Gurbaksh Chahal of Adage.com writes…
“Campaigns are long roads with many stages and twists; a media darling today may be road kill tomorrow. Candidates need to micro-target their base via a steady drumbeat of news, events and opinions focused on what the specific audience wants to hear. They can track in real time how recipients react to their news and that of their competitors, using sophisticated ad-network tools to see how much of it they share — or don’t share.
Social media is all about word of mouth. It’s key to share only the most relevant information with each constituent group. They’ll be more likely to “share” links to content explicitly designed for them.
While hyperlinking to everything and anything can help spread the word, campaigns should avoid spray-and-pray advertising. It’s much more efficient to track and capitalize on social interactions as they are happening. We share things that we have a vested interest in, are personal and are relevant to our friends. Calls to action should be part of the package; supporters want to help — and to act.”
Social media is a great venue for selling products, services, promoting causes, raising money, etc. But when it comes to sensitive issues like abortion, school choice, union support, GLBT rights, etc., it takes more than a “Like” or “Share” to change minds.
Social media is like a watering hole in the jungle where all types of creatures gather to drink. But there is something to this analogy that cannot be missed: creatures gather with their own groups. In other words, you will not see zebras drinking next to alligators, or elephants next to tigers. The world of social media is no different. While most people will tell you that they have no leanings politically, at the end of the day their surfing and social media habits tell the final story. We flock around things we do not perceive as a threat to our worldview. Beyond lurkers, you will not see followers of let’s say Rush Limbaugh engaging with the Daily Kos folks for a rational, open-minded discussion on the issues and vice-versa.
A million “Likes” or “Shares” don’t necessarily translate to what people really think in the real world. For example, the hashtag #Occupy has been one of the most used on Twitter for about a month. Yet polls like this one show that roughly 35% of Americans actually support the protest.
What about the undecideds?
I think it is safe to say that for this election cycle, “undecided” means either you are going to decide to vote for your favorite party or you are going to decide to stay home. Getting those people to show up to the polls is going to be the trick for social media strategists for both sides. That means scare tactics after scare tactics. But mainstream media does this for us already.
But social media worked so well for Obama back in 2008
The 2008 election cycle should by no means be used as some shining example of how social media changed the course of the electorate’s opinions. It didn’t. Bush had become a very unpopular two-term president, the economy was at the beginning of a nose dive, and America was face with the opportunity to make history with the election of Barack Obama (our first Black president). While social media played a phenomenal role with fundraising for the Obama campaign, the buzz on Facebook, Twitter, etc. was a mere reflection or extension of the excitement exclusively of his fan base. Social media was a conduit for this excitement, not a generator. This is the main point that is being missed by those who make comparisons to 2008.
Social media’s role in the recent upheaval in Egypt was rallying the like minded, not converting Mubarak supporters. Same goes for the recent riots in the UK.
While I do believe that social media should be a part of any political strategy, I have not seen the evidence that it has the ability to create something from nothing when it comes to political issues. While this medium has proven itself to be a great conduit to rally support amongst choir members, there is little evidence that the crowd being converted on political issues.
Can social media turn elections?
by Duane on November 7th, 2011 at 7:15 amGurbaksh Chahal of Adage.com writes…
“Campaigns are long roads with many stages and twists; a media darling today may be road kill tomorrow. Candidates need to micro-target their base via a steady drumbeat of news, events and opinions focused on what the specific audience wants to hear. They can track in real time how recipients react to their news and that of their competitors, using sophisticated ad-network tools to see how much of it they share — or don’t share.
Social media is all about word of mouth. It’s key to share only the most relevant information with each constituent group. They’ll be more likely to “share” links to content explicitly designed for them.
While hyperlinking to everything and anything can help spread the word, campaigns should avoid spray-and-pray advertising. It’s much more efficient to track and capitalize on social interactions as they are happening. We share things that we have a vested interest in, are personal and are relevant to our friends. Calls to action should be part of the package; supporters want to help — and to act.”
Social media is a great venue for selling products, services, promoting causes, raising money, etc. But when it comes to sensitive issues like abortion, school choice, union support, GLBT rights, etc., it takes more than a “Like” or “Share” to change minds.
Social media is like a watering hole in the jungle where all types of creatures gather to drink. But there is something to this analogy that cannot be missed: creatures gather with their own groups. In other words, you will not see zebras drinking next to alligators, or elephants next to tigers. The world of social media is no different. While most people will tell you that they have no leanings politically, at the end of the day their surfing and social media habits tell the final story. We flock around things we do not perceive as a threat to our worldview. Beyond lurkers, you will not see followers of let’s say Rush Limbaugh engaging with the Daily Kos folks for a rational, open-minded discussion on the issues and vice-versa.
A million “Likes” or “Shares” don’t necessarily translate to what people really think in the real world. For example, the hashtag #Occupy has been one of the most used on Twitter for about a month. Yet polls like this one show that roughly 35% of Americans actually support the protest.
What about the undecideds?
I think it is safe to say that for this election cycle, “undecided” means either you are going to decide to vote for your favorite party or you are going to decide to stay home. Getting those people to show up to the polls is going to be the trick for social media strategists for both sides. That means scare tactics after scare tactics. But mainstream media does this for us already.
But social media worked so well for Obama back in 2008
The 2008 election cycle should by no means be used as some shining example of how social media changed the course of the electorate’s opinions. It didn’t. Bush had become a very unpopular two-term president, the economy was at the beginning of a nose dive, and America was face with the opportunity to make history with the election of Barack Obama (our first Black president). While social media played a phenomenal role with fundraising for the Obama campaign, the buzz on Facebook, Twitter, etc. was a mere reflection or extension of the excitement exclusively of his fan base. Social media was a conduit for this excitement, not a generator. This is the main point that is being missed by those who make comparisons to 2008.
Social media’s role in the recent upheaval in Egypt was rallying the like minded, not converting Mubarak supporters. Same goes for the recent riots in the UK.
While I do believe that social media should be a part of any political strategy, I have not seen the evidence that it has the ability to create something from nothing when it comes to political issues. While this medium has proven itself to be a great conduit to rally support amongst choir members, there is little evidence that the crowd being converted on political issues.