Organizers Jeff Flint, left, and Frank Schubert announce victory as members of Protect Marriage.com-Yes on Proposition 8 gather at the Sacramento Hyatt Hotel in Sacramento. (Kim Komenich / The Chronicle)I found this article over at the
Lavendar Newswire (thanks, Sapphocrat!). Written by Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint (owners of the PR firm that managed the "Yes on 8" campaign), it's a comprehensive analysis of their campaign strategy and manipulation of public opinion regarding previously sanctioned civil rights for gay Californians. Or as Schubert and Flint say,
"This is the story of how conventional wisdom was stood on its head and how Proposition 8 was enacted by a 700,000-vote margin."Passing Prop 8: Smart timing and strategic messaging convinced California voters to support traditional marriage... The Early Campaign
We worked hard during this period to urge our supporters to have faith that Prop 8 could still be enacted despite what they saw on the news. We organized countless meetings and conference calls of pastors and other campaign leaders. And we restructured our online presence and delivered a stream of messages to supporters designed to keep them informed and engaged.
Define the Terms; Win the Debate
Ultimately, we raised $22 million from July through September with upwards of 40 percent coming from members of the LDS Church. Our fundraising operation also relied heavily on small contributions from some 60,000 individual donors via an extensive direct mail operation, and an extraordinarily effective online fundraising campaign. When we filed our finance report electronically with the secretary of state, it was more than 5,000 pages thick and crashed the filing system. We ultimately raised more than $5 million online, and $3 million from direct mail. Our initial television ad began airing on Sept. 29, a week after the other side began its campaign ads, and six weeks after its issue advocacy spot began airing. We knew that this initial ad needed to be a home run—and boy was it!
The Response Period
The gay community sounded the alarm by releasing to the gay media an internal poll showing them behind and telling their supporters they would lose unless more money was raised. This emergency cry for contributions was incredibly effective. Whereas they had raised $15 million in the previous nine months, they raised another $25 million in the ensuing seven weeks of the campaign. But their failure to respond to the “consequences” messages (especially the education message) in a timely fashion ultimately led to their downfall. After blanketing the state with “Whether You Like It or Not,” we focused our message on education. We ran an ad featuring a young Hispanic girl coming home from school, explaining how she had learned in class that a prince could marry another prince, and she could marry a princess! This ad was based on the actual experience in Massachusetts, the only state in the nation where gay marriage had been legalized long enough to see how it would be handled by the public school system.
The Final Push
We decided to not respond to this line of attack (equating a yes on 8 vote with racial discrimination), confident that it would backfire. The basic message that supporters of traditional marriage are bigots, guilty of discrimination, had never worked in focus groups. For liberal whites like Feinstein to lecture black Californians about discrimination was not a winning message. We brought into rotation a positive ad that reminded voters, in a non-threatening, calm way about the potential consequences to California, and especially children, if gay marriage was permanently legalized.
You owe it to yourself to read the article at
Politics Magazine. It's the definitive "autobiography" of the "Yes on 8" campaign, heralded by its PR/Campaign managers.