Every major technological change has also changed the way campaigns are run and the structure of the campaign headquarters. Television created media consultants, and the internet brought digital directors into the headquarters. Once we started leaning on databases, the people working with voter files, CRM systems and digital advertising moved from the edge of the operation to its centre. I still remember what a revolution it was when we set up the first internet department in a Serbian campaign headquarters, back in 2011. Suddenly the building held people whose job description had not existed five years earlier, while the press office carried on untouched. This text grew out of Miles Maftean’s analysis “Meet the Campaign AI Engineer” (Partisan Hub). His thesis struck me as correct but not sufficiently tested on terrain like ours, so I have extended it with data and with experience from the campaigns of the past year. Everyone is looking for the dragon in the wrong place The curre...

I tell every campaign team the same thing after every election: “Now comes the detailed analysis.” Winners announce it at the very press conference where they declare victory, to show they are serious people. Losers announce the same thing, to show they have drawn the lessons from defeat and that there is a plan for next time. It sounds logical, like standard procedure, something that goes without saying — like the campaign silence period or a properly completed polling board record. Yes, I tell everyone. And almost nobody actually does it. What usually happens is called an analysis but is in fact either a celebration or a wake, depending on the outcome. The winning team scatters and everyone goes on holiday, because why analyse something that, by definition, worked. The losing team dissolves even faster, because nobody wants to sit in a room and count their own mistakes out loud. I have told both sides, in vain, that every campaign of mine was better than the one before it precisely b...

A debate is rarely won by arguments alone. A debate is won by control. This is the sentence I repeat to every candidate before a TV appearance, and almost every time I hear the same reply: “I’ll win because I have better data, a better program, a better biography.” All of that may be true and still completely irrelevant, because the viewer at home does not remember arguments. They remember the impression. They remember who seemed calm and who seemed cornered, and most importantly: who commanded the studio and who was on the defensive. A TV studio is, by definition, hostile territory for a politician. You face several opponents there: a counterpart who wants to throw you off balance, a host who wants drama because drama boosts ratings, and a camera that records everything—especially what you think it’s not recording. There are rules for all three opponents. Here’s how it’s actually done. Being calm  is  a message Provocation in a studio is never accidental. A rival who insults ...

Twelve years ago, a single billboard in Bosnia and Hercegovina put my whole campaign team on its feet. Everyone was against it, even the woman who made the coffee. I broke the deadlock by letting the focus groups decide. Eight of them sided with the creative director. The billboard became legendary.  And then there’s what that episode taught me, the thing most campaigns still refuse to do, and it costs them elections. Here’s a scene that played out again and again in campaigns I worked on. “If you ask me, both the visual and the message are excellent.” The line comes from the creative director—the man who dreamed up the message, showing it to people who work for him and asking whether it’s any good. Everyone says yes, of course, so the materials go to print “because it’s urgent.” Three weeks later, when everybody is spitting that solution out, and the rating doesn’t climb but heads the other way, the same man explains that “the people simply didn’t understand the message.” Trouble ...

    How It Really Works: Fast Response After years in this business, I've learned that one thing leads to defeat faster than anything else: your team deciding to wait. Fast response isn't a skill. It's a duty. This scene plays out in every campaign I've ever run. Bad news breaks. The opponent drops something: an attack, a piece of disinformation, footage, a quote ripped out of context. Journalists start calling. Social media catches fire. You call an emergency war room meeting. People talk, people analyze. And almost without fail, the first suggestion I'd hear was:  "Let's wait and see how this develops."  Right behind it comes someone who wants to loop in the lawyers. A third person thinks you should reach the candidate, but everyone knows he's unreachable until the afternoon, he's in a meeting, no phone. So the worst possible decision gets made: you push everything to tomorrow morning, once things settle down. Two days later, your response fi...

Understand the political landscape: Do your research and learn about the political climate and the issues that matter to your target.   Develop a strategy: Make a strategy that includes your plan, tactics, and goals.   Identify your target audience: Determine the age range, gender, income level, and political affiliation of your target group.   Develop a message: Craft a message that resonates with your target audience and is consistent with your strategy.   Use modern tools: be on proper digital and social media platforms to reach your target audience.   Build political party relationships: Develop relationships with key stakeholders, including elected officials, political parties, and media outlets.   Monitor the competition: Keep tabs on what your competition is doing and adapt your approach as necessary.   Engage in grassroots activities: Get involved in activities at the ground level, like door-to-door canvassing and phone banking, to raise awaren...

  Think each social network is the same It's easy to lump our favorite social networks together. We bucket each platform under the "social media umbrella" when talking about, thinking about, and planning our political parties' social media strategies. By routine, we update Facebook, scan Twitter, and check Instagram every day, swaying us to view these platforms as a package, not as individual tools. The underlying commonality is that they're all great at connecting us directly with our potential voters. But just because Facebook and Instagram can both put us in front of your prospects doesn't mean they should be treated the same. By recognizing the respective value of each tool, we can connect with our audience in even more valuable ways. Every system has its peculiarities as well as a unique set of benefits and drawbacks that are specific to that system. For example, Twitter is great for sharing short and snappy updates, whereas Instagram is better for sharin...

A political party must be on all social networks To make a long story short. Political parties should be present on social media, though they need not be everywhere. For one thing, different media cater to different audiences, and for another, political parties don't have to win over everyone. A political party should concentrate its efforts on a few key platforms for maximum effect. Keeping up a strong presence on every major social media platform can be time-consuming and expensive for a political party. Burnout is a potential barrier to getting to know voters on a personal level. Political parties can save money by opting out of some services. Social media and political parties go together like peanut butter and jelly. Why? Because social media is an excellent platform for communicating with voters, launching campaigns, raising awareness about initiatives, and serving as an essential tool in crisis communications.   Whether you focus efforts on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, or a...