Manhattan Marketing Maven

When Washington Meets the Internet -- Watch Out

The  Internet, eCommerce and online marketing evolved without much government intervention or interference. But as the digital world morphs, expands and impacts on traditional models it collides with existing law, demands new laws and creates questions and confusions for legislators and regulators many of whom have just a passing understanding of what we do, how we think or what will come next.

Attending the 35th Washington Caucus of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the trade association of choice for the online set, was a clarion call to recognize the need to allocate time and resources to address DC audiences, especially those who could threaten our future.

In presentation after presentation Senators, Congressmen and Commissioners, speaking in life-affirming regional accents, made it very clear that there are knotty, substantive issues on important topics like government spying, privacy, health records, spectrum access and allocation, copyright and patent reform or the fair use doctrine that can't be left to legislators or bureaucrats to decide arbitrarily or politically. They also left me with the feeling that on Internet matters the Congress is mostly clueless and likely to default to the positions advocated by phone companies and cable operators.

Its funny how we all know that Congress is a mixed bag of people from all walks of life and all corners of the nation madly wheeling and dealing for resources, programs, dollars and votes in an adversarial hothouse that sometimes reflects reality but often doesn't. Since the beginning of the republic the politics of Capital Hill have been a source of scrutiny and sarcasm as partisans fight tooth and nail for the spoils that only government can dole out. But rarely do we connect this understanding to the business we are building each day or to the medium we are helping to build out.

Now its time for the bits and bytes people, many of whom couldn't be bothered with the pathology on the Potomac to defensively jump into the fray. Why? Because an awful lot of the laws and regulations on the books are rooted in ideas and technologies that are long past. Few in official Washington have a nuanced or experienced understanding about the online world and the expectations about open access, privacy, user generated content, customer service, fairness or community that millions hold to be self-evident and instinctively consider to be their rights as citizens. Too many important decisions turn on technical arguments presented to newbies or neophytes beholding to partisan or corporate interests.

In some cases there are serious debates to be had about how technology is changing fundamental relationships and kicking over or complicating precedents and traditions. In other cases we barely understand the impacvt of technology now and yet have to project its use and its implications into the future. In still other cases, we need to get the fox out of the hen house and stand-up to entrenched interests and the political allies they've bought and paid for.

The future of of the Internet can and will be determined by decisions, choices and definitions that affect technology, taxation, intellectual property rights, privacy, civil liberties law and investments of government attention, resources and cash.

Why should we look up from our monitors and get involved in DC? Because we -- online companies, online merchants, online marketers -- need to

1.Affect how the rules of the game are written.

2. Influence how the laws are enforced or not enforced.

3. Keep the Congress from politicizing cyberspace and from using online issues to ride political or partisan hobby horses.

4. Increase our visibility on the Hill so that we're heard and considered seriously and so that entrenched interests don't buy our representatives out from under us.

The Shortcomings of Political Branding

It's remarkable. I cannot tell you much about the personalities of either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama and I know even less about the differences in their positions on critical issues like the war in Iraq, health care, the credit crisis or foreign policy.

And its not as if I'm not paying attention. I'm no slouch when it comes to inhaling the news. So I blame the campaigns. If the first law of branding is to draw a sharp distinction between your product and others in its category and to inform or educate your most likely consumers about the benefits of your product to them then neither campaign has got to first base after almost two years of yammering.

And if I can't tell you, I'll bet few others can either.

It looks as if vapid slogans, set piece photo ops, plain vanilla stump speeches and the desperate hope to avoid media gaffes have taken priority over acquainting the audience with the candidates. Thoughtful voters or those concerned with issues seem to be left to either infer who the candidates are and what they stand for or pore over dense policy papers on the candidates web sites.

Once you get past the obvious and the differences in political biographies, I have no feel for how each might think, handle or organize things in a crisis or under day-to-day circumstances in Washington. How is it that these two people are both simultaneously so visible and so invisible? How come I know more about Aunt Jemima, Orville Reddenbacker and the Jolly Green Giant than I do about either Democratic candidate?

The campaigns need to go back to branding basics..

1. Draw Sharper Distinctions. He's a breathe of fresh air; an example of the new politics and she's the more experienced one; the White House insider. The former is based on appearances and rhetorical cadence. Why not make it clear on a policy level? If Hillary truly has the benefit of experience governing, let's hear what she knows and let's see what she learned along the way. Tell us straight out. Don't leave us to do the math ourselves.

2. Take a Tough Stand. Pick a lightening rod issue and get out on a limb. State a clearly different and even radical stance to make the differences in outlook, posture, and positioning clearer. If you read the candidates' positions they range from vague to mealy-mouthed because they are hedged and caveatted to offer maximum flexibility in fending off political attacks. No one can attack them as naive or hot-headed. Similarly no one can see them as bold leaders either.

3. Be More Specific. Take the positions on the key issues. Boil them down to simple phrases and pound away at them. Make us understand that Hillary Means Universal Health care or that Obama will be Out of Iraq fast. Give us something to brab onto and a reason to believe.