My Photo

Ordering Information

Tomi on Twitter is @tomiahonen

  • Follow Tomi on Twitter as @tomiahonen
    Follow Tomi's Twitterfloods on all matters mobile, tech and media. Tomi has over 8,000 followers and was rated by Forbes as the most influential writer on mobile related topics

Book Tomi T Ahonen to Speak at Your Event

  • Contact Tomi T Ahonen for Speaking and Consulting Events
    Please write email to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com and indicate "Speaking Event" or "Consulting Work" or "Expert Witness" or whatever type of work you would like to offer. Tomi works regularly on all continents

Tomi on Video including his TED Talk

  • Tomi on Video including his TED Talk
    See Tomi on video from several recent keynote presentations and interviews, including his TED Talk in Hong Kong about Augmented Reality as the 8th Mass Media


Blog powered by Typepad

« The Trump Scenarios: Trojan Horse? Wrecking Ball? Cahoots with Cruz? Wily as a Fox Or Just Plain Old Bigoted Racist? Thoughts on Trump in the Primaries and into General Election | Main | My Delegate Count Projection for Republican Race Through First 4 States in February: Trump 35%, Cruz 25%, Rubio 15%, Christie 5% »

December 23, 2015


Wayne Borean

First, I have a confession to make. This is my rating from the Levenson Self Report Psychopathic Scale:

You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 85.7% of people who have taken this test.

You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 63.38% of people who have taken this test.

Yes, I'm a Psychopath. Borderline, but a Psychopath. Most of my friends know this. This doesn't mean I can't be loyal. I understand the value of loyalty when building an alliance, and therefore am actually more loyal than most. This doesn't mean I don't value friendship. My understanding of it may differ from yours, but I understand it, and the value of it to both parties.

It does mean that I probably understand politicians better than anyone else commenting here.


Another point is that I'm familiar with the use of data. My last position, where I was targeting Fortune 500 companies as the 'Major Accounts Sales Rep' and who also was one of the top five technical people in the company (for much of that time in the top two).

We used data. Unfortunately there are limits to data which Tomi is ignoring. Let's look at them.

1) Data use to 'turn' voters/customers is only useful when the VOTER/CUSTOMER IS UNEDUCATED ABOUT THE OPTIONS. This may seem obvious, but I've squashed competitors who didn't understand this.

2) The corallory is that all Voters/Customers are undecided, they just don't know it. Yet. Take the voter who has voted 100% for Party A since they first came of age (if my age, that would be the 1976 U.S. election).

3) A system is only as accurate as the weakest link. The weakest link is often the link with the lowest number of people, where a Manchurian Sysop could do more damage, than a Manchurian Door to Door Representative. Data corruption is a huge problem, especially if the corruption occurs before it enters the system.

4) Data is only useful if the people using it are capable of understanding trends/patterns. Tomi argues that Narwhale gives the operation this capability. I'm arguing that the system will only do that with a 'Loyal' psychopath running it. To quote Susan Ivanovs from Babylon 5, trust no one, except for Susan Ivanova. And considering what a P10 could do to her, don't trust her either.

Where am I going with this? Most high level politicians show some Sociopathic/Psychopathic tendencies. As do most successful sales people. Like me.

They also tend to be smart. Not necessarily genius level, but enough smarter than average, that they can see trends, and make use of them. Yes, you get people like Mr. Legitimate Rape. Ego also plays into this, you can't be a politician unless you have a big ego, but ego alone, even with genius level intelligence, won't take you to the top. You also can't be 100% tied into your party's ideology. Ideology plays well with a certain portion of the electorate, but most people are in the middle, and it doesn't play well with them.

All of the major candidates, with the possible exception of Ben Carson, show enough in the way of sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies, that they could do literally anything, assuming they think that the upside is greater than the downside. This is what makes politics my favourite form of entertainment. It's the best of all the Blood Sports.

We used 'Big Data' to determine who to target for sales. Often I saw what I considered errors in the database. I drove management nuts. A company would be tagged 'no hope' and I'd make sales to them, and I'm not talking one time sales, I'm talking consistent sales over periods of years. They nicknamed me 'The Icebreaker' because I wandered around in front of the rest of the company, and they often didn't understand why I did stuff, all they knew was that what I did worked. For me. Anyone else trying it crashed and burned.

But Big Data was useful. Take Hospital A. I had no interest in them. Sure, we might be able to sell them a quarter million worth of goods, but that was a 'one time' sale, and I was going after long term consistent sales. They might be of interest to another sales rep who was working a different market though, and that's where our database paid off big time, since we had multiple product lines, and multiple marketing plans based on those product lines.

So, let's take Donald Trump. I said in the previous article that Trump was damned smart. He's also got an ego, but he's lost often enough to know that ego can be a negative, so he's playing the game carefully. Yes, I know that to a lot of people he looks like a bull in a china shop. Sorry, he isn't. He wouldn't have gotten as rich as he has, if he wasn't aware of his weaknesses. The same applies to Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, etc.

Let's say that Candidate A has worked out that Plan Y will tip X% of decided voters one way, but tip Y% of all voters the other. What are the number of votes difference does this make?

Don't forget that everyone has been thinking about Narwhale since 2012. That's three years, and you can do a lot of development work in three years. You can do a lt of on the ground voter research too.

While I have no doubt Messina was right about 2012 being about the 7% of undecideds, the number of voters in play is far, far, larger, if you can target the RIGHT ISSUES TO BREAK THE DECIDEDS LOOSE.

Which won't be easy. Both sides are probably doing their own evaluations. And coming up with plans.

But it is doable. I broke 'DECIDEDS' loose all the time. That's why I was a pretty good Sales Rep. Not the best, there were far better. But I was good at developing customer loyalty, and when we landed them, we kept a pretty high percentage. Heck, just delivering on time was often the 'Killer App'!

But Big Data made my life a lot easier, even if I didn't trust what it said most of the time. Big Data can't win the election on its own. It can however be a huge advantage, especially with a Sociopath/Psychopath in the mix.

Oh, and my guess is that Obama is about the least Sociopathic/Pschopathic President the United States has ever had...

Wayne Borean

Oh, and if you want to take the Levenson test, here's the link:

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Wayne

Hey, thanks for the link to the test (I didn't know there was a public place to take the test online, but of course there would be in modern times haha). I vaguely recall that I am kind of very sociopathic on one scale like not caring about others but very unsociopathic on the other scale ie typical Finn, unwilling to break rules or something like that.. if that makes any sense. We went through so many tests back in the day haha, corporate life, haha.

