In case study fashion, the experts examine how Facebook ads played a pivotal role in the 2016 election. Listen to learn how the tactics used in the bid for the White House are directly applicable to all brands, and how you can use Facebook ads to gain “votes” for people to read your content, opt-in to your Lead Magnet, or buy your product.
IN THIS EPISODE YOU’LL LEARN:
- The Facebook advertising strategy that impacted and informed voters and ultimately led to over $250 million in fundraising.
- How the 80/20 principle was used to change the course of the election and how it can be applied in your campaigns.
- The capability Facebook lends to advertisers that had a profound effect on the election and how every business, no matter the industry or budget, can do the same.
LINKS AND RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE:
Dominate Web Media’s Facebook Ads Specialist Certification
Episode 43: Ryan Deiss Shares 4 Steps to Crafting and Optimizing the Perfect Offer
Episode 72: How DigitalMarketer Generated 500% ROI in 3 Days Using Facebook Messenger
Episode 74: $30k in 3 Months with Push Notifications
Inside the Trump Bunker, With Days to Go
How the Trump Campaign Built an Identity Database and Used Facebook Ads to Win the Election
Here’s How Facebook Actually Won Trump the Presidency
The 80/20 Rule in Business
Episode 75 Transcript (swipe the PDF version here):
| Keith Krance: | Hello, and welcome back to Perpetual Traffic, Episode Number 75. Today, we’re going to talk about how the United States presidential election was affected by digital advertising, specifically, Facebook advertising and how you can take some very important lessons out of this campaign.
|
| Ralph Burns: | Yeah.
|
| Keith Krance: | We’re here to talk political. That’s what we are here for today. Let’s talk politics.
|
| Ralph Burns: | Boo.
|
| Molly Pittman: | Boo.
|
| Ralph Burns: | No politics.
|
| Molly Pittman: | I think it’s an interesting subject because people will want to run away because we’re talking about the election, but we’re really not talking about the election. The election is something that affected everyone, that everyone saw happen so it’s a common ground that we can all understand. I think as marketers, there’s so much we can take out of this and learn from this, especially when it comes to Facebook advertising.
This episode is not about the election. It’s about really the marketing that went into really swaying votes for a very important thing, our president. I think this will be a good one.
|
| Ralph Burns: | This is directly applicable to how you can sway votes for people to opt into your Lead Magnet or buy your product, or read your content. That’s what this episode is about. It’s not about the election, as Molly said, but the important lessons that we can come away from this and what you can carry from it. Plus, it’s a fascinating case study of how you really use the 80/20 principle to really change the course of the election with Facebook being front and center at the most pivotal time, leading up to that day in November, that Tuesday in November.
This should be a good one.
|
| Keith Krance: | Whether you like either candidate, or despise both candidates, take these lessons and how you can implement them in your business. We’ll link to some articles that have been written about this stuff, specifically we’re going to be talking a lot about Brad Parscale, the digital director of the Trump campaign. Brad Parscale, just those of you that are consultants, have small agencies, web design firms, just so you know, if you go back a few years he had a local web design company in San Antonio, Texas.
Through a connection over connections, at an event somebody had lined up a call with somebody on the Trump team to do a web design for one of the Trump hotels. That led into a relationship which eventually led into getting an $8 million contract to run the digital campaign. That alone right there shows you that if you continue to learn this stuff, and you build relationships, you show up at events like Traffic & Conversion, and you connect with people, you never know what can happen.
|
| Ralph Burns: | One of the interesting things about Brad Parscale, I’m trying to pronounce his name correctly, is that he really hustled to get to this point. If you’re a consultant or an agency that’s maybe growing, or you’re looking to do any kind of consulting agency type of work, like we do here in the agency and Molly actually does full time with running ads for digital marketers, that he hustled to get where he is right now.
He’s a young guy. One of the great stories is how he actually got some of his early customers, is that he would go into, I think it was a Barnes & Noble or a bookstore and tap people on the shoulder who are reading books about how to build websites. Then he’d give them his card and said, “Give me a call sometime.”
|
| Molly Pittman: | That’s so smart.
|
| Ralph Burns: | It’s unbelievable. I read that, I was like, “That is so smart.” Stuff like that, thinking outside of the box, I think the guy obviously has tremendous creativity and tremendous smarts. Let’s set the whole political thing aside, where he stands and where you stand as a listener of this podcast, you’ve got to respect that. He definitely worked his contacts in order to get that very first job with the Trumps. I believe the reason why he got that first job, Keith and Molly, was because everyone else was betting $10,000, $20,000 to build a website. He came in with a super cheap quote, because it was just one guy doing it.
