(UPDATE: The Obama campaign is claiming that Anthony changed the password and froze them out of the MySpace site, starting all this. Interesting. If so, it alters the moral equation, but the fact that we’re seeing this neener-neener he said-he said play out in public is still shockingly dumb…)
(UPDATE2 – Not so fast, says Micah at techpresident:
As for [Obama staffer] Joe Rospars lengthy post on “Our MySpace Experiment,” you can read the whole thing for yourself. Most of it tracks with my own reporting on how the relationship between Anthony and the Obama new media team started out, all the way up through their initial discussions with him about possibly coming on board and working out an understanding for shared management of the site.
But what strikes me as odd about it is Rospars’ claim that Anthony’s “list of itemized financial requests” came unbidden, after the workload on the page exploded and Anthony cut off the campaign’s password access to the site. Rospars would have you believe that Anthony was in effect extorting the campaign by witholding access, but my notes of my conversations with Obama staff, which were “on background” make clear that Anthony only produced that proposal (the $39,000 plus the $10,000 for possible advertising spending by the campaign on MySpace) at the request of [Obama staffer] Chris Hughes.
This whole matter – whatever the facts – is really being handled mind-numbingly badly.)
(UPDATE 3: Dean campaign netroots pioneer and Obama activist Zephyr Teachout chimes in… check the bottom of the article, as I’m running out of update room on top.)
Okay, if you haven’t heard, here’s the story.
An Obamaphile named Joe Anthony creates an Obama MySpace fansite in 2004. Over the years, he’s done the whole social networking thing, including staying up long hours, making connections and building the Obama buzz. The site has been a roaring success – a model, even, of how to use such social networking sites for political causes.
As the Obama campaign ramped up, so did the workload. The Obama campaign forged a relationship with the guy and they seemed to have a good working connection – they’d let him know about errors that he’d correct, and so forth – and the list of connected “friends” to the Obama site ballooned to a mammoth 140,000 – particularly after MySpace started highlighting political sites.
So in March, the relationship went sour in a big way about the time Obama brings political veteran Scott Goodstein into the fray to run the online social networking (more on him in a moment). Anthony says he is getting worn out keeping up the site, which is turning into a serious committment, and emails the campaign asking to be compensated. The O campaign decides it wants hands-on control and discusses options – including bringing Anthony on in a paid capacity. Eventually they decide to approach the guy and – this is key – ask him to make an offer to compensate him for his work to turn it all over, lock stock and barrel.
(Continued below the fold…)
Anthony admits he had no idea what would be an appropriate amount (and how could he , in a sense…. this is uncharted territory). He also admits to being sick of a campaign that he felt was now “bullying” him, and even harassing him by such things as setting up inconveniently scheduled phone meetings with him and routinely canceling at the last minute, and other such petty things that seemed all but intended to make him feel belittled and dismissed. He makes it clear that, after this treatment, he felt a right to compensation out of principle.
After considering his time since 2004, he came back with a number of about $39,000 as well as a share of any fees paid to MySpace up to that time up to a max of $10,000. (from his MySpace blog:)
(Obama staffer and facebook.com founder) Chris (Hughes) suggested a one-time fee to transfer over the profile to them and that they discussed this with Myspace and they were agreeable with any arrangement we could work out. He did not suggest how much, or what sort of a fee. He did say that he needed it by the next morning so we scheduled another meeting and I stayed up all night working on a proposal that I thought would be fair to everyone. This was a positive conversation and he seemed sincere enough.
That meeting finally happened yesterday. It was clear at that time that there was no “one-time fee”. I felt like it was a bit of a setup so that they could have a reason to take the profile without my consent.
I was accused of using this profile for commercial purposes. I was threatened that I would be responsible if the profile was deleted (they even followed up via email to be sure I knew it was my fault!) The conversation really was about them taking control of the profile. There was no counter offer, or anything to suggest that they had any intention of paying me anything at all.