And thanks for sharing your personality profile haha. I never imagined this blog could be also a self-diagnostic psychiatrist's bench haha.. feel free to lie down and tell us about your fears :-)

Now onto your experiences with using 'data'.. I also was in sales, I hear you. I've also been later building one of the largest, certainly largest multi-vendor database of its time, and very pioneering customer data work. That all is ancient history, its like comparing a typewriter to a word processor, or comparing a fax to email. No, Big Data means we know every CONSUMER (or whatever equivalent like voter, patient etc). That never existed before. In Business-to-Business sales - that we've both done, yes, we know - or can know - or should know - a lot about our customers. Thats different. That is handled with personal sales reps. Me too, I would take the challenge from my boss, to go land the customer he said was impossible to win (my two favorites, the United Nations Security Council - my network - and the Economist Newspaper Group's brand new global HQ when they moved from London to Manhattan - that was also my network that I sold to them. Both were projects my boss said, don't even try, you'll never be able to win those because we'll have 100 rivals bidding.. But I won them both).

Big Data enables automated non-human interaction with customers (voters) at such a deep and personal level, they feel like they are treated as a unique individual, as if it is the promised 'segment of one' - that nobody else gets that exact same treatment. That is why the original Obama 2008 campaign had two scales of 100. 100 x 100 = 10,000 which is mathematically the segment size that in our lifetime we will not get to know more people than that number. We will get to know less than 10K people (normal people, most jobs, not say haha an over-talkative taxi driver). But the original Obama 2008 campaign would not actually distinguish by that level ie the person scoring 86 would not be treated
to a separate campaign contact than the one scoring 85 and the one scoring 87. They used bands on those numbers, ie say everybody scoring from 81 to 90. But now with four election criteria at 100 point scales, they can take those bands to 10 point intervals - ten bands per scale - and now its the math of 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 10,000 again the perfect segmentation precision that you need not go deeper. Or there is no gain to going deeper. So the fifth scale was about fund-raising not the vote. But my point is, this is a revolution in sales/marketing/customer relationship and the power of it is unprecedented. What you talked about is not the same, because no party can afford to hire a 'sales staff' to speak to all voters enough to SELL them. It has to be done automatically, with emails, YouTube and TV ads, with SMS and Facebook etc. Yes, some discussion will also take place, with some voters, on the phone and in person - if the campaign can afford that - but most of the 'sales' has to be automated, mechanised.

The Obama campaign released 1,000 YouTube videos. It couldn't have had a prayer of that conversion of their disgruntled voters, if those videos didn't exist and were not reasonably well targeted.

That said, you make good points about all the possible pitfalls of ANY database. GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Data can get corrupted (I once met a crazy lady who had deliberately destroyed the organization of her previous employer's database - scrambling the data so each address field and each phone number etc were now pointing to the wrong file. Then she ensured it was saved a few times to have the backup systems also corrupted. I was horrified to think I knew such a monster but she was utterly cool with it. That was her revenge for a very minor slight... then she quit and got a job with a rival company doing a similar job. If I'd know her boss at that company, I would have gosh warned them about a real psycopath yeah..

On Narwhal and data in it. Yeah. A small data system could have a pretty clueless and poorly trained, perhaps too technical boss. But this was 100 of the best and brightest data scientists including very close correlation with literally the cream of the crop from Google, Amazon, Facebook and HP. And serving obviously the re-election of the President of the USA. Thats not going to be clueless idiots. It doesn't mean having a Big Data system will solve all problems but for THIS type of problem - where to target voter advertising and marketing efforts - for this, its the dawn of a totally new era. I don't know if you've gone and read the numbers blog (comparing Narwhal to Orca) that I wrote in 2012, which is linked to at the top of this article. Wayne, I suggest you go read that. Then you will see, what is old and new, compared side-by-side, and understand what I mean.

This is the jet engine to flight. This is Maxim and Gatling to guns (ie birth of machine guns). This is Little Boy and Fat Man to bombs (ie first atomic bombs). This is genesis of the new way, and it has now been measured and compared side-by-side. I personally saw one of the first Big Data systems being deployed and taken into use (obviously in telecoms where this technical ability to this power was first available) but all of that was utterly secret, still to today. The nice thing about Narwhal (vs Orca) was that its now an obsolete system - so they CAN talk about it without fear that Romney will somehow now steal the 2012 election from Obama. That is why its the only public reference case of using Big Data nationally, up to now, in ANY industry. And such a powerful case example. Comparing the very best of the old way - Romney's team had for example Microsoft helping them to try to reverse-engineer what they witnessed Obama doing, but then attempting old-fashioned demographics and mass market targeting to defeat his new way. Its like trying to use bows and arrows against an army with guns, or trying to fly propeller-driven biplanes against jets fighters.

So I suggest Wayne you read first that comparison article. If then you have questions we can take it here (or there) and discuss further. The term 'big data' does not mean a large database. It means a type of (enormous) way of organizing data so that EVERY consumer is in it and the data can be used. Like 175 million voters in Narwhal. If you are an American, Narwhal knows if you voted, how many times you voted, who you voted for each time - plus what TV shows you watch, what magazines and newspapers you read, if you have a Facebook page, almost certainly they know you from there, and they know your home address, phone numbers, email, employment history, credit record, all the possible data that can be purchased - and then some. A credit card company or a bank would LOVE to have that level of detail of every American, as Narwhal collected in 2012. It was the most complete consumer database (of those 175 million Americans) EVER ASSEMBLED ANYWHERE by any company or entity, at that time. Today, probably, Google and Facebook might have similar level of data now, and Hillary's Narwhal 2.0 will want to go even deeper than that...

So yes, some databases had more people in them (Chinese and Indian telecoms operators for example) and even some American databases had more people as entries - like the IRS database and the NSA telephone spying database - but those had NOTHING like the LEVEL of detail on the consumer behavior. The IRS doesn't care to collect data on what TV shows we watch or what magazines we read or who are our 147 friend on Facebook etc... But seriously, Wayne, its a revolution, not just 'another large database, yeah, our company also had a large database' Big Data is something as different to data, as email was to mail.

But lets discuss after you've read that article, ok?

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Wayne

Now to the non-data parts at the bottom of your comment ie Trump etc..

