How Clinton Leads Trump in the Data Game

Targeted voter data and analytics are key to winning for political campaigns and causes today. So, who has the better data armory among the warring presidential hopefuls? Advertising Age magazine recently addressed the issue by comparing Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton and Republican primary leader Donald Trump in terms of operations, spending and expert support. Political analysts give the Democrats an edge operationally, coming out of the two data-centric Obama campaigns with a sophisticated data-gathering operation that can target voters in swing states. In terms of dollars spent, the Federal Election Commission shows the Clinton campaign pays about $10,000 a month to a top data staffer, co-founder of data firm BlueLabs, and about the same amount combined per month for two additional staffers, plus Clinton has spent around $82,000 with NGP VAN, a Democratic voter data firm, since last October. In contrast, Trump waited until January to hire two "low-profile" former Republican National Committee data strategists, per Politico reporting. But he has brought data consultants on board, too, spending $240,000 with the political data firm L2 and about $18,000 with NationBuilder, a voter file management platform. The candidates will also joust with media buys based on data analytics, and Clinton has outspent Trump for data-enhanced media agency buys so far, shelling out $9.6 million to TV firm GMMB and $745,000 to digital agency Bully Pulpit in February. Of course, spending is not the only measure of strength in the data arena. Staff expertise and experience counts, and Clinton may have the advantage there, opined political analysts. While Clinton is sure to gather former Obama data veterans and agencies if she wins nomination, Trump may struggle to attract similar data expertise from the Republican side given the #NeverTrump movement. For more: http://adage.com/article/datadriven-marketing/clinton-trump-match-data-arena/302989/

Campaigns Fueled by Varied Funding Burn Rates

Campaign fundraisers face a balancing act when it comes to "burn rate"--the proportion of cash intake to cash outlay in the same time period. Too high and they risk coming up short later; too low and they fail to invest enough for future success. Here are a few benchmarks from current presidential campaigns courtesy of a recent article by The Atlantic magazine. Ben Carson's fundraising raked in an impressive $20.8 million in the third quarter, but he spent 69% of it on efforts to raise more money, relying heavily on traditional direct mail and telemarketing, which have the advantage of growing grassroots support but the disadvantage of being more expensive than digital channels. Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton had an even higher 86% burn rate, but she spent mainly on media buys, payroll and online advertising--outlay aimed at campaign infrastructure and future viability. In contrast to both Carson and Clinton, socialist Bernie Sanders is frugal, with a burn rate under 45%. He spent mainly on digital consulting and advertising, relying on ActBlue, an online platform for donations to liberal causes, for fundraising. ActBlue is a tool that gets donors by "gamifying" giving at low cost (less than 4% commission). Unfortunately for Carson and other GOP candidates like Ted Cruz, who also has a high burn rate per the article, there isn't a Republican equivalent for online donations. For more, especially about Carson's strategy, read http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/where-is-ben-carsons-money-going/410839/