Summary: A new study suggests that online campaign ads might be more effective for voter persuasion than previously thought.
Last year, we mentioned how some political scientists were beginning to think that campaign ads were going to go the way of the dodo. We challenged that theory.
“…we’ve mentioned how little beats voter-to-voter contact in spreading a campaign’s message and winning support. That means candidates have to rely on volunteers to make phone calls and canvass neighborhoods, as well as hopeful donors to finance it all. And just like the disappearance of yard signs would scare a campaign’s donors and volunteers, so would the disappearance of TV spots in a national, statewide, or even congressional election."
And thus, we made the following prediction about the future of campaign advertising:
“…more campaign ads will be produced, but perhaps seen less on television. With the online age, more and more ads will be emailed, blogged, and seen on YouTube than TV. It will be a more cost effective way to communicate with supporters that expect to see an operational campaign producing ads.”
“…likely Democratic primary voters exposed to television and online ads viewed our candidate, Chris Kelly for Attorney General, more favorably than those exposed only to television ads. Telephone polling of voters in two media markets uncovered a 19 point lift in Kelly's overall favorability ratings in Santa Barbara, where voters saw only television advertising, and a larger 23 point lift in Palm Springs where voters saw both television and online advertising. The study also showed a lift in favorability, recall and vote share among the campaign's key target audiences who were exposed to the TV and online ads.
The results of this study offer the first real evidence that campaigns can count on the web, not only to raise money and drive voters to their sites, but also to help build their brand, get their message out and positively influence voters. It is clear that online advertising will continue to play a key role in political communications in the coming years.”
Now it’s difficult to say what exactly caused the “point lift” in Palm Springs. It could have easily been attributable to more word-of-mouth communication between supporters and their friends and family. After all, supporters who see the online advertising might have been more inclined to tell their immediate contacts about Kelly than supporters who did not.
Nevertheless, the results speak for themselves. A greater online presence is certainly beneficial to a campaign, and online advertising can bolster that presence.
Summary: The youngest generation of Americans is the most technologically savvy. Knowing how they communicate and obtain information is paramount to engaging them politically.
Yesterday we examined a new Pew Research Center study on the Millennial Generation to find out how they were different from older generation in terms of politics and values. While we found that there were some striking differences, they pale in comparison to the differences in terms of technology use.
Technological change and generational change often go hand in hand. That’s certainly the story of the Millennials and their embrace of all things digital. The internet and mobile phones have been broadly adopted in America in the past 15 years, and Millennials have been leading technology enthusiasts. For them, these innovations provide more than a bottomless source of information and entertainment, and more than a new ecosystem for their social lives. They also are a badge of generational identity. Many Millennials say their use of modern technology is what distinguishes them from other generations.
WAYLA often examines trends in New Media and their impact on the political scene. But what’s interesting is that the older generations - who are more likely to vote - are typically not the most likely to use these media.
Millennials dominate in terms New Media and cell phone technology. Three out of every four Millennials use online social networking, compared with just half of Gen Xers, and less than a third of Baby Boomers.
Almost nine out of ten Millennials use their phones to text, and do so about 20 times per day. 83% of them sleep next to their cell phones, compared to 68% of Gen Xers and 50% of Baby Boomers.
They also appreciate technological advancements and innovation more than the average American. While almost a third of Baby Boomers believe these new technologies have made life more complicated, a staggering 74% of Millennials say they’ve made life easier.
One reason Millennials like these new technologies, no doubt, is because they’ve made it easier and more affordable to follow the news - especially the selective news they are interested in. They’re considerably less likely than their parents or grandparents to get news from television or newspapers, and more likely to find it on the internet.
In fact, “kids these days” are considerably less likely to watch television in general than any other age group.
None of these trends are necessarily surprising though, so why do we bring them up?
Knowing your audience is always important. Thus communicating via social networking services and texting will require different messages than traditional media.
Now, one of the most important rules in politics is maintaining a consistent message. But what areas of the message you focus on will differ depending on what media you use.
Understanding that Millennials - who have different perspectives and values than older generations - are more likely to use these new media sources means that tailoring your message over these media should reflect more on their concerns.
For example, Republicans should steer clear of stressing so-called “traditional family values” on Twitter and Facebook. Democrats should feel more free to promote issues in terms of equality and less compelled to defend the role of government in the economy. And while it would never hurt to do so, neither Republicans nor Democrats really need to hype veterans’ issues.