So yeah, you say Trump seems like a bull in a china shop but he really isn't. Thats possible. But I am now convinced this is not an act. Just now, 'schlongate' - I lived 8 years in New York City, Trump knew perfectly well what a schlong is, every New Yorker knows that is a vulgar Yiddish word that's often used in only a derogatory way, in New York. Maybe he didn't mean to go full potty-mouth but he did. He's sunk to a new low. But in that same event, he was ranting about it being somehow disgusting that Hillary Clinton went to the toilet? No. This is a sick old fucker, exactly the loonie uncle of the family who should be locked up who has really lewd jokes (gosh, his constant creepy references to wanting to bang his daughter, for gosh sake) and now somehow going to the toilet is 'disgusting' ?? Earlier at the start of the campaign, he was accusing a woman attorney who wanted to take a break to breastfeed (not in his company) as being disgusting. Trump is that old guy who never saw a woman naked and thinks everything about women is disgusting. No, he is just weird and this will not end well for him. This is not an act. But when he is finished, you know the two things everybody will cerenade him with - all the video parodies and late night comedians - playing back Trump's own words saying he is the biggest 'loser' - and now that he became schlonged.

I agree with you, he should be smarter than this. But he has a creepy sick old man's attitude to the TOILET. And to natural human anatomy and normal biological phenomena. Who says going to the toilet is disgusting. Disgusting? So no, I totally now reject that this part of Trump is an act. He must be smart to have gotten where he is, but he is going soft in his head. What adult says going to the toilet is disgusting? A five-year-old might say that. A five year old. And schlong-gate. No he is a creep. And a weirdo. And this is not going to end well for him. The more he pursues the sad old weird guy path, the more he won't win even the nomination. But yeah, 50% of Americans already say they'd be ashamed if he was President. Thats six out of ten WOMEN. This was before schlong-gate or disgusting toilet visit. Trump is burning ever more of his ability to expand any voter base. The more he does this kind of schoolyard talk, the more he only appeals to those World Wresting Federation type voters - men (white, older, less-educated men). I just took a freeze-frame of one of his rallies and counted, men outnumbered women by more than 3 to 1. (yeah, I know, its a sick habit you pick up when you do a lot of public speaking, I always count audiences haha)

But I think you were a fan of Trump and volunteering for him, maybe (my apologies if thats not you, and am remembering another of the people on the blog). So let me leave the Trumpmeister and lets look at the other people you mentioned.

On your X and Y example, it came across a bit confused to me. I think you were suggesting what if candidate A has plan X, and simultaneously candidate B has plan Y, and they hit the same undecided voter. Yeah. Good point. This is exactly what I meant, in what I expected to happen in 2012, when both sides were developing in secret their big voter insights databases. It didn't happen then. Now it SHOULD happen, that both sides have gotten enough up to speed, to be roughly at parity. Like World War 1, when both sides had acquired machine guns and it resulted in a stalemate. I do expect that to be 'the norm' by the NEXT election cycle, but this to be still a stage of experimentation, where either side can discover new powers and tactics, for using this powerful tool and to derive an advantage (at least in a short-term say week-month level time frame).

In 2012 when Obama had the tool and Romney didn't it turned a one million vote margin squeaker into a five million vote blowout - boosted Obama's turnout by four million. I expect the 'arms race' will produce a rough balance where for 2012 this - the advantage o a superior Big Data system - will be no more than 2 million - either way. It can turn out to be totally cancelled out and be a net zero advantage after both sides dump 200 million dollars into it haha. By 2020 it SHOULD be roughly a net-zero proposition. Just a 'must do' like today in business, all companies have to have a website, email, a Facebook page, etc. No more a competitive advantage today but you have to do it.

On the undecideds (and persuadable ones at that) yes, I agree in 2012 it should be more than 7% but I don't think it will be anything like the 20% it was in 2000. Very many voters already know how they will vote in relationship to Hillary Clinton - many Republicans will vote against her essentially regardless who is their final nominee and most Democrats already know they will vote for Hillary rather than whichever emerges from the race on the GOP side. But yeah, I think the middle will have more undecided voters. But those will be dramatically more on the 'leaning Republican' type of voters than 'leaning Democratic' exactly because of the past years of the Republicans alienating so many in the middle. Those who lean Democratic are rather happy with Hillary (and would be with Bernie too). Not all, as Hillary's favorability is under water, but most are.

On the issues that break the undecideds loose, in fact, on issues that CHANGE minds of regularly loyal voters - that is EXACTLY what Obama did in 2012. They did not hire some expensive consultants to sell them stories of what should work. They rather TESTED what works on real voters. Every day they ran 5,000 short surveys and 1,000 long surveys per battleground state. Every day. So. Would this ad about college tuition change the minds of level 20 to 30 Romney supporters (ie only 20% to 30% willing to go with Obama, these are very likely Romney voters) but college-students - the kinds who are 'Young Republicans' on college campuses - would this particular Obama ad about tuition, change their minds. Show the ad to selected 200 such Republicans in Wisconsin, another 200 in Florida, another 200 in Colorado, another 200 in Virginia, another 200 in Ohio. Then after we know they've been exposed to the video (via say Facebook distribution) now TEST how many of the 1,000 who saw the video, changed their minds. 7 did. Ok, the power of that ad is to change 0.7% of clearly strongly Republican supporters. Now try the OTHER version of the ad, where its about earning tuition for going to the army. And another 200 Republican youth college students in those same states. And now see how many of them changed their minds. Now its 2.2%. And so forth.

This level of TOTAL knowledge of EVERY marketing communication by a campaign - pretesting everything - has never been done. Previously it was a couple of highly paid consultants who said, I am an expert on making good TV ads, I won the awards, I say ad type B will work better, and run it... The opinion of some experts who made educated guesses. They could not hope to give a NUMBER of how many actual voters would change their minds - and in the normal clutter of TV ads, its utterly impossible to isolate which ad did what. Maybe that college student changed his mind, because he got a new girldfriend who is an Obama supporter (or has trouble paying her tuition). It was never possible to pre-test this type of TOTAL electorate response to every communication. By old methods, with Gallup, Nielsen etc, it would have been prohibitively expensive to try. But now this is AUTOMATED and run nightly, testing not just whether it will work but WHERE it will work, and WHICH media will work best (or indeed, which combination of media).

