On a superficial level, it appears that the day online politics enthusiasts have been gunning for has arrived. The overwhelming majority of political campaigns prioritize their website, email and blogger relations. Many of them agree to open comments on their own site or on Facebook, and we have candidates engaging each other on Twitter.

We see insurgent candidates, like Scott Brown, harnessing the democratizing power of the Internet not just to compete, but to win.

So why, as an online political strategist, do I feel as disappointed as a Republican who voted for Obama hoping for “change?” Because there are several trends emerging in digital politics which misconstrue the true value of the web.

1. Likening the Internet to an ATM

It’s amazing to watch when a candidate catches fire and inspires thousands of individuals to immediately contribute to their campaign online. It’s fun to lay the groundwork for that type of phenomenon, and when it happens, expand upon it by creating meaningful incentives — text, image, motion and personal access — for more people to contribute. At Engage, we’ve experienced successes like this multiple times. We should be happy when others want to follow in the shoes of movement-inspiring candidates.

However, a troubling trend has emerged in the wake of such phenonema: the assumption that the Internet is a magical ATM machine. It’s like that money tree in the backyard that my Mom would ask me to pick from when I’d ask for a pair of Guess jeans in middle school.

If you are not movement-inspiring as a person, or can’t fake it really well, the Internet will be nothing like an ATM machine for you. And guess what? You might want to assess your electoral prospects more realistically if people have to be coerced into giving money to you.

Phrase to watch: “The purpose of our website is to raise money.”
Further reading: “How Republicans won the Internet” by Mindy Finn and Patrick Ruffini

2. Expecting online ads to “pay for themself”

What is the Internet good for in campaigns? The first thing campaign managers will cite is “money,” as explained above, and to their credit, many will also say, “it’s good for motivating and organizing volunteers.” Both occur online: the gift of money and the showcase of support, hopefully, in mass.

And after seeing how campaigns have successfully welcomed self-organizing, Engage puts a premium on ginning up grassroots support online, even spending some dollars in incentive programs and advertising aimed at building a volunteer base.

So, what’s the problem? The problem is that campaign managers only equate value online with a dollar raised or a volunteer recruited. Thus, they are resistant to putting time, money and energy into online activity that just communicates. Communicating, however, is the cornerstone of campaigning.

If campaigns do create content, like a video or a spoof site, they believe they can just put it out there, and people will come. Yet, the people who come are the true believers and donors who you have already won over anyway. Unless the content is super-extra-specially creative enough to go viral, you need to back it up with a major earned and paid media effort. If you’re not willing to do that, then you shouldn’t pay the $5,000 on creating the content.

Furthermore, you should stop expecting online ads to net dollars. They don’t. You should expect online ads to contribute to persuading and turning out voters.

“The Internet doesn’t win votes,” your TV media consultant will say. Really. What wins a vote? Exposure, positive association with a candidate, building trust, a more compelling narrative for why you instead of your opponent. Multiple studies recently show that TV and online media combined are more effective at achieving those aims than TV alone.

“But I don’t click on banner ads,” campaign managers will say. First, online ads are not limited to banner ads. At Engage, we have run video advertising through services like Mixpo or Brightroll. Second, when was the last time someone clicked on a TV or radio ad, or a direct mail piece? Clicking is a gauge of success but not the end game in persuasion advertising.

Phrases to watch: “The Internet doesn’t win votes,” “Online ads don’t work.”
Further reading: “Ad Exposure On Both TV and Online Delivers Big Time,” by Jack Loechner, MediaPost

3. Over-emphasizing blogs, Twitter and Facebook

What?! Over-emphasizing blogs, Twitter and Facebook? Hasn’t the chronic problem in campaigns been a disregard for blogs and social media?

Not exactly. The problem in campaigns has been fear, lack of agility, arrogance, and underestimating the impact a collection of individuals can have on an electoral outcome. Individuals have broken down the traditional barriers for influencing a campaign with blogs and social media. And campaigns have therefore been forced to engage.

The troubling trend is a hyper-sensitivity to blog and social media activity. In the same way politicians obsess over what is written about them in the newspaper, now there are thousands of “newspapers” in the form of bloggers and tweeps to constantly feed their obsession.

But here’s the problem — not everyone on Twitter or Facebook is equal in regards to a campaign. Sorry, they’re not. A blogger who attracts exactly 5 readers — 4 of them relatives from New York and 1 a friend in DC — is to be monitored but not reacted to. Know the difference between them and an influential blogger with 1,000 highly influential readers. Alternatively, someone with 5,000 followers on Twitter is more influential than someone with 100 unique visits to their blog a day.

Phrases to watch: “They’re saying on Twitter that Candidate X kills kittens. What should we do?” “John Doe attacked me in his blog!”
Further reading:
“Twitter is Too Much for the Senate,” by Nancy Scola, TechPresident.com
“Social Media or Personal Media,” by Patrick Ruffini, Engage Playbook

These trends alone don’t discount the progress that’s been made. We’ve gone from a day when eyes glaze over at the mention of “blog” to an era where bloggers are invited to meet with the President, from a time when the wrong wording of a policy message would get a volunteer banned from commenting to a time when open comments rule.

However, opportunities to better communicate, engage and raise money are often misunderstood or taken to the extreme. Balance, measurement and common sense go a long way anywhere, anytime. I’d hate to see progress in online politics corrupted by a non-sensical approach to our brave new world.