Tomorrow we’ll visit the topic of the Millennials one last time to wrap-up some key thoughts on the generational shift we’re seeing and its impact on politics.
Summary: Some Do’s and Don’ts of online campaigning.
Our friends at Spot-On recently sent an email blast about effectively campaigning online. One important aspect was how to effectively use web ads.
In a post on their company blog, they point out the “Do’s and Don’ts” of using web ads:
DO start early.
Online advertising can be used for a variety of purposes - early fundraising, field organizing, and GOTV. Online readers are usually hungry for information, so the sooner you start even a small fundraising and name I.D. campaign online, the better. More importantly, this helps you with publishers as elections near and ad space runs short. Long term clients tend to get more attention than someone who's showing up for the first time 2 weeks before election day.
Also remember that unlike political TV ads or direct mail, where political advertisers are used to getting preferential treatment and prices at election time, Internet advertising pits you against everyone who wants to place an ad online. Consider also that back-to-school ads and early holiday shopping ads pop up around election time, and you can see why planning early and often makes the difference.
DON'T skimp on creative.
Successful on-line ads make people want to read and click on your ad to learn more about your campaign or cause. Many people make the mistake of treating online ads as "display" ads to be looked at, passively, not ads that engage voters. You want people to see the ad and feel compelled to click through to your campaign's online operations.
That's why your ads should borrow a trick from direct-mail marketers and use easily understood "calls to action" to get the reader to do something for your campaign. Fundraising, signing an online petition, an emotional issue-based appeal, and so on will do much better than a dull "Vote for Smith" banner that doesn't tell people much.
DO make sure your designers are using proper technical specifications.
There is nothing worse than being on a tight deadline, and having to have artwork re-sized to fit display standards. Spot-on complies with the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) standards. They are available at their site. Make sure all of your designers are familiar with the standards.
Likewise, avoid the urge to use excessive Flash or audio in your ads. Many sites will not accept any ads, even ones to spec, that use audio or video. Others require animation to stop once it has run through a cycle.
DON'T isolate online from the rest of your campaign.
Internet advertising and online advocacy are no longer "extras" bolted on after the rest of the campaign's plan is done. All aspects of a campaign's voter contact plan - television, direct mail, Facebook marketing and outreach, and online ads - should all maintain a unified look and feel. This reinforces the message and drives voters to your website, your Facebook presence and/or application, your campaign office to volunteer and so on.
DO consider a variety of options for your online ads.
Focusing your on-line dollars on traditional outlets that have dominated your city or town can be an exercise in futility. Many reach less than 20 percent of their markets online. With so many choices available to voters nowadays for information, advertising solely on online versions of print media may limit your reach more than you realize. Ethnic media, trade publications, and geo-targeted ads on national media (think targeting Chicago readers of the New York Times, for example). It's the kind of planning that sounds counter to common sense - and yet can often be the edge your campaign needs to win.
Spot-on's Pinpoint Persuasion service is designed to reach voters that meet your search criteria. Using a range of services designed to help us pinpoint the voters by interest, gender, income, affiliation or other demographics, as well as our own rich database of information, Spot-on will help you get your message to the right audience at the right time to create a winning campaign.
Most of these points seem obvious, but in retrospect, they’re only obvious after you’ve read them. We hope they help you as you work out your online strategy for 2010.
Summary: Using business tools for campaigning - how interactive maps can increase momentum.
Advancements in political technology can come from just about anywhere. Every once in a while a new development from private enterprises can prove to be valuable resources for campaigns and political consultants.
On Black Friday, eBay tracked their sales by location across the country and developed a very cool map showing where people were making purchases on their website by the hour.
Spot-On, a campaign technology firm, picked up on this tool and sent out an email about its relevance for 2010.
From the email:
"It's a handy resource for those of you thinking about 2010 (and, really, who isn't?) and how online fits into your campaign…
…If we here at Spot-On needed a nifty way to illustrate of the power of the web and its place in the lives of "average" Americans - young, old, urban, rural, suburban, Southern, Midwestern or Western - we could not have asked for a better one."
How could campaigns use a similar tool? For starters, this could be a great resource for fundraising. Whenever a campaign needs to send their fundraising into over-dive - usually during the last few days of a reporting quarter - they could create a map like this one for their website and show supporters how well they’re raising money.
In many cases, a campaign must make itself look like a movement in order to tap into the psyches of its supporters - which in turn helps generate more money - and such a map would do just that.