At this point there was no way I would turn this community over to them and would rather keep it as an unofficial site and keep doing what I’ve been doing. I expressed this, and they said that if I did not turn the profile over to them immediately, they would delete it and all of my hard work would go to waste. They reiterated this several times, and repeated “You are the one making the decision to kill this profile”. In fact, I responded each time, that I have no plans to delete this profile, and that decision would be between them and Myspace. (I even added that he sounded like Bush telling congress/senate it was their decision not to fund the troops. How hypocritical is this!)
Finally, Chris from the campaign emailed me, indicating that Myspace needed my consent to give them access to the profile. I replied that Mypace did not have my consent to grant access to the profile to anyone.
An hour or so later, I was blocked from the profile and the content was altered to redirect traffic to the new, “Official” profile. Myspace has in fact granted access to the profile without my permission.
So, it’s a mess. The Obama campaign is apparently actively calling this guy a cybersquatter and telling folks he’s only in it for the money. For my part, I’m not entirely sure whether the number Anthony proposes was appropriate or not – but that very uncertainty suggests the need for negotiation and a considered response, rather than dropping the boom and trying to smear the guy – and make no mistake, the guy is getting trashed online by Obama supporters using words like “blackmail” and “extortion.”
Techpresident.com has the focal piece on it, and their assessment seems reasoned and reasonable:
Indeed, it appears the Obama internet team was shocked by the size of Anthony’s proposal and argued to themselves that it was proof that he was just in it for the money, even though campaigns like theirs regularly give tens of thousands of dollars to highpriced media consultants who would give their eye-teeth to deliver 160,000 rabid activists to a campaign. Instead to them, Anthony’s bid was all the more reason to get control of the site. Obama’s staffers are now spreading the word that Anthony wanted a big payday, including a huge percentage of any ad buys on MySpace. I have a copy of Anthony’s email proposal, however, and it contradicts that claim.
Of course, no one really knows how to value the creation of a popular political website with tens of thousands of members. Big sites like Flickr.com and Weblogs.com have earned their owners somewhere between $20 and $40 per member. Care2, the massive progressive email list vendor, charges about $1 per email address that they generate for a campaign. But it would be silly to suggest that Anthony generated 160,000 MySpace friends for Obama on his own–if he wasn’t plugging a very charismatic candidate like Obama he’d never have grown such a large site.
Whatever the case, at this point it appears the Obama people simply decided that they would get control of the myspace.com/barackobama url by going around Anthony and getting MySpace to lock down his access to it.
Which is where we’re at.
Now look, where I can’t help but have sympathy with the Obama campaign when I read how the stink developed – and I have no idea what financial offer they were expecting (although $39,000-$49,000 clearly was more than they were bargaining on), I find their handling of the relationship with Anthony (short of any new revelations that alter the picture) both morally appalling and mind-numbingly stupid.
Let’s start with the “stupid” part, eh? Why do I say it’s stupid? Because of posts like this that are filling up the internetz today (from Anthony’s blog again):
This was just WRONG, the man lost my vote.
Posted by Guze on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 at 9:52 AM
[Reply to this]
This is about as rotten as it gets. The story of your plight just hit Slashdot, so every tech-minded person in America should know about the “MyTheft” shortly.
Posted by Jason on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 at 10:04 AM
[Reply to this]
This is really disappointing; it’s unfair and un-American on so many different levels that it’s hard to quantify.
Things like this will definitely have an impact on deciding my primary voting and where my support goes; whether that be as a campaigner or a contributor.
Ultimately I’m left wondering if this will blossum into a defining moment for the Obama campiagn- the day Obama broke the ‘Netroots’ back.
Keep up the good work; and sorry about the crappy treatment from Barak Obama.
Posted by Skip on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 at 10:08 AM
[Reply to this]
Why, oh why did supposedly net-saavy staffers like Goodstein and Hughes not think this would happen? And it’s only getting worse. The fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the internet – both in how netroots activists should be treated (and the potentially national consequences of treating them poorly) and the impossibility of controlling web hubbub with traditional spin – makes the mind boggle. Obama’s net campaign is often compared with Dean’s – but this incident shows how far behind the Dean perspective Obama’s people really are. Early on, the Dean crowd realized there was no controlling a lot of that independent, spontaneous energy circulating among the netroots, so they wisely went with that and tried to harness, support, and by supporting steer (to an extent) that energy – but with the understanding that they could only steer it to a very limited degree. This attempt at old school command-and-control of a key – possibly even critical netroots blossom shows that Obama’s net folks do not understand the medium and its participants the way the Dean crowd did – meaning this could be only the first big screw up of its kind.