The Obama team knew 'everything' in 2012. They knew they would not be able to win another state (North Carolina). They KNEW it. Obama didn't waste campaign visits there. It was always called their 9th battleground state but Narwhal told them its a hopeless cause. So they never ran a massive ad budget there or spent Obama's time there. Instead, they focused on Florida which went 4 days past the election until the counting was finished. It was the right move. Driven by KNOWLEDGE. But Romney, who used the old way, had Karl Rove having a fit on Fox News that no, Romney has not lost, the data has to be wrong... haha. That was epic.

Now on Big Data cannot win the election on its own. You are 100% correct. It can help a campaign but a bad candidate (say like Jeb Bush now) then it doesn't matter how much great data they'd have - the data would tell them the same - this is a lost cause. Exactly like Obama and NC. Having 'perfect' information can only help you understand what is happening, if you are going to lose, then the perfect info will tell you that too. As it should. Part of why Obama was ahead of Romney almost the whole cycle of 2012 was, that Obama was a better candidate (while flawed as President). And Romney was a rubbish candidate. Trees are the right height? My wife drives a couple of Cadillacs? Corporations are people, my friends?

On the last item Obama least sociopathic Prez, haha, yeah I agree on that. I'd like him to have a bit more of the gut feeling reaction by now, but early on, gosh that was soothing after 'I am the Decider' W Bush who only shot from the hip.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Dave Barnes

OK, so you know everything about me. But...
Let's assume that I am a 100 on voting. (This is true as we have vote-by-mail in Colorado and I have only missed one election (municipal) since 1970.)
Let's assume that I am sitting on the fence and am persuadable. (Not true, but let's assume.)

How do you reach me?
1. I mute ALL TV commercials. All. All the time.
2. I switch radio stations in my car as soon as I hear a voice. I want music, damnit.
3. While I have 2 Facebook profiles (one real, one fake), I never use it for anything. No website visits, No phone app.
4. I trash 100% of junk mail. (There could be a check for $1M USD on the backside and I would not see it.)
5. I trash First Class mail if it appears to come from a campaign.
6. I ruthlessly trash all spam emails.
7. When someone knocks on my door to talk/solicit, I ask them: Have you accepted nuclear fusion as your lord and savior. They always answer incorrectly and the door is shut.
8. I rip all the ads out of magazines before reading the articles.
9. I block 99% of all ads on websites. Thank you Ghostery.
10. If you call me on my land line, I will hang up quickly.

So, how do you reach me and persuade me to change my mind?

I do read 11000 word blog entries written by crazy Finns, but are the campaigns going to pay Tomi to insert "adverts" in his writings?

Chris Vail

One thing to consider in your projections for the future of US politics is the fate of gerrymandering. After the 2016 election, there will be the redrawing of political districts based on the 2020 census. Anti-gerrymandering sentiment is rising in this country, and could be very important in the redrawing of those districts. Consider that gerrymandering ended in California during the Schwarzenegger administration, and the next election resulted in a super majority for the Democratic Party. If gerrymandering were eliminated from the US nationally, the Republicans would be a permanent minority party.

So, this Presidential election is a big deal for the Republicans; it is do or die time. And you see how they are behaving.

Wayne Borean


I may not have explained what I meant fully. Been in a ton of pain today, which messes up my thinking.

Yes, I've read your previous Big Data articles. I've read everything you've written going back to before Nokia hired the Manchurian CEO.

Trump is not stupid. While I'm not certain that he didn't begin the campaign as a lark, I'm fairly certain he's serious about it now.

Donald Trump has an ego the size of Hudson's Bay. He also hates loosing. I think we can both agree on that.

So why would he open himself up to loosing the biggest Deal he's ever negotiated? Simple. He wouldn't. And he isn't stupid. He knows what damage he could do to his reputation, and his legacy.

So obviously he thinks he has a way of pulling this off. I have no idea what way, but I'm 100% certain he thinks he can do it. Can he pull it off?

I'd say it is pretty unlikely. About the only demographic he hasn't pissed off so far is Dead People, and they aren't going you vote for him. Except maybe in Chicago.

But he thinks he can do it, and it would be the greatest Negotiated deal of his career!

As to the our corporate data use, we had far greater segmentation than the original Narwhale. We also had more data on customers. We may not have had as many records. Hell, we had no where near as many records. But we were told by our database software supplier that we had the largest database they'd ever seen using their software!

So I know what data can do from a practical stand point. It sure made work a lot easier, knowing what we did. We could, and did, target every customer with a certain profile, in a certain area, when the circumstances warranted it.

Where a database can fall down is if the information is wrong, or just marginally off. Take the 100% committed group - which I usually belong to long before the election. I do a lot of research on party policies. I also do a lot of research on candidates.

But I can change my mind at the last second. It depends on the wedge issue. Consider Bill C-51. In the last Canadian election, if the Liberal Party had committed to revoking Bill C-51 at the last minute, I would have voted Liberal. Because they didn't, and our local NDP candidate was a fantastic candidate (while the Liberal was a nebbish), I stayed with my decision made six months before the election was called that the NDP was my best choice.

So what wedge issue would convert voters? I have no idea, but I'm sure that the Trump campaign has identified several that they think will win the Presidency for Donald Trump. They may be dead wrong. Hell, I'm sure they are dead wrong, eleven months before the vote. But they must be certain they've identified what will convert voters.

Because Donald Trump hates loosing. He isn't a gambler. He's a hard headed businessman, who identifies ways to make money, and goes for them.

Which will make the next eleven months amusing.

Ah, here's one last scenario. What if Donald Trump wins the nomination, and a month after the convention decides he has no chance, and drops out, maybe as part of that hypothetical deal with Hillary that you mentioned. Wouldn't that be an interesting mess...

Wayne Borean

As to Trump quitting after the convention, while I can't see Hillary being stupid enough to make a direct payment to Trump, I could see her government giving him some Federal land at fire sale prices. Congress has done this before. In at least one case that I know of, John McCain slipped a rider onto an existing bill which gave a copper mining firm a large plot of land which included a First Nations sacred site. The First Nation involved is furious, and fighting the giveaway. The copper mining firm was a big McCain Campiagn contributor...

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Dave, Chris and Wayne

Dave - good summary and yeah, I am sure you are not alone, there are plenty of other people who behave similar to you. Most of those people would not be truly undecided, however. So a person who hates all ads in general, and hates all political ads and contact in particular, could still have a clear choice in the election (or be leaning one way or other) so even of people who behave like you, it would only be about 7% of those, who also are undecided..

