The internet has largely been overlooked by many of the presidential candidates. Here's why the web's reach and influence has still not convinced political marketers.

The 2008 presidential campaign has been going on now for more than a year. It is the news story each and every day. Among the regular points made about this campaign is the role of the internet.

In 2004, I was fortunate enough to play a small role in how online was used in both the presidential and several senatorial campaigns. But the story of the internet only appeared in brief flashes. There was Howard Dean's surprisingly popular, albeit briefly lived, bid for the Democratic nomination. Everyone was awed and amazed how during the second quarter of 2003, Dean raised $7.5 million, $4.1 million of which was from the web. That means that 55 percent of his funds were raised via the internet. In the first week of July, Dean's supporters got a meeting together through Meetup.com, drawing 55,000 people in 250 communities.

The thought back in 2004 was that online advertising would play a large role in the elections. But the total figure for presidential campaign online spending for 2004 was $3.06 million, or one-fifth of one percent of total presidential campaign spending for that election. And nearly all of it was against ad units that promoted fund raising.

Four years later, the story is largely the same. The only difference is the amount of money being raised and the speed with which it is being done. While Dean raised $4.1 million via the web in the second quarter of 2003, when Hilary Clinton let it be known that she donated $5 million to her campaign, the Obama campaign sent out a note saying they needed to match this. In 24 hours, people donated $8 million to Obama.

But advertising is still not there. In spite of the talk about this election and those who are being most moved by it, advertising run to "message" the candidates and their positions is largely absent.

The reasons are simple ones, even if they are not good ones:

1) The political marketing establishment is still not ready for advertising online. It isn't that campaign managers and their consultants are not aware of the internet and the role it can play in people's lives, but a lack of familiarity with it as a marketing device or its impact on the individual are similar to the doubts advertisers had about the medium in the early days. Time and exposure will erode the standing skepticism in the same way it did for consumer advertisers.

2) The general constituency is simply not prepared to see political advertising on the sites they visit regularly. During the last presidential campaign, some visitors complained when confronted by political messaging upon arriving at some sites' content. The constituency may be somewhat inured to the shrill negativity of political advertising as it is served up on television, but the close-up and intimate environment of the internet doesn't lend itself well to that kind of communication style.

3) Political messaging has come down to using a pastiche of simple sound bites and blunt images. Unfortunately, political marketing is not conducted in such a way that allows for nuanced rhetoric delivered in one channel and aggressive vitriol in the other. The internet is still primarily a text-based medium and requires, if just a little bit, something more discursive.

What is it good for?

• Fundraising. First and foremost, this continues to be the web's biggest and best use for the political movement. Essentially, it is reliance on the web's best strength -- as a direct response tool -- that political organizations are depending on. And can you blame them? Low cost of entry for high returns on investment. You will only see more of this as the season wears on.
• Voter communications. Email, just like standard direct mail in election seasons past (and still this one), will play a huge role in not only fund raising but also in getting the vote itself out. As a concern for candidates, fundraising is second only to actual voting.
• Blogging. The blogosphere is full of people who are expressing their views and opinions, none of which may matter to you. But some do mean something to someone, and some of them can move readers to action. While most of the media people consume is media that serves to confirm one's own preexisting bias, the words used and the ideas they communicate are given a chance to have a life of their own and bump up against someone who they might not otherwise come into contact with.

Some enthusiasm has been expressed for social networking in this election season. There is reason to express enthusiasm insofar as it yielded large numbers of people expressing an interest in this or that facet of the campaign. And Obama in particular has been the beneficiary of social networking's strengths because of its embrace by the younger generation; this population being the air pressure that has given rise to his swell in popularity (or the quake beneath his tsunami, if you will. The press has called it a "youth quake").

While I remain hopeful that the next generation will be able to turn their multiple transitory passions into concentrated commitment, I'm not convinced that clicking on invitations to join groups on Facebook is indicative of an active commitment to causes, or that it demonstrates a new social awakening.

Sending friends a link to YouTube showing the "don't taze me, bro!" guy getting tazed isn't really activism. It's voyeurism. Spending time with virtual engagements does not replace real engagement, and in effect it neutralizes any real activism because it limits the time and space that one actually has to commit. And no amount of clicking will matter unless it translates into votes.

Local media outlets continue to be the medium that has the most to benefit from online political marketing. They present a more acceptable environment to both those doing the messaging as well as the audiences.  But it is hard to say when online will be used to advertise a message rather than just to raise money.

Media Strategies Editor Jim Meskauskas is vice president and director of online media for ICON International, Inc., an Omnicom Company. Read full bio.