making that vision a reality.
  • Has a sense of destiny for both themselves and the town/city/county/state/country and believes they are the only individual who can make it happen.
  • Believes they will be elected into or continue serving in office although it won’t be by a popular majority or mandate.
  • Is targeting a reasonable demographic.
    • But not strongly enough to stand out/win/be recognized as leading the pack.

Regarding the real author of this material:

  • They think the candidate is ready for elected office and needs grooming.
  • They really worked this to remove any BS before publishing.

The original Homepage analysis can be found at Buddy Roemer’s Homepage 11amET, 4 Mar 11 Analyzed Analyzed.

The original Text analysis can be found at Buddy Roemer’s Text 11amET, 4 Mar 11 Analyzed Analyzed.

Homepage v Text Values Generated Are:

  • Political Messaging

    • I Am Leadership Material – 64, 75
    • I Am Electable – 41, 91
    • I Have a Vision – 52, 29
    • I Have a Vision for This Country – 100, 75
    • I Am Listening – 30, 57
    • I Am Listening to You – 33, 53
    • I Can Lead Us to a Better Place – 63, 94
    • I Can Get Us Out of This Problem/Mess/Situation – 55, 100
    • I Am a Man/Woman of The People – 53, 91
  • Conent Designer/Author’s Confidence in Candidate’s Success – 7, 24
  • Conent Designer/Author’s Determination of How Much BlueSky was in Candidate’s Speech – 1, 0
  • Gender Persuasion
    • Male – 47%, 30
    • Female – 53%, 70
  • Age Persuasion
  • ? – 24yo – 0%, 4
  • 25 – 34yo – 0%, 7
  • 35 – 44yo – 0%, 14
  • 45 – 54yo – 0%, 27
  • 55 – 59yo – 0%, 53
  • 60 – 64yo – 0%, 27
  • 65 – 74yo – 0%, 14
  • 75yo + – 0%, 7

Bolton Bluntness

John Bolton for President. For the run-of-the-mill conservative, such a concept is interesting — almost startling. What is also interesting, but not startling, are the results of the NSE analysis of the interview with Bolton. These results are very much in line with the public persona of Bolton as he has presented himself for some years, now.

The fact that he has a very low BS factor would suggest he’d had a chance to prepare responses for the interview ahead of time, but having seen quite a few interviews with him through the years, I doubt it was necessary. Bolton has always displayed the trained, practiced diplomat’s control of language to choose the precise word to convey the precise meaning for the precise situation. The biggest difference is he is always very fluid with the language, never slowing down the sentence to be sure of selecting each word properly. Some of the less precise formulations of the interviewer suggest this is a transcription of a real, off-the-cuff back and forth interview, and I would be surprised to learn otherwise.

While his might not inspire media venom like a Palin candidacy would, Bolton does not have a reputation for being a smooth politician. His appointment as UN ambassador was a recess appointment, a foreshadowing of the bloody battle he would face against livid liberals. And his reputation among some coworkers at the State Department was that of an “abrasive” character. (Some might find that a sterling recommendation, actually, in that environment).

The abrasiveness among fellow diplomats and his performance as UN ambassador, not to mention his public pronouncements since then, show his focus is clearly on the foreign policy challenges the country faces, not on going along to get along. And this fits well with the “vision” measures where his vision for the country has a much stronger reading than his vision for himself. And given his feisty, sometimes contrarian positions, even while in office, it’s also no surprise he gets relatively low ratings in the “man of the people” category, compared to some of the more experienced elected officials who may run.

Bolton is a realist, and I feel confident he does not expect a sudden movement to draft him into the candidacy. And Nolte, the interviewer, is an astute analyst and also sees little prospect of such an event. I suspect any dancing around that shows up in the Compatibility Gauge has to do with Bolton’s well-known bluntness. A blunt, unpredictable respondent is always a terrifying prospect in an interview.

Aside from what the Political Analyzer Tool shows, I suspect Bolton’s coming out publicly has more to do with wanting to put pressure on the field to keep foreign policy relevant in the 2012 elections, and perhaps a bit of wistful longing to work with a successful candidate to finish what he did not get a chance to finish while Bush was in office.

Senator Grassley’s Age Old Issues

NextStage: Predictive Intelligence, Persuasion Engineering, Interactive Analytics and Behavioral MetricsOne of the modern perceptions of political life is that the first thing you start doing after winning an election is start campaigning for the next election.  Rather than looking at web sites for candidates for office in the coming two years, I was curious to see what the web sites of recently elected candidates showed.  The first site I viewed was Kelly Ayotte’s Senator Ayotte, U.S. Senator for New Hampshire.  Senator Ayotte has not yet been in her office for 100 days and the Spartan appearance of her site seems to reflect it.  So I went to the other side of the spectrum.

Senator Charles Grassley was elected to the Senate in 1980 and his 2010 election, in which he garnered 63% of the vote to 33% for the Democratic nominee, was his closest election as an incumbent. For all intent and purposes, Senator Grassley appears to be entrenched and, as such, is seems to have no concern about speaking his mind.  In 2009, Senator Grassley suggested AIG management that collected bonuses off Federal bailout money should “follow the Japanese model” and resign immediately or commit suicide.  And perusing his Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa site, you’ll find a large number of defined changes he is seeking to make with his post in the Senate.  There is plenty to disagree with depending on your leanings, but it provides legitimate issues to discuss instead of arguing which party likes children, families, small businesses, and the middle class more.  It also demonstrates that those politicians who are not at risk of losing of losing their political seat or chasing a greater one are more likely to speak their mind.

The web page though is a bit bland.  Rather than analyze the page, we analyzed one of Senator Grassley’s e-newsletters (links to which can be found on his web site) Senator Grassley eNewsletterNextStage’s Political Analyzer has this to say about the page: Senator Grassley’s “The Scoop” Newsletter Analyzed 8 Mar 11 2:30pmET.

Go ahead.  Take a look.  I’ll wait …

I was disappointed by the age demographic.  So I went back and looked at the e-newsletter to try to determine what Senator Grassley could do to target a broader audience.  The format of the e-newsletter is that of front-page headlines, but the opening sentences are 30 words, 16 words, 27 words, 13 words, 21 words, 24 words, and 26 words.  The average word is about 5.25 characters long.  Compare that to Mitch Daniel’s 2011 CPAC speech that ran 19 words/sentence and averaged 4.75 characters/word.  Mitch Daniel’s speech also targeted a younger and broader audience.  Certainly, these are not magic numbers, but it appears those who author Senator Grassley’s pieces need to simplify their statements to reach a younger, broader audience.

There is also some jargon in these sentences.  I know that Senator Grassley has long been known for his support of ethanol and ethanol subsidies, but I don’t know that biofuel and biodiesel have entered the common vernacular (perhaps they have in Iowa).  He also used TARP for Troubled Asset Relief Program and Special IG for Special Inspector General.  These terms and abbreviations may be necessary for Senator Grassley to convey his point, but particularly for a newsletter front page that is going to be light on substance out of necessity, the language should be quickly and easily digested.  Avoiding specialized jargon and industry abbreviations increases the likelihood a reader will process the headline and first statement and click through to read more.  Utilizing specialized jargon and industry abbreviations sends the signal that this content is not for me, it is for someone specialized and familiar with the industry.  I would encourage the authors of this newsletter to drill down the topics, avoid abbreviations and specialized language, keep these headline sentences to 12-15 words/sentence.  These changes will encourage more readers to read the articles and, I’d like to think, create more of an opportunity for worthwhile political discussion.