Now, I get it, you are probably nearly unreachable in practical terms by the marketing communications of a campaign. They can still hope to influence you by the non-advertising type of communications. So when the candidate is in a debate or interviewed by the local TV news or radio on a local campaign visit to Colorado. I would guess you still follow he news in some way whether local newspaper, TV news, internet news websites or whatever. The campaign should identify you as the type of voter who is almost unreachable by the various outreach programs and then use the public communications to still try to address a voter like you. So then find out if there are enough voters like you in Colorado who may be currently persuadable by a given message by the candidate, and ensure that the message comes out in the speech made locally, or the TV interviews with local TV or press, etc. To just try to change your mind, Dave, obviously is too costly but if there are say 7,000 people like you in Colorado, who might share one issue where our candidate differs from the rival, then it would be useful to include that issue on the stump speech in Colorado.

Now one last item. Forwarded info. Email blasters, SMS texts, Facebook and YouTube have been designed for easy forwarding. Almost all people trust their closer friends enough, that if I say get an email from my brother, or a YouTube link from my nephew, I will open that and look at it. You may be so rejecting of all normal ads and unsolicited communications that nothing else penetrates, but a relative or closer friend, I mean one of the dozen close ones on Facebook, not one of the distant ones out of the about 150 - that could reach you.

Now take in Big Data. Big Data should accurately identify you as somehow totally isolated. And still attempt to gauge your actual preference and as far as possible (out of studies of similar people) estimate your persuadability score etc. Obviously if you are expected to be already decided, no sense trying to target you. But lets say the system indicated you can be persuaded, and on these few issues. Then as the big communication machine churns out the contact wars, it will land at some point to a Facebook user who is friendly with the campaign and lists you as a (possibly distant) friend. That is how they can now have an inroad to you. If they use that distant friend to forward you say a YouTube video - and they see you didn't look at the video - they can then wait a while, and try to find another Facebook user who has Dave as a friend. And this way, over time, possibly hit one of your close friends and relatives - whose recommendation would get you to watch the YouTube video.

Let me add here then, that if you honestly are undecided, and you are deliberately avoiding all ads from all campaigns, in that case seeing one, that is tailored to issues that resonate with you specifically... that would be FAR more powerful than seeing the even the same ad in the mix of hundreds of political ads.

But you are correct, that type of profile is very well isolated from most attempts and very hard to catch (and often not worth attempting). Now consider again Big Data. The machine learns and MEASURES everything. They will isolate the target audience (that 7%) and then work at that number. They will retest and recheck to see is it really 7.3% or 6.6% and refine and re-evaluate. They will keep track of EVERY voter including you on how many contacts went through. Remember the AVERAGE of contacts the Obama campaign hit on its voters was 3.3 times in the 2012 election. So some will be five times, some only once. But as the machine keeps tabs of who was contacted, they will prioritize of course those who still had no contacts. And they might send a volunteer to your door to face your intriguing question. And you know what. They'd register the response - and might even have that issue covered, where the NEXT time they try, they have the person prepared for not just handling nuclear fusion as lord and master haha, but ALSO now being prepped that this Dave dude is very isolated from political ads, take him seriously etc...

I think in more than 50% of the time, you win. No campaign would breach your defenses haha. But still a determined well designed campaign could. But of the 7% who are undecided, how many would take the steps you do? Far less than one in ten. If the campaign can successfully reach 6.3% of the 7% haha, then they'd be probably very happy.

PS thanks for reading my long articles Dave. And just so you know, I get offers every single week to put ads on the blog and always say no. But there are not many blogs with millions of hits lifetime who are ad-free haha...

Now lets move just beyond ads to marketing. We wrote in the book Communities Dominate Brands that the traditional advertising-driven business model is broken and will be superceded. So lets take the enthusiastic supporters of either party. Get them INVOLVED. Let them participate, co-create ads and mailing lists and do contests for use-generated ads and run Twitter hashtag parties and whatnot. In politics into the 1980s-1990s, that was only done by 'top down' from the campaign and to a very modest number of volunteers. But Obama had 400,000 volunteers WORKING for the campaign. 4 Million donated. How many more than that, were involved in some way, online or in the real world, helping the campaign. Same (to a lesser degree then) for Romney and now probably close to even on both sides for 2016. 4 million donating means one in sixteen people who voted for Obama, also donated money. One in sixteen is so huge a number, its very near the one in twelve of the 'real friends' we have on Facebook. On average, three out of every four Obaa voters, who is on Facebook, will have as a 'real friend' someone who was so engaged with the campaign, that person also donated to it. Now fast-forward to 2016, it will be that almost everybody on Facebook - on either side - will have one of the close friends or relatives, who is donating to the campaign (or otherwise very strongly supporting it such as volunteering).

Now do we want our close friends to come to our house to sell us encyclopedia sets (haha they don't exist anymore) or have tupperware parties or come and convert us to Jehova's Witnesses religion - or to convert us to join a political campaign. That relative or friend may soon become less close haha. But these are activists and THEY will know who of their friends are LIKELY to enjoy joining the 'cause'. I think it is a better way than just propaganda on TV ads.. But yeah, nothing works perfectly :-)

PS Dave, loved the total description of what all you will block and how. I do some of that, definitely not all of that :-)

Chris - very good point and I totally agree. In very rough terms, since WW2, the USA has been a 50/50 split country in Presidential elections, in Senate and House elections and even to a large degree statewide elections. Recently the Republicans have drifted away from the middle, towards the Tea Party and conservative edge while the nation has become a bit more liberal than in the past (support of gay rights, gun laws, legalizing pot, abortion, all trend more liberal). The Republican response has been the defense by voting tricks. Limiting early voting, demanding new voter ID that minorities often do not have (who are stronly Democratic-leaning voters) and other such tricks. Gerrymandering is the most powerful of those tricks (and both sides have done it for more than a century) but nobody has managed to gerrymander as effectively as the Republicans did out of the 2010 Census so that today they hold a 7% tilt in the election results. A 50/50 election result in a gerrymandered state will send 7% more Republicans to Congress than Democrats. Or to put it another way, the Democrats have to win 54/46 just to get EVEN number of members of Congress. And added to that, is the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United, which allows unlimited campaign donations to SuperPACs. While again, both sides can use that, it favors Republican enormously as a few rich Billionaires can flood the elections with their cash to buy their own candidates, where traditionally Democrats had more grass roots support like labor unions, and Republicans traditionally had support of rich people who donated more money but were fewer in number.