They immediately took him and he did a great job. Here he is running so much of the advertising that affected the future of this country.
|
| Keith Krance: | I actually talk about that in a video that we have, talking about our life certification event in February. We mentioned on the last episode, dominatewebmedia.com/2017 and talk about how Ralph’s journey, my journey, as well as Brad’s and how one connection can change the game forever for you. He was hustling until one connection and now he has this massive authority and connection and his life will never be the same.
Now, a few different articles we will link to, but number one, here’s a quote from Medium.com, “Mostly Trump harnessed his digital operation for good to identify his supporters and to raise money, ultimately collecting a dominant $275 million in donations through Facebook.” A quote from Brad, “Our biggest incubator that allowed us to generate that money was Facebook. Facebook and Twitter were the reason we won this thing. Twitter for Mr. Trump and Facebook for fundraising.”
|
| “The biggest takeaway was using digital in a digital-first way,” says Matt Lira, a Republican digital strategist and senior adviser to the House Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy. It was the main course, it wasn’t leftovers. That lesson right there is so important. They took Facebook ads. You can be so much more nimble. The targeting is amazing. They can start to use the 80/20 principle which we’re going to talk about here. They used that first.
They generated the bulk of their money using Facebook ads, and the combined that with having just massive amounts of data. Don’t get me wrong, they partnered with an amazing company called Cambridge Analytica, which is a data science firm. They were able to leverage Cambridge Analytica for all this voter history and data, and they worked as a team.
|
|
| We can do the same thing. We can still leverage a lot of the data that we have access to, basically just using the same strategies that we use every single day, custom audiences and lookalike audiences. There are articles out here talking about all this data that they get from Facebook and they use these companies called Data Logic, Epsilon, and Inspiron to get all this data. We’re like, “Guys, that’s called a partner category inside the Facebook targeting.” They took it away about a year-and-a-half ago or so. Now it just shows that the data we get access to, as far as income and all that kind of stuff.
It’s funny. Some of these articles make it sound like they had all this extra data. They didn’t when it comes to the Facebook ads. You guys have just as much as they did.
|
|
| Ralph Burns: | Those big data companies, if you are a company and you want to use that data to create a mailing list, or an email list, or a call list for your sales people, you’d end up paying tens of millions of dollars for that kind of data. Whereas it’s integrated seamlessly inside the Facebook ads platform. This is the kind of stuff that they are using in this campaign here. Now it’s a blessing and curse. If you use it too much and overlay too much of your audiences and make it too narrow, the algorithm actually works against you.
In the case of here was Brad and his team, and they worked it flawlessly by identifying a specific state to really swing the vote at just the right time.
|
| Keith Krance: | Listen to this sound bite of this clip with Brad Parscale, talking about the strategy that they used. You have the right strategy and you’ve leveraged the 80/20 principle and you’ve combined that with this amazing platform, like Facebook advertising, and you can completely change the game, dominate your competition and stand out from a very, very noisy crowd. Listen to this:
|
| Rachel Martin: | In the months leading up to the election, Parscale, who has a background in web marketing and branding, quietly led a 100-person team out of San Antonio, Texas. They drew on surveys, polling and daily election simulation models to carry out an unconventional and highly targeted digital campaign that critics early on rode off as amateurish and comically bad. Parscale stayed the course.
|
| Brad Parscale: | We never fought for the popular vote. There was no economic reason and there was no reason based off the system of our constitution to do so. We needed to win 270, and to do so we needed to win in certain states and we needed target registered voters that had a low propensity to vote and a propensity to vote for Donald Trump if they come.
|
| Rachel Martin: | These days Pascale works out of Trump Tower. We called him up recently to ask how his digital ground game took Trump to the finish line.
|
| Brad Parscale: | I always thought we had a much better chance to win than everyone. I think the real decision were what was voter turnout going to look like, and exactly how many of those undecided and third party candidates would come back home. At the end the third party candidates would not come home to Hillary. They came out way. I think that was the significantly why polls were so wrong.
