The 2012 US election is being called the closest race for 50 years – and, like any election fought on the media stage, the final result may just come down to a question of publicity. Each candidates public image has seen plenty of ups and downs over the last few months of campaigning, and much of that comes down to how good their marketing was.

TV is said to have made a president in 1960, when the young, telegenic JFK showed up his radio-faced, old-school counterpart, Richard Nixon. It was a perfect example of a disruptive new technology, but mobile hasnt decided this election.

For now, it seems the tube is still the place where political ad dollars are splurged – 1m political ads have been screened over the campaign, which would take 352 days to watch end-to-end. Overall, Obamas campaign claims to have reached 126m voters, almost half of those eligible to vote in the US, versus the 50m contacted by Romney’s – but how much of that was on mobile? What was done, and what could have been done better?

Second screens and SMS donations

Pew found that 35 per cent of voters were using mobile to fact-check information they had heard from candidates. Google saw 47 per cent of election-related searches happening either during or immediately after the live debates. Knowing about this multiscreen behaviour, and how this can divert attention from the TV screen, would sponsored search ads and advertising displayed on sites with this information have been a wise mobile investment?

One in 75 Americans has donated to Obama’s campaign, around 4m people. According to research by Pew, mobile payments make up 10 per cent of donations. While this has probably given his team a huge opted-in database, they are no doubt already Obama supporters. Could mobile have been deployed to ensure these evangelists were recruiting others?

Pew also found that 14 per cent of all mobile-owning voters sent text messages related to the campaign to friends and family members. Only 5 per cent were signed up to receive texts from a candidate or group involved in the campaign, the same number received spam messages from candidates.

Video the Vote, a pop-up social enterprise, was asking citizen journalists to use video, likely filmed on their phones cameras, to record their experiences at the polls. Would a canny campaign have made use of this free, real-world content to personalise the experience for potential voters?

Enriching the experience

With a huge opted-in database, having already asked people to empty their pockets, a text or email could have been combined with video to deliver that personal message. Campaigners could have sent links to surveys for smartphone users to click through to, or feature phone users to fill in later. Voters want to be understood, and mobile is the perfect medium to create an engaging conversation like this.

Ahead of the 2008 election, a study found that $1.26 (£0.80) spent on a text message increased a new voter’s likelihood of going to the polls by five per cent. During that campaign, Obamas campaign team registered the 62262 shortcode (which spells Obama on a traditional phone numberpad) and encouraged mobile users to download ringtones and wallpapers.

This time around, targeted messaging was used to raise campaign funds, as shown byTelegraph blogger Willard Foxtons experiences at an Obama election event. Foxton was asked for his mobile number, and then received a text asking for a contribution afterwards – as did a young intern and middle manager, each asked for different contributions based on their income. While cross-matching data might seem a little on the stalker-side, this sounds like efficient and relevant targeting.

On the campaign trail

After the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which cast a shadow over the end of the campaign, affected voters have been allowed to use fax and email to cast their ballots. Now, where did I leave my fax machine? …Oh yes, 1990.

But if this remote voting goes smoothly, without security glitches, this could open up the possibility of mobile voting, which was favoured by 60 per cent of US smartphone and tablet owners polled by Stitch. 20 per cent of UK adults also said they were more likely to vote in our last general election if they could do so via text or a dedicated app on their phone.

Both campaigns used apps for the first time – although Pew found that only 3.6 per cent of smartphone owners had made use of one during the campaign – which could have provided the perfect opportunity to make use of time, location and loyalty.

A US ad man spoke to Mobile Marketer about his experience and said that functionality to help users find events was added by both camps very late in the day. Obama’s Mobile Club would have been a chance to build the kind of loyalty that every brand is looking for from a mobile app install. But the gains made in 2008 were not built upon in 2012.

Augmented Reality also made a couple of appearances during the campaign. Blippar turned the humble $5 bill into a campaign ad for Obama, giving users details on how to raise money and a rap track extolling the virtues of the incumbent President. Meanwhile, Zappar’s unofficial AR merchandise enabled users sporting a specially-made baseball cap to wear a virtual mask of the presidential candidates.

Social climbers

According to a Pew study, 18 per cent of smartphone owners have posted their thoughts on the election onto a social networking site using their phone, and 45 per cent have read other people’s comments.

Pew also said that the conversation on social media ‘has been relentlessly negative and relatively unmoved by campaign events that have shifted the mainstream narrative’, compared to mainstream media election coverage, with neither Obama nor Romney managing a single week where the discussion on social networks was more positive than negative.

But, among the binders full of women internet memes, organisations have tried to capture some of the power of social networking to encourage voting. Fight for the Future and Planned Parenthood, for example, launched the Vote with Friends Facebook app initiative, echoing the mobile Scrabble phenomenon Words with Friends, which enabled voters to categorise and contact Facebook friends reminding them to vote. After the election, this data will be used to measure the social network’s impact on voting patterns.

A 61m participant study published in the latest edition of the science journal, Nature, displayed an ‘I Voted’ counter at the top of Facebook’s newsfeed – one group were shown it with friends’ faces displayed and one without – with a link for more information about local polling places. Although those who did not see pictures were barely affected, a 2.2 per cent increase was found overall. 80 per cent of the study’s impact came from ‘social contagion’, users sharing messages with friends who would otherwise never have seen it. 

Have and have-nots

Like the US electorate themselves, mobile is still divided between the haves and have-nots.

Where it is used by campaigners, it is with the similar caution as brands that, despite seeing the time spent on mobile, enjoy the safety and comfort of a TV or desktop banner ad.

Where individuals are using mobile, it is to help them to take part in debate, check the facts and even contribute to the presidential race – a battle which is often closed off to those without a huge cheque to write.