The last Presidential elections have tilted to the Democrats (they won more votes in 5 of the 6 past elections) so the 'reality' on the ground, by American voters, is slightly in the Democrats' favor. But the Republicans now are sustained by 'cheating' on the rules. Once that 'cheating' is removed and the rules are truly fair (again) then the reality of Democratic dominance becomes blatantly obvious to Republicans. Their inevitable long term solution is to change and pursue the middle-ground (again). But before they get to that point, they will try every other way and excuse, to prolong the pain, and try to live out their delusions. That is why if Ted Cruz wins now the nomination in 2016 would be far better for the party than anyone else. If Trump or Rubio (or Christie or Jeb) becomes the nominee - and loses disasterously to Hillary - then the Republican party will find solace in the fantasy that their candidate was not 'conservative enough' and had they only nominated Ted Cruz, they could have won. Only after that illusion is shattered, that the Tea Party gets its guy to run - and lose badly - can this wishful thinking be extinguished.

Now to your point, meanwhile the Republican party and its various politicians are making the LONG TERM pain and recovery WORSE by all the idiotic positions they are now taking against minorities, for guns, against abortion, against minimum wage, against the environment, etc etc. The REASON they can be so confidently against the obvious moderate middle of America, is that perception that they are 'winning' in Congress and the Senate and in the local governments in the states. The correction will take a few election cycles to be complete. It won't come until the Republicans have extinguished all hope (ie a Ted Cruz style totally conservative candidate runs and loses). And they cannot fix something if they think it is not broken. Which is why the Hillary 8 year Presidency that takes back not just the Senate but if not now, then eventually, also the House - and flips the Supreme Court to a liberal 5-4 balance - that will be the shock (and 16 years of a Democrat in the White House) that convinces them, that their ideological dogma is the problem, they have to become more moderate or face extinction as a party.

(I'll get to your comments Wayne next..)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Wayne

First, if you are a bit ill, I hope this blog is relaxing reading for you while recouperating. I hope I am not adding to your aggravation :-) Seriously, I enjoy your comments here and hope you are doing better.

And thanks for being a loyal regular reader. I really love talking with those who've been here and see how whatever my latest blog is, compared to past writing.

On Trump and your latest comments, I almost totally agree with it all - and am sure you also know that. You make some excellent points that I'll want to address

Trump started on a lark (and wasn't expecting really to succeed, maybe). Totally agree. His was the least prepared launch (he paid for some of the audience to attend at Trump Towers). And he obviously has a skeleton staff and his campaign is like those of most who seem to be in it for the ego trip (like Newt Gingrich and Hermain Cain last time, or say Ross Perot before) his 'campaign manager' has a hopeless task of trying to get any level of sense to the project. He is a runaway train haha. Ego size of Hudson Bay (good one) and hates to lose. Totally agree yes.

So why risk his reputation and brand and wealth. I agree totally, there has to be some nefarious masterplan. Not necessarily that the plan 'would' work, but one that Trump honestly believes can work. Like you said "obviously he thinks he has a way of pulling this off". I totally agree and like you, am baffled on WHAT it is and can't wait to find out.

(Loved the joke about dead voters and Chicago). But yes. History books are full of people who saw an opportunity and then made their name with it. Bill Gates didn't invent the computer but he managed to win the contract for IBM to build the software for their Personal Computer project - and was smart enough to get the licence to also sell the clone to IBM's 'PC DOS' as his Microsoft 'MS DOS' and create the modern PC industry and made the most profits in it for three decades. Trump can very well have his 'deal of the century' somewhere in this cockamamie idea to run for President and he must believe - as he still continues running and insulting even more people - that he can somehow win out of this. And that he can RESTORE his reputation and be thought of as the 'ultimate winner' somehow in the 'back end' of this project. I can't imagine that Trump would be so foolish to think he can actually win the general election against Hillary - while he of course has to project that impression to his voters.

On the data on the voters (consumers, customers). Totally agree again. As I wrote, yes, if you allow bad data in, then the whole process becomes vulnerable or even useless. And there will be plenty of cases where the data is not the absolute arbitrer of what to do, as long as humans are involved - it then needs a smart campaign manager (elections) or account manager (sales) to make that call - when do we go, kind of 'against' the data. But yeah, we both know from experience how powerful such info on customers can be..

Now on the 'can change mind at the last second' aspect. I am sure all humans are like that, to some degree. Say the World Trade Center attack of Sept 11, 2001. The whole nation was shocked, and if that was an election year - then all other matters would have vanished and the only thing all voters would consider was, which of these candidates will prevent terrorists from flying jet airliners to the Bank America Tower of San Francisco next, or the Space Needle of Seattle or the Arch in St Louis, etc. And then consider the San Bernardino attack. That was not an orchestrated mass terrorism event like Paris. It was a radicalized local couple working as a 'lone wolf' attack while of course as a bonnie-and-clyde couple. Now. What is on the minds of ISIS as they face ever more fierce attacks by the coalition and the endless bombing led by the 'evil Satan' of America. ISIS is highly organized. I am CERTAIN there is a plan to attack the USA. But in the USA its far easier to buy military-grade weapons than in Europe. An organized attack of say 3 or 4 teams similar to Paris, but say attacking New York, Washington DC, Chicago and San Francisco simultaneously would totally paralyze the USA and the 2016 election would only be of one thing and one thing only.

But it need not be terrorism. What about the power grid. You probably remember about ten years ago when all of the USA East Coast lost power for several days, from New York to Chicago (haha traced if I recall to some power station failure in Canada, that then cascaded). So what if that kind of power grid failure happens out of some maintenance issue with older equipment, or human error, or cyber attack or earthquake or whatever reason. But if a quarter of Americans are suddenly without electricity - rotting food, etc - for nearly a week. And this happened in say October. Then nobody cares about Putin or Iran or ISIS. Then the debate is suddenly about - what did you say about CUTTING funds for infrastructure. And no, what did YOUR budget say about funds to all energy sources... etc etc etc.

I totally agree, some things happen in the 'real world' outside of the political race. That hurricane that hit New York a week before the 2012 election and Governor Christie famously hugged Obama. That kind of things do happen. They call it the 'October surprise' (like the economy 'cratering' in 2008 that doomed McCain's flailing campaign).