The second thing was voter turnout.
|
| Rachel Martin: | Lower turnout, yeah.
|
| Brad Parscale: | Yeah. All modeling that almost all polling’s based off of a previous expectation of voter turnout that somehow it’s going to look like before, where poll asks questions, then we’re going to know what’s going to happen in the future. The problem is if the same people don’t show up then all that means nothing. We created models that look in all different directions. By the last few days, I was seeing we were going to win way over 300 electoral votes.
|
| Rachel Martin: | You mapped out one way to win, and this was it.
|
| Brad Parscale: | I think that is the way to win an election. You get 270. I think the argument was, which states would most likely want to do that. At the end, I felt that was Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire. I knew that out of that I had three or four different paths to victory.
By the week of, I knew that Rust Belt was going to be the easier one to win. I was moving targeted money around. This is the advantage of, I didn’t have to go get 12 steps of approval. I had to get one from Mr. Trump. We can move whole budget around from mail, phones, TV, digital, everything within a couple of hours.
|
| Keith Krance: | I hope you got some very, very important points there. I’m going to read back just a couple important points that I want to sink in a little bit. He said, “We never fought for the popular vote. There was no economical reason and no reason based off the system of our constitution to do so. We needed 270 to win and to do so we needed to target certain states and we needed to target registered voters who had a low propensity to vote,” and how many of those undecided or third party candidates would either go back to Hillary or come Trump’s way.
The question, which states would most likely get them to 270. They ended up being 10 states out of the 50, 20% of the 50 states that were their top 20%. Then, at the end, they found that Rust Belt would be the easiest one to win. The Rust Belt basically begins in New York and travels to the west through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and lower peninsula of Michigan, ending in Northern Illinois, Iowa, Southeastern Wisconsin, and then parts of New England. That’s the Rust Belt for those of you that don’t know what that is in the United States.
|
| This is classic 80/20. We’re also going to link to a great article by Perry Marshall, where he talks about the 80/20. 80/20 says, “80% of your results come from 20% of your efforts. 20% of your results come from the other 80%.” 80/20 is true of almost anything you can measure in a business, incoming phone calls affecting the sales people, sales to customers, physical location of customers, popularity of products, types of product affect problem employees. Sales numbers within your organization, advertising weighs to advertising effectiveness, productivity, et cetera. The list goes on and on and on.
The key to understanding it, which is what they did and you can do this too in your marketing, in your targeting, in your sales reach-out, in your structuring of your team. There are a couple of points in this article that I want to highlight here. Number one is that 80/20 says that if you have 10 rooms in your house, you spend almost all your time in two or three of them. It also says if you hire 10 sales people, two will generate 80% of the sales and the other eight will only generate 20% of the sales.
|
|
| That means that person for person, the two, those top two, are 16 times as effective as the other eight sales people. That’s right. A good sales person isn’t 50% better. He or she is 16 times better. That means there’s a huge leverage in 80/20, much to be gained if you pay attention and much to lose if you don’t. Perry takes it deeper. That’s why I like this article.
80/20 in general to the first power is 16:1, but 80/20 to the second is 250:1, and all the way up to 80/20 to the fifth is 1,000,000:1. You can read this article to understand a little bit deeper. The point is if you take the top 20%, like in this case, Brad’s case, they talk about the top 10 states, and then they dug down into that. Out of those top 10, they wanted to figure out the best 20% of those. They did that as well.
|
|
| Then they dug deeper. Then they said, “Hey, we can be nimble,” and they were nimble. You listening to this podcast, most of you have the ability to be quick, to make changes on the fly, instead of having to wait for a bureaucracy and wait two or three days or two weeks, or whatever. You want to be always taking action and then letting the data tell you what wins.
They were using some third party data, of course, with their analytics teams. Then they were taking their digital marketing, as well as their TV and everything else they were doing, and they were digging hard into specific areas. How can you do this, Ralph? We’ve been doing this a lot lately with some of the agency clients, where in the past using tools like Wicked Reports and some great tools that measure ROI. In the past where people might turn off an ad set, or targeting group, because the cost per conversion is too high, but now digging deep they found that sometimes what happens?
|
|
| Ralph Burns: | The most expensive ads are the ones that are producing the best ROI, or the ones that don’t look quite as good upfront if you look at how people buy products later on down the line, after they might have your first transaction. That might be an opt-in, that then eventually buys one of your low end products. Then they might buy a couple of different core products. We’ve just found that looking at the whole picture, taking a step back and saying, “Hey, this ad set or this ad that doesn’t seem to be doing quite as good as the others on the surface, let’s look at seven days, fourteen days, thirty days. How is that actually ROI-ing?”
