Get the latest market trends in your inbox

Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with the Axios Markets newsletter. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Minneapolis-St. Paul

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa-St. Petersburg news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa-St. Petersburg

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Greg Ruben/Axios

According to conversations with over two dozen staffers and advertising experts involved with the data and advertising operations of both presidential campaigns, the Democratic party's data machine that worked so well in 2008 and 2012 may have ended up working against Hillary Clinton in 2016. Here's what the campaigns did:

  • Like Clinton, the Democratic campaign's digital strategy was disciplined and precise. They were methodical, using data to acutely target voters who were pegged as most likely to vote or most likely to be swayed.
  • Like Trump, the Republican campaign's strategy was unpredictable and opportunistic. They were experimental, especially on Facebook, using data to identify wider sets of potential voters and to target broader audiences that weren't necessarily pegged as definitive or persuadable voters.

Why it matters: The Clinton campaign's data-driven media and communication tactics may have been too precise amid an unusual media climate against a nontraditional candidate. Conversely, the Trump campaign's reliance on intuition over data drove their message to people and places they would've never otherwise reached, like white, male voters in Wisconsin and Michigan — the voters that delivered his victory.

Campaign structure:

Per a former Clinton party official:

The Clinton campaign was run like a management consulting firm. The Trump campaign was run like a family business.
  • The Trump campaign's main data source came from the RNC, which worked with a third-party firm called Data Trust. The relationship between the RNC and an independent group, not a campaign, is what many from the Trump campaign credit for their electoral success. After their 2008 loss, Data Trust and the RNC began to create an infrastructure that could support any future nominee. "Our theory is Democrats created a machine designed to market one product — Obama. If we can design a system that can market any candidate, not one specific candidate, we think we can leapfrog the competition," Data Trust adviser (and former Reince Priebus chief of staff) Mike Shields said about their strategy.
  • The Clinton campaign's main data hub was split between the DNC and the campaign itself, not a third party that could cultivate data across cycles. Groups like Catalist, Civis, Organizing for Action and the DNC all housed at different times different pieces of the data that Obama used to target voters in 2012. Sources say the Clinton campaign worked with the DNC to cultivate and model a data pool that had been fragmented after Obama's 2012 win, making it harder for the Clinton campaign to compete with the GOP's long-term strategy.

Targeting strategy: One of the biggest differences between 2012 and 2016 was the increased domination of Facebook and Google, which made micro-targeting through paid advertising on both platforms a significant part of each campaign's strategy.

  • The Clinton campaign used micro-targeting to focus on a specific group of persuadable voters, while the Trump campaign identified persuadable voters and advertised to broader, related groups.
One of the biggest lessons of this campaign is you can't get by with small, targeted audiences.
Google's Head of Industry - Elections, Lee Dunn

Mass-message testing:

  • Trump: Gary Coby, who led the Trump Campaign's advertising team alongside Brad Parscale, said that each day, the campaign tested 40,000–50,000 automated ad combinations on Facebook for $200,000–$300,000. From there, they found which messaging attracted audiences whose voter files weren't pegged as being likely to vote for Trump. Experimenting that quickly allowed them to build up enough historical data to very quickly identify trends of which ads worked and which didn't. Coby told Axios that campaign staff got so good at predicting effectiveness of certain messaging, that they could see what worked after only spending $20–$50 on a particular ad.
  • The Clinton campaign took a more strategic approach, focusing on fewer, more targeted messages, that were more likely to appeal to certain voters and refining them through surveys on video ads across the web. The campaign used technology that was able to measure specifically how messages resonated within different voter files, and drill into subgroups to identify areas for future message optimization. The technology even included ways to measure how external events affected responder bias.

Go deeper

Broncos and 49ers the latest NFL teams impacted by coronavirus crisis

From left, Denver Broncos quarterbacks Drew Lock, Brett Rypien and Jeff Driskel during an August training session at UCHealth Training Center in Englewood, Colorado. Photo: Justin Edmonds/Getty Images

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the NFL season into chaos, with all Denver Broncos quarterbacks sidelined, the San Francisco 49ers left without a home or practice ground and much of the Baltimore Ravens team unavailable, per AP.

Driving the news: The Broncos confirmed in a statement Saturday night that quarterbacks Drew Lock, Brett Rypien and Blake Bortles were identified as "high-risk COVID-19 close contacts" and will follow the NFL's mandatory five-day quarantine, making them ineligible for Sunday's game against New Orleans.

Updated 11 hours ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

  1. Health: WHO: AstraZeneca vaccine must be evaluated on "more than a press release."
  2. Politics: McConnell temporarily halts in-person lunches for GOP caucus.
  3. Economy: Safety nets to disappear in DecemberAmazon hires 1,400 workers a day throughout pandemic.
  4. Education: U.S. public school enrollment drops as pandemic persists.
  5. Cities: Surge in cases forces San Francisco to impose curfew — Los Angeles County issues stay-at-home order, limits gatherings.
  6. Sports: NFL bans in-person team activities Monday, Tuesday due to COVID-19 surge — NBA announces new coronavirus protocols.
  7. World: London police arrest more than 150 during anti-lockdown protests — Thailand, Philippines sign deal with AstraZeneca for vaccine.

Tony Hsieh, longtime Zappos CEO, dies at 46

Tony Hsieh. Photo: FilmMagic/FilmMagic

Tony Hsieh, the longtime ex-chief executive of Zappos, died on Friday after being injured in a house fire, his lawyer told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. He was 46.

The big picture: Hsieh was known for his unique approach to management, and following the 2008 recession his ongoing investment and efforts to revitalize the downtown Las Vegas area.