Here too, back to my themes of Big Data and total voter insights - a campaign can run on the gut feeling of the candidate and top team (with risks that includes) or have a Big Data based voter insights system that can help pick the optimal political strategy to deal with that crisis. McCain took the bold and decisive step to suspend his campaign in 2008 in response to the economic crisis. It was a very 'McCainian' reaction - but it was widely ridiculed and turned out a massive campaign error. If the candidate is disciplined to trust and use the data - then this kind of mistakes are avoided. That however, does mean that the candidate can seem aloof and disconnected to the nation (like Obama always seems and what Hillary is also often exhibiting). This Republican reaction to be 'anti Obama' then does find traction - like that its somehow a bad thing to have teleprompters and have a prepared speech. That speaking in 'stream of consciousness' style like Trump would be 'better'. It seems more authentic yes, but it also means, Trump's honest personal opinions now slip through regularly. There is a reason why USA Presidents have speech-writers - explicitly because the President has so much power, a few choice wrong words can be very harmful. Like W Bush with you're either with us or without us. Rhetoric like that even W Bush has admitted was harmful not helpful. And that happens even when you have speechwriters haha.

Now on the idea of a wedge issue for Trump. Yes, that could be the ploy. But it would have to be a law that would have instantly very broad populist support. And then also, be one where Hillary and the Democrats have not already taken that idea. The 'lets abolish the IRS' idea is one that cooky Ron Paul had run on for decades. I think most normal politicians didn't dare to make that proposition into a general election but this cycle several Republicans are suggesting it. I think if Trump has the platform to speak so broadly in all media, that could be something that might work. Everybody hates the IRS and having to file taxes. Trump could say its a flat national tax of say 15% for everybody and no (or almost no) deductions and maybe a national sales tax, but no IRS and no more filing tax returns. Many would like this and many would see their taxes come down. But this argument would be massively attacked as giving even more tax cuts to the richest..

As to what else could it be, yeah, there could be something but I can't imagine one, that the Democrats have not been pushing already. The last truly hated law was military conscription during the Vietnam war, that I can think of, which could have/did have the kind of national mobilization power to potentially win an election. Like I wrote in the Trump scenarios blog, raising the national speed limit would be popular but I can't see him winning on something like that - and many would attack him for the deaths it would create.

I do totally agree with you Wayne, that Trump is that smart and calculating, that when he entered in the summer, he HAD to have a plan. And that plan must be either to win it, or then strategically to get out of the race. He cannot be seen to end his public career as a big loser like a Mitt Romney (or Walter Mondale haha). But considering how he's pursued the primary race, it is baffling, what could be that 'golden bullet' idea for the general election, to make this worth his while.

Now as to dropping out after the convention, haha, yeah. Gosh he'd create an unprecedented riot in the Republican party. Many Republican-controlled states would rush emergency legislation to change the rules to allow late entry to their ballot, to bring the 'rescue' Republican replacement nominee onto the ballot. Gosh, it sounds like the rejected script to West Wing. But if he was the nominee, he could do that. Or a variation - what if he, after securing the nomination and the time to get on state ballots has passed, Trump just holds a press conference and ENDORSES Hillary. Say after the first debate, haha. He'd just say - ok, I was beaten, Hillary is more qualified to be President. I can see that now. So yes, I remain the nominee, but please vote for her instead of me.... :-)

..that then COULD get a ground-swell to the Democrats' 'spontaneous' idea to lets name the new state of Columbia to be Trumpia instead. The man who gave up the run. The man who was not partisan... haha. And while the Republicans would scream conspiracy!, this would play to some in the middle and many Democrats as the redeeming quality, that would save his reputation haha. He has his regrets, he apologizes for the tone of the campaign and formally endorses his rival. I believe this has never happened in the Presidential race so he'd at least get into the history books on that too haha.

On the hypothetical Hillary - Trump 'deal'. Yeah agree, it can't be as blatant and direct from Hillary or the Government to Trump even in the style of Dick Cheney and Halliburton. But a land deal, yeah, there are sadly a lot of those. The John McCain example in Arizona is a sad example of that kind of quid-pro-quo corruption which should be blatantly obvious but doesn't seem to be prosecuted ever. The only thing here is, that again, if Trump is risking potentially his brand in this mess now (worth by his public documents, several Billion dollars) then his reward would need to be in that scale, potentially at least tens of Billions of dollars in value, and could be much more.

But.. if Bill Clinton and Donald Trump had years to plot this, and Trump had months before he even announced to make any necessary investments, and the measured public-info gains to Trump might not come until his CONSTRUCTION on whatever those lands are, is completed - another decade - this could be after Hillary has retired from her second term. This deal could be very well obfuscated - but then again... Trump the egomaniac will not want to be thought of as a loser for the next decade. No, if there is a deal, he will want the ability to tell the world how smart he was, that this run for President was just a ruse or whatever.

Have you seen the movie Wag the Dog (Dustin Hoffman, Robert DeNiro)? Brilliant political satire, I consider it one of the ten best movies ever made. In it, the Hoffman character stages a pretend-war, only shot in the studio to distract the nation for a few days just before the election to ensure the incumbent is re-elected (we never even see the President in the movie). When they succeed, Hoffman's character then says - he wants to celebrate this, huge 'Hollywood Producer' achievement of stealing the election - and DeNiro says you can never talk about this... Trump would be not unlike that Hoffman character only more egotistical haha. And that would have to be part of this plot. He is actively smearing his own reputation in public, daily. Why is he willing to do this. He must have a way out, that somehow 'rescues' his name, reputation and fortune. And obviously gives him a massive gain out of this gambit.

But yeah, can't wait for the next eleven months to reveal how this plays. Just after the Romney and the Romnettes season of 2012, we thought it can never get more wild than that Clown Car. Now we have the Trump and the Trumpettes season. Sadly, however this plays out, this massive mystery can never get a rerun haha.

Tomi Ahonen :-)


"And that plan must be either to win it, or then strategically to get out of the race. He cannot be seen to end his public career as a big loser like a Mitt Romney (or Walter Mondale haha)."

A well simulated (medical) emergency after Trump has accepted the nomination and installed a suitable VP would do the job.

Say a stroke or heart condition that prevents Trump from running the campaign or accepting the presidency. Maybe there is some loophole in that crazy medical attest?

His VP (and the GOP) would be eternally gratefull. His supporters are not even loved by the politicians who represent them, so I do not expect any considerations for their feelings.