Through using third party tracking software like Wicked Reports we’re able to get that visibility, to be able to get a better result for the customer, which is really what we’re all after.
|
| Keith Krance: | Then you might find that say there’s a specific audience that you’re starting to find that maybe is producing more ROI, or you know that this audience might cost more but you know that there’s a lot of people that might buy a ticket to an event. Let’s say we want to implement Facebook messaging ads, which we talked about on Episode Number 72 of the podcast. However we might not have a huge sales team, so we’re like, “Oh man, we don’t want to be inundated with all these messages, and we can’t keep up.”
Well, what audiences do we have? Which customer audiences or which target audiences have we seen in the past produced the most higher-end sales. If you’re able to track that and start to pay attention to that, then let’s just run three targeting groups and it’s going to be only those targeting groups that we know that we can put our entire sales team on because they’re going to be generating an 80% better return than all of the other groups with 20% of the efforts.
|
| This is what they did. Back to the election, they didn’t care about the popular vote. They focused on those ultimate battleground states and then within those battleground states, they focused even harder on the ones they knew that they could shift voter behavior. They did that with positive ads. They did that with negative ads. Then, of course, they used Facebook advertising.
Let me repeat that number at the beginning. They generated according to these articles $250 million to $275 million in fundraising funds, using Facebook ads.
|
|
| Molly Pittman: | Most politicians, the ads that you’re seeing from politicians, whether they’re on the TV, direct mail, on Facebook, it’s either, “This is why I’m good, or this is why this person is bad.” Did you see any other strategies that were being used beyond what we traditionally see from a messaging standpoint?
|
| Keith Krance: | Lots of animated video ads and Facebook quizzes. Brad had mentioned that they used Facebook’s brand lift survey capabilities to measure the success of the ads. That’s one of our reporting metrics we can use with Facebook. I think for a lot of the smaller businesses, that might be not as effective but for a big brand campaign like this, they were able to use this to help measure. They used a lot of animated videos. They used animated video ads to run negative campaigns, taking some quotes that Hillary has made that might offend certain ethnic groups and certain categories of people, and they would run those as animated videos to try to keep people from coming in.
Then they would run animated video ads that were more positive. I guess they ran a lot of Facebook quizzes and they were able to generate a lot of data from that as well. Now we talk about video on this podcast a ton, a ton, a ton. It was really, I think, a combination of a lot of branding and combined with images with calls to action to go vote, or to go donate money.
|
| Now, they also mentioned that on any given day they were running 40 to 50,000 variants of their ads, their creatives, ad copy and images. They said in the day of the third debate, they ran 175,000 variations. They’re using software, I don’t know what software, enterprise level software they’re using to do this and how much of an impact that made, having those different types of split test with Facebook.
The general strategy that they used honestly was, I think, the biggest game changer, juts putting so much more focus on Facebook ads, and using Facebook quizzes and engaging type of ads and video ads and just doing that alone, as I think the bigger game changer here to take away from and tapping into all of the lists. They partnered with a company, Cambridge Analytica, a data science firm, as well as the Republican National Committee. Because of that they were able to get all these names. They uploaded all these names in the Facebook and they just created custom audiences and lookalike audiences.
|
|
| That sounds familiar, right? We talk about it all the time in this podcast and in our webinars. Don’t try to get too deep into the weeds here on the split testing and some of the unique specifics here. I think the key is to always be executing as quickly as possible and then analyzing continuously. A lot of times we get a lot of questions in our Facebook groups, “Should I use this audience size? Should I try this? Should I use this image? What do you think of this?”
What’s the answer we always give people?
|
|
| Molly Pittman: | Give it a shot.
|
| Keith Krance: | It means try it. Try it and see what happens. Let the data tell you. |
| Ralph Burns: | Test it.
|
| Molly Pittman: | Test it.
|
| Keith Krance: | Let the data tell you. Don’t be afraid. Think about Facebook, this is a testing ground. You don’t want to go into expectations that your first $50 spent on a brand new campaign has to generate $60 back or else it’s a failure. No. Think about that as data that you’re collecting.
|
| Ralph Burns: | Super important though because if you look back at some of the articles that were written prior to the ones that were written right after the election, where it really congratulates Parscale on what he did because he was so brilliant. If you look at the articles, you go back six to nine months, people are just making fun of him because he doesn’t know what he’s doing, or so they say. I don’t really know if he did, or he didn’t.
