2.0

Well, the election is over, but it hasn't sunk in yet. For somebody who had been glued to every form of news about the primaries and the general election, a week-long hangover is to be expected. This is the first election I've followed this closely, and I must say, it has been educating and entertaining.

Many have had their chances to second-guess Obama's victory. Here are some of the common theories:

1. This was a vote against Bush, but not for Obama
2. This was a vote for the Democrat, but not necessarily for Obama
3. It's the economy, stupid
4. Obama ran a good campaign: clear vision, good execution and help from the media

As Jack Welch points out, vision and execution are both vital to success. We've learned much about the execution part of it, and I don't intend to bore you with more of the same [no pun intended!].

What about vision? Jack Welch stops with "Change" in his analysis. It didn't take too long for Hillary and the other front-runners to figure that out. There have been several contests [some in politics, some in business], in which somebody's message had been stolen by a competitor fair and square. Why couldn't anyone steal Obama's message this time? Is it because of his eloquence, or the use of the internet [layman for online fund-raising, social networking, recurring donations], or simply because all of his opponents made mistakes, while "somehow" he did not?

You may have guessed why this post is titled 2.0. I've seen some striking similarities in strategy between Web 2.0 and the Obama campaign, and that I assess is at the root of this victory.

Reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.

Needless to say, the Obama campaign "had" to be innovative in fund raising, as it was open and shut that Hillary would charm the Democratic base easily. They definitely made some smart choices then, internet-based fund raising was one of those. The 50-state strategy also seemed like a tactic aimed at winning the primary. Little did the pundits know then, about the impact that strategy would have on Nov 4, 2008. In traditional red states such as Indiana and Virginia, Obama won by winning the blue electoral colleges and by losing the red electoral colleges by smaller margins, only because the campaign reached out not just to the head, but to the long tail as well.

Network effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era.

With social networking, this campaign broke new ground in enabling volunteers and supporters to organize among themselves.

So how did the Obama campaign figure this out? Did Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Google CEO Eric Schmidt give them the inside scoop on Everything 2.0? A campaign of this magnitude cannot be built to last and succeed, based on fragile tactics and strategies that suit the moment.

The Obama campaign introduced a new product called "Change" almost a couple of years ago. Choosing what to sell was the easy part, but how to sell is what Obama excelled in. While customers sensed the need for the product, several brands emerged during the primary season. The demand increased and so did the competition. Jack Welch is right, in that he says that the Obama campaign had a clear sense of vision. However, their vision was "to build a participative inclusive coalition". This vision and the campaign's ability to execute per this vision with strategies such as the 50-state campaign, social networking and internet based fund raising have been key to their success.

Perhaps, Barack Obama won this election because he was once a community organizer. After all, there are no coincidences.