Trent Telenko

I have a very simple question.

What is your basis for saying the following --

"And that brings us to Trump. He obviously doesn't have a big team or bother to run anything through any decision-making system at all. Would not be 'politically correct' and might interfere with his desire for spontaneous schlonging. It does mean that over time, the team(s) who use Big Data and pre-test their responses and actions, will be prone to not make mistakes but Trump can capitalize faster on some fast-moving matters. But we've already seen that Trump is a guaranteed gaffe-machine and once the political system figures out exactly how to pin him to all his lies and nonsense, his campaign will crash and burn to the degree its 76% lies - most of any politician ever measured by PolitiFact - warrant. The campaigns who can afford to build a Big Data based solution are viable for the general election and long run."

Campaign spending reports mean nothing as far as the Trump campaign is concerned.

We have no idea how many people are on the Trump campaign team because he pre-paid them last year, prior to the current (2015-2016) campaign finance reporting seasons.

Similarly, financial dispersments for pre-paid services does not count as a "campaign expense" in the current reporting period under current campaign finance laws.

Thus we have no idea how much the Trump campaign has spent on "Big Data."

As far as Trump's supposed lack of "Big Data", there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence Trump has a big data campaign.

Thus far I have seen Trump "name" multiple opposing Republican candidates in a way similar to fighter pilots getting a permanent call sign, but uniformly in a manner that destroys their political reputation.

IOW, a precision guided, information warfare, negative campaigning attack.


"Snarly Carly" Fiorina
"Low Energy" Jeb Bush
Dr. Carson and Trump's relabeling of Carson's "knife attack narrative"

The "naming effect" Trump has used seems to be a combination of the kind of "Big data" you speak of combined with media "Q" ratings that a reality TV star like Trump would be very aware of.


You are, of course, free to write about whatever you want. However, I, for one, do not care very much about your musings on American politics. Please start writing about mobile telephony again.

Tomi T Ahonen

To all in this thread

I have now made my projection of the actual delegates won by the Republican race through the first four states voting in February. You may enjoy the analysis and various research that I referenced in it.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Wayne Borean


Unfortunately, it's chronic. I get to live the rest of my life eating opiates in amounts that would have 99.99% of the population lying in the ground going 'WHEE'


"Unfortunately, it's chronic. I get to live the rest of my life eating opiates in amounts that would have 99.99% of the population lying in the ground going 'WHEE'"

I am sorry to hear that. I wish you a happy new year. And strength and, if possible, hope for improvement. Amputation will often not help due to phantom pains.

And wrt the Levenson self report test, I see I am utterly unfit for a job in marketing or sales Here is my score (spelling from original):

You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 5.51% of people who have taken this test.

You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 0% of people who have taken this test.

Tomi T Ahonen

To all in this thread

Three quick bits of news. Politico reports on Trump's data analytics project. One, that he has one and is dumping money in it, and has hired professionals doing it, suggests Trump is really serious about the run. He's also started to air TV ads now for the first time (previous tiny ad buy was radio ads). To me what was in the Politico article, its classic demographics voter lists and targeting, not 'big data' as shown in this article and what Jeb Bush was building and Ted Cruz seems to be building (and Hillary has). But it could be the beginning of a real competitive Big Data project (in which case it will cost at least $50M this cycle, at least, to be in any way relevant) and also, its possible it starts small with old-fashioned demographics and voter lists and robocalling and spam, and then EVOLVED with time and effort and insight (possibly as some candidates quit and their competence is then pulled into the leading teams haha).

Second interesting tidbit, the UK Parliament will debate of they should ban Trump. Gosh I hope they do decide that haha... for the hate-mongering and terrorist-arousing vicious shit pouring out of Trump's mouth, I do hope he gets this slap on his wrist.. go Britain!

And third, very interesting.. California has just been polled for GOP preference by Field, and who is on top? Its not Trump, its not Rubio, its not home-girl Fiorina... its Texas-boy Cruz! Wow, only about the second state in about a month where Trump is not in the lead, but California has the most delegates and this could be a sign that Trump is about peaking and Cruz is rising.. Could Trump finally be hitting his ceiling at around 35% nationally? And can Cruz climb to challenge him.. the winner-take-all states start only on March 15, so that is when the gloves come off. Cruz does seem once again, to have a real chance while Rubio - once again! Rubio the more 'moderate' candidate can't poll higher than Cruz in California, what gives? But note the gap between Cruz & Trump is only 2 points for Cruz in CA so its still a wide-open race and thats only one poll, while it is the largest state. (there was one national poll also out by SurveyMonkey which RCP doesn't recognize for its flawed research methodology, but in it Trump leads with 35% vs Cruz at 18%)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Available for Consulting and Speakerships

  • Available for Consulting & Speaking
    Tomi Ahonen is a bestselling author whose twelve books on mobile have already been referenced in over 100 books by his peers. Rated the most influential expert in mobile by Forbes in December 2011, Tomi speaks regularly at conferences doing about 20 public speakerships annually. With over 250 public speaking engagements, Tomi been seen by a cumulative audience of over 100,000 people on all six inhabited continents. The former Nokia executive has run a consulting practise on digital convergence, interactive media, engagement marketing, high tech and next generation mobile. Tomi is currently based out of Helsinki but supports Fortune 500 sized companies across the globe. His reference client list includes Axiata, Bank of America, BBC, BNP Paribas, China Mobile, Emap, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard, HSBC, IBM, Intel, LG, MTS, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Ogilvy, Orange, RIM, Sanomamedia, Telenor, TeliaSonera, Three, Tigo, Vodafone, etc. To see his full bio and his books, visit Tomi Ahonen lectures at Oxford University's short courses on next generation mobile and digital convergence. Follow him on Twitter as @tomiahonen. Tomi also has a Facebook and Linked In page under his own name. He is available for consulting, speaking engagements and as expert witness, please write to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com

Tomi's eBooks on Mobile Pearls

  • Pearls Vol 1: Mobile Advertising
    Tomi's first eBook is 171 pages with 50 case studies of real cases of mobile advertising and marketing in 19 countries on four continents. See this link for the only place where you can order the eBook for download

Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009

  • Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009
    A comprehensive statistical review of the total mobile industry, in 171 pages, has 70 tables and charts, and fits on your smartphone to carry in your pocket every day.

Alan's Third Book: No Straight Lines

Tomi's Fave Twitterati