The point was that, yes, he had large budgets to be able to spend on social media advertising, Facebook primarily, and he figured out over time. One of the things that he definitely did do is they raised a hell of a lot of money. They did it primarily through Facebook. Not only that but think about the power that we know is inside Facebook. When you actually get someone’s email address and their name and let alone their credit card information, somebody who you get their credit card information from, they buy or they purchase or in this case they contribute, those are probably people that you want to make lookalike audiences from. You want to make lookalike audiences from those people that you’ve gotten their name and email address. They created this massive database while they were fundraising, prior to this last second push. From a lot of the data and a lot of the articles that we’ve read here, it seemed like you really did focus in on that 80/20 principle like you’re talking about, Keith, but it was like 80/20 on steroids. It was the next level, almost 95/5 in a lot of ways.
|
| Keith Krance: | That’s exactly what the article talks about. It’s why you want to read it.
|
| Ralph Burns: | You definitely do. He identified, it says here, about 13.5 million voters in 16 battleground states that they considered on the fence or persuadable. Maybe they would come out, maybe they wouldn’t. If they did come out and vote, then they would probably vote for Trump. Chances are they probably wouldn’t actually come out. These are people that would stay home. They focused their efforts on those groups in these 16 battleground states.
From a lot of the articles, it was a lot of ethnic-specific targeting to a video ad that spoke specifically to that ethnicity. In this case it was African Americans in lots of different counties in those 16 battleground states. There are 200 million registered voters in the US. There are about 325 million people in the US. Out of 200 million registered voters, they really focused on just 13 million. That’s really the 5% that they felt could really be the little hinge that swings that big door. Those were in urban areas, from what we can gather here, in the Rust Belt like what Keith said, and really speaking directly to them so that they were probably historically or maybe through past models, they had been Obama supporters or President Obama supporters maybe in the previous two elections, but for whatever reason, they swung the other way.
|
| Keith Krance: | Or they just didn’t show up.
|
| Ralph Burns: | Precisely, they stayed home whereas in previous years they had. They were so disgusted, they stayed home. A calculated risk, for sure, but he really focused on those areas. It seems like from about October 24th forward, that’s when this push really happened.
I never saw any Trump ads in my newsfeed, but they probably wouldn’t target me specifically. All I saw was big media buys on TV. I’m like, “I wonder what’s going on here. Are they doing other advertisements?” They really did focus on that little hinge, that demographic that they felt they could switch. That’s what you can do with Facebook ads.
|
| Keith Krance: | I hardly saw any either and I’m in Washington. Washington is just a blue state.
|
| Molly Pittman: | To make an even broader point, it’s the type of medium. When you’re buying TV commercials, or you’re buying radio spots, that type of media buying requires planning. It’s not as agile. You can’t change the messaging as easily or change your plans, whatever it is, about the campaign. It’s not as easy to change it at the drop of a hat. I think this goes to show how awesome social media advertising can be when you really need to be agile.
Again, political feelings aside, there was obviously one side of this that was very agile. Based off of whatever was happening and whatever the poles said for the day, there was the flexibility there to change the budgets, to change the targeting and to shift. I think it’s a big message for anyone out there, business owners, politicians, but really anyone who needs to influence people which we hope is done in a good way. If you need to influence, you want to persuade someone, really these social media platforms, in my opinion, are the best place to do so.
|
| Ralph Burns: | Absolutely. You can place them. It says, “He placed two million in ad buys from his laptop.” Maybe he called Trump himself and said, “Hey, I’m thinking about doing a two-million-dollar media buy in the next week or so. Is it okay?” He said, “Sure.” He went over to the ads manager or power editor, or whatever third party software he’s using, and placed the ads. It’s not weeks and weeks in advance for a media buy for NBC national, or for local cable.
This sort of stuff you can do it in real time, just like any small business owner can on the Facebook platform which makes you completely nimble and completely agile.
|
| Keith Krance: | If you’re an evergreen-type of business, then that means that when you get it right and you dial it in, absolutely go into bigger media, go into radio and TV and test those markets, especially when you’ve already proved it with digital. Then especially when it comes to outreach and stuff like that.