But, barring any changes to what looks like a fairly consistent picture – this was clearly a pretty crappy way to handle Anthony, and trashing him after the fact just seems sleazy. The truth is it’s not too hard for me to imagine that Anthony may have been feeling bullied by Goodstein because… well… Scott can be that way.
Scott Goodstein has a history in Vermont. Back in the late 90’s, he helped out as a fundraising consultant for the Vermont Democratic House Campaign, and when I was brought on board, he was hired to work on the first “David W. Curtis leadership Awards.” I always liked the guy, even though he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, precisely because he was hardcore. He put the hard, hard sell on people to ante up and contribute. The guy was relentless.
He popped back up in the area running Jan Backus’ unsuccessful primary campaign against Ed Flanagan for the privilege of getting trounced by Senator Jeffords in 2000. It was here that he really started annoying the crap out of people – even folks who were his friends. He was playing the role of pushy, aggressive politico-guy to an almost caricatured degree, including by having his lieutenant persistently and inappropriately calling me at home at all hours to try to strong arm me into giving his candidate unfair and unethical special access to the Party’s database which I guarded like it was my child. As mad as I would get, I was a paid hack at the time, and I suppose it came with the territory. If Anthony – who is simply an idealistic, and probably naive volunteer – got a piece of that… er… interpersonal styling, it’s not a wonder he got mad.
In any event, the issue is metastasizing across the internet. It may soon behoove the big O himself to step in and calm some ruffled feathers, as well as rein in some of his more aggressive operatives, lest his operation start to lose wavering onlookers to the Edwards campaign, which has become their netroots rival…
UPDATE 3 continued… Zephyr Teachout from a comment at techpresident:
The vast majority of our centers of gravity we communicated with, but did not try to control…
…I think a similar approach could have worked with the Obama campaign’s approach to Joe A.–figure out if they could give Joe what he wanted–and it sounds like they started down that path and then, inexplicably, stopped. If it is true that they asked him for an offer (and Joe Rospars’ blog post doesn’t contradict this), then why didn’t they counter offer?
One thing his post reveals is that the Obama campaign had chosen a different general strategic approach than the Dean campaign did–one that would have our lawyers, among others, quaking in their boots. They had decided to create management/agent relationships with this particular center of gravity–the campaign had login access and control over content (at least for a while) and it basically, if gently, perceived itself as the agent finally responsible for the content.
Our lawyers advice was based on fear of FEC problems, but it turned out to be generally sound for grassroots relationships in general: for each relationship, choose whether it is one of absolute control, or no control. THAT won’t confuse the press and people writing–at first, perhaps, but they will learn. When in doubt, no control is better, just as it is in friendships–your friends will do everything they can to represent you well and be your supporter, until you start telling them what to say about you.
I hope this episode is a lesson for the Obama campaign, but also others – a reminder that having grassroots support means autonomous individuals who do not just work, but speak.
Check the link and scroll down for her comment. There’s more to it, and it’s an interesting read.
UPDATE 4: Why, god, why is Rospas still out there trashing this guy (go here and scroll down to the second comment)??? Don’t they realize how bad that looks? How it feeds the poor beset upon, David-v-Goliath narrative that is blossoming. Or even apart from that, how utterly classless and tacky it looks. They screwed up by letting this get out, now it’s time to cut losses by rising above it and taking the high road. By continuing the “let’s call this guy an extortionist every chance we get” approach, they drag it out in an unseemly manner, when Obama is the only one with anything to lose, at this point. Bizarre and mindless – and these guys are supposed to be political pros?
It gets easier to understand Dem campaign screw-ups, doesn’t it?