Communication Lessons from the 2009 Election

As I watched the election last year I couldn't help but notice a huge disparity between the practices of the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign. I have read a book called Tribes by Seth Godin the influenced my observations. If you are leading a group of people (even if you do so without positional influence) it is a great read. I think churches have a lot to learn from observing these two campaigns.

Let's face it, Obama had a lot going for him in building his campaign. However, I am not sure he would have been successful if he hadn't done the following things (remember he was unknown before this past campaign). Those of us who are church leaders should be asking ourselves which campaign most reflects the way we are leading our movements. Look past the politics here. This post has nothing to do with that!

1. Message--The Obama campaign found a central message of hope and transformation that captured the hearts of its supporters. The McCain campaign never found a message.

This should be the easy part for churches, but for whatever reason it is not. We go off message way too often (ironically we often times we play politics instead of church). The church must keep the transformational message of hope that is the Biblical story as its central (if not only) message. And, we must preach as such! The Gospel message is not burdensome, it is freeing and hopeful. We must quit pointing out how hopeless the world is and individuals are if we are not going to point them to the power of Christ to transform.

2. Movement--Obama's campaign was built around the idea of a movement. McCain's campaign was built around the idea of a government. I think most people would recognize this. However, pinpointing the things that made the difference might be hard to do. Obama was certainly the leader of this movement, but the thing that made it a movement was that Obama invited others to participate and took the steps to communicate that those at the grassroots level were making a difference.

The church needs to re-energize our people in the movement that is the church. We have to break out of our institutionalism. (As one of our staff members said yesterday, "We got to get our people off their duffs"). We have to re-engage our people in the idea that it is their calling to make a difference in the world with the message of Jesus (spoken and lived).

3. Masses--Obama's campaign involved the masses. The McCain campaign involved the elites. Now, some may argue with this. I have a friend that worked for the McCain campaign in New Mexico and she was certainly not working with the elites. McCain's campaign (primarily the VP candidate) talked at length about the average Joe, but it seemed talk. On the other hand, the Obama campaign went to great lengths to communicate the importance of the masses (and by the masses I mean the regular guy) not just through word but in every form of presentation. Everytime Obama spoke there was a crowd of people standing behind him. McCain usually had a banner. Obama's crowd was always excited. When McCain did have people behind him it looked like death (seriously). No one was excited. The event that really motivated me to highlight these differences was the results night. McCain had an invite only results party (you may say he just knew he wasn't going to win, but this had been his MO the entire campaign). Obama did all he could to accomodate everyone who would show up on results night (this was his MO, remember the convention being held at Bronco stadium? brilliant!). McCain built his finances on large donors. Obama built his finances on many people giving little amounts. Now I don't have the numbers to prove this, but this is certainly the way these campaigns were presented and that is the perception that the public had of both campaigns.

Churches have to figure out how to break free from the 20-80 rule (20% of the people doing 80% of the work). Often times I think this has to do with the way we communicate and represent the things the church is doing. We have to get the cameras off the leadership and get it on the congregation. We also have to quit targeting the "elite" only because they have the most to offer individually and start targeting the crowd because they have too much to offer collectively.

4. Communication/Use of Technology--Obama's campaing successfully used the new forms of communication (and consequently the new forms of community). McCain's campaign stuck with the tried and true. The statistics on Obama's following on the web, social networking, text messaging, youtube etc. vs. that of McCain is mind boggling. Click here to see some of the data. Obama harnessed the power of peer to peer influence that occurs through these mediums. McCain relied on mediums of communication that are becoming increasingly antiquated. This use of mediums also contributed to the tribe mentality. This occured because Obama announced things (like his VP candidate) through text-messaging, etc. Those that subscribed were thus "in", concreting their place in the tribe.

Churches are so far behind this curve it is painful. We are still investing so much money in print-and-mail materials that people have been ignoring for years. We can do this so much cheaper through email, web, etc. People may still ignore it but at least were sinking WAY less money in it. Even better would be to communicate to our people through invitation/subscription means. The congregant subscribes to the updates/announcements/news they want to hear and aren't bothered with all the other noise. In terms of reaching out to others, we don't do this from a centralized voice. Instead we equip our people (the masses, the movement) with the tools to communicate to their friends. They know better than a central figure what their friends need and will respond to. E-cards, social networking, text messaging, etc are all tools that we should be building and equipping our people with.

5. Presentation--Obama's campaign did production extremely well. McCain's campaign production look amateurish. If you watched the McCain campaign at all, this was painfully obvious. The transitions of music, speakers, mic's being on/off, sound levels, etc were all awful. At the announcement of McCain's VP candidate (the climax of that campaign for most people) the timing was way off. They played the same video twice to try to fill time (making the video and announcement totally anticlimatic). The announcement was made and McCain and Palin were both late taking the stage (again, anticlimatic). Obama on the other hand not only knocked most of his speeches out of the park, but so did his production team. Like it or not production is part of the message (and not just the delivery of the message). Presentation matters.

Just like in communication, many churches are way behind the curve here. Many churches think this is superficial. You can debate that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it matters. The thing is, many of the churches that might claim this is superficial are doing it really well and that is the traditional churches. They know who they are and do traditional very well. This is good! I commend them for this (now there are many traditional churches that don't do this well). The thing is, when churches that are doing more progressive forms of church and worship and talk about the importance of presentation the traditionalists have to recognize that presentation has been important for them as well, it has just looked different.Presentation may be superficial (I don't agree with this, but this argument may not matter), but presentation still matters (and this is really the point).


So, I have been intending to write this post for four months now. In my tardiness there have been a couple of other people that have written on the subject. You can see them here and here. For some real research on this check out the link in item number 4.

What would you add to this list? What would you disagree with (remember, I don't want to discuss politics here, that is not the point)?

Church Relevance or Accessibility

Its no longer a fad to talk about the relevance of a particular church this has now become a mainline "sport". I have had these conversations and I am not ashamed of them to be honest. However, I wonder if our language isn't a bit misplaced here.

Usually when we are talking about the relevance of a church we are talking about music style, presentation in building, print and media. However, is this really what makes a church relevant? I don't think it is. What makes a church relevant is it's message and the way that message is lived out. Should a church's relevance be judged by anything other than the amount of transformation taking place (both within the church internally and through the church externally).

What we are really talking about when we have these conversations about style, presentation, etc. is the accessibility of a church. Granted, this may have an impact on the relevance of the church but these are not how we should judge the relevance of the church. There may be transformation taking place, it just may not be very accessible.

The bonus of making this distinction is that it may help us lead up to older generations. Our communication styles, print and media presentation are important not because it makes the message relevant (it is if it is the Gospel) but because it makes that message accessible. Language matters!