The big takeaway I always try to do is how can we learn something in every situation. How can I learn from mistakes I’ve made in the past, campaigns that we’ve botched in the past, products, whatever it is. That’s what I want you to take away here as well. I’m sure a lot of people are scrambling right now, trying to figure out what they did. It really comes down to just executing and understanding, being on the cutting edge. That’s it. They’re on the cutting edge of technology. They’ve got a lot of successful companies and I’m sure that’s where a lot of this stemmed from initially, was having people on the front lines with some of their other companies.
|
| Molly Pittman: | They created messaging that spoke to certain groups of people. Trump had his overall message but creating these specific ads that really spoke to particular groups of people, that’s what we teach. That’s so smart. He was able to resonate with people because he specifically spoke to them and through targeting they were able to get that message in front of the right people.
|
| Keith Krance: | One thing that we learned from Roy H. Williams from the Wizard of Ads, we’ve mentioned that book on this podcast, and Molly and Ryan Deiss were just there doing an in-session, one of the smartest guys I’ve ever met on this planet. Williams talks a lot about, in your messaging and everything you do and the best advertising campaigns that they’ve run, everything that you try to do is how can you make your messaging action, how can you use verbs, specifically if you can, present tense, action words.
Think about Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.” That is a verb. What was the other side? What was Hillary’s? “Stronger Together.” That is a passive message. Using too many adjectives and passive voice is a subconscious thing that does not persuade people. “Make America Great Again” is an action. That’s what works. Watch any well-scripted TV show series, movie, and if you listen closely they are in most cases using active verbs and they’re using the active present tense voice.
|
| That’s what Trump did all throughout his messaging. That made a huge impact as well, which is a much higher level picture of the entire thing. If you can just take some of this into consideration, how can you have a much more compelling message and how can you just not be afraid to go jump in and execute some of the cutting edge stuff, even if it feels like it’s too complex. Get in there and do it. As soon as you do, after a few weeks and after falling over a few times, you’re going to start to understand it.
It’s like getting into the power editor in Facebook for the very first time. It feels like you’re trying to read a foreign language. Then, after a while, all of a sudden it just makes sense and then you get to start to go digging into more complex and fun strategies that produce a lot more leads, sales, customers and goodwill along the way. Right? |
|
| Ralph Burns: | Yeah. I think there really is a huge messaging play with this. Ryan touched on this really well on Episode 43. Definitely go back and listen to that on messaging and your hook. I think the Clinton campaign really struggled with what their message was going to be. There was a great article in The New York Times that talked about this, that there was a lot of infighting as far as what that message was going to be because it was not definitive.
That ultimately led to, or ended on, “Stronger Together” but the first two was like, “I’m with Her,” “Fighting for Us,” “Breaking Down Barriers,” all these passive voice like Keith talked about. A clear voice was really lacking in her slogan. Say what you will about the “Make America Great Again,” it is a very good slogan. It’s a solid slogan because it tells you Trump alone is going to make America great again, and more specifically, he said he could do it. It’s a call to action which is the big part to it. It’s like a rallying cry. It’s like Nike’s, “Just Do It.”
|
| It isn’t great right now but it will be, so come on this mission, this journey with me and I will make America great again. I think that’s an overall messaging part of things, where I think the Clinton campaign really missed the mark from an advertising perspective, which you as an advertiser, you have to get your hook and your message right. You have to talk to your audience in a certain way so that they commit and they engage with you, whatever it is that you want. Whether it’s a name in an email address or whether it’s to engage in your content, or purchase your product, messaging is the same thing.
This spoke to the heart of America and hit that chord. They nailed it with their slogan without a doubt. Then with all the other digital advertising they did at the last minute, as well as all the good will they had brought together through Facebook, through the last year prior to the election. It’s the reason why the election swung his way, was everything together.
|
|
| Keith Krance: | Yep. I hope you can take some nuggets away from this. Take one or two things and see if you can take that and execute something to either inspire you or to make your messaging, your targeting or your overall strategies more effective.
To get access to everything we touched on, all the articles that we talked about, go to digitalmarketer.com/podcast. This is Episode 75.
|
| Ralph Burns: | Yeah.
|
| Keith Krance: | Guys, fun stuff here. Anything we left out?
|
| Molly Pittman: | No, go do it.
|
| Ralph Burns: | Good, good.
|
| Keith Krance: | Once again, we love talking to you all and we’ll talk to you next week.
|
| Ralph Burns: | See you.
|
| Molly Pittman: | Bye.
|
Thanks so much for joining us this week. Want to subscribe to Perpetual Traffic? Have some feedback you’d like to share? Connect with us on iTunes!
iTunes not your thing? Find us on Stitcher or at DigitalMarketer.com/podcast.
![[INSANE Case Study] How to Spend LESS & Make MORE on Meta & Google](https://perpetualtraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/646-768x768.png)