Of course, there is always the risk of appearing beholden to people outside your district, and not all campaigns would want to use such a tool. It may be a better resource for partisan organizations like ActBlue or ideological interest groups like the Tea Party Patriots or MoveOn.org.
No matter who uses it though, it is an interesting technology development that could be useful for political fundraising.
Summary: Pondering the implications for campaigns if social networking replaces email.
Vertical Response, a blast-email company used by many political campaigns, sent an email to clients recently about a new debate in the communications world: will social networking replace email altogether?
It all started when Jessica Vascellaro wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal about why email will soon be a less significant form of communication than Facebook, Twitter, and upcoming Google products.
The argument was simple: social networking services are faster, constantly streaming, and more fun than email.
From the article:
Little wonder that while email continues to grow, other types of communication services are growing far faster. In August 2009, 276.9 million people used email across the U.S., several European countries, Australia and Brazil, according to Nielsen Co., up 21% from 229.2 million in August 2008. But the number of users on social-networking and other community sites jumped 31% to 301.5 million people.
"The whole idea of this email service isn't really quite as significant anymore when you can have many, many different types of messages and files and when you have this all on the same type of networks," says Alex Bochannek, curator at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif.
Nielsen Co., however, took issue with this argument, and put it to the test.
We decided to churn some quick data to test our hypothesis that “Consumption of social media decreases email use.” First, we broke the online population into four groups. The first three are terciles of social media consumption in minutes. The fourth is a group that doesn’t use social media at all. We then looked at each segment’s time of web based email consumption over the course of a year. Finally, we subtracted the email consumption of those that do not use social media from those that do, basically to show a lift over possible external forces. Clearly, there are more robust approaches that could be taken (controlling for factors other than consumption for example) but for the sake of this simple experiment, we tried to keep it straightforward.
Then they graphed the results:
So if social media is supposed to be replacing email as the dominant form of communication, then why are the individuals who use social networking services the most also increasing their email consumption at a faster rate than non-social networkers?
2. Nearly all sites on the web that require registration require an email address.
9. More social media use means more email use.
13. You can't easily segment your friends and followers to do targeted marketing in Twitter & Facebook for the optimal response.
19. You are limited to 140 characters in Twitter leaving it impossible to put multiple messages in one Tweet.
20. You almost have to have separate social media accounts for your business and your personal life. Some customers might not care about that vacation you took where you...let's just say what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
One problem with several of Popick’s ten reasons was that she was focusing on the company that is trying to send emails to clients or potential clients - not the clients themselves. For example, she notes that with social media the sender cannot track the message as easily, seeing who all clicked on what, etc.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that people actually will gradually move from email to Facebook or Twitter. Will they have second thoughts about doing it because then they won’t be able to help companies sending emails to them as easily anymore? Will they take into account the implications of tracking and response optimization on the part of those sending messages to them?
Of course not, those companies would have to adapt.
The same is true in politics. If social networking does end up replacing email as the primary form of communication, campaigns will simply have to start using these tools more aggressively and innovatively.
For example, let’s say your campaign has added a cool new page to its website and you want to let your supporters know. Additionally, you want to know just how many of them actually go to that page. Traditionally you would send out an email hyping it and including a link. With services from firms like Vertical Response, you can see how many supporters open the email and how many click the link.
You can still see how many hits that page is getting from your message on a social networking site so long as you use bit.ly.
But Popnick’s point about how much you can say when using social media is true - you cannot build the same message. This is troubling for prospects of campaign fundraising: currently Facebook and Twitter are not good tools for fundraising because you cannot explain to supporters just how critical it is that they make a contribution.
Luckily everyone recognizes the relevance of emails to this effect - no matter who you are you will keep an email account because occasionally you have a lot to tell someone.
It seems that - to this extent - social networking is not threatening to email. In fact, the Nielsen Co. study suggests that they are actually complimentary.
Sure, some campaigning and business will start being done more with social networking. At HSG, we typically become Facebook friends and Twitter followers with our clients and business associates. It’s quite possible that in the future we’ll be communicating with them about their races more and more using these services.
Some politicians are already beginning to communicate messages to supporters that would traditionally be done with email via social networking. For example, status updates are a great way to let constituents know what recent action just took place on Capitol Hill. But for more in-depth messages, emails will likely always be king.
It is critical that campaigns, politicians, and businesses utilize all forms of New Media appropriately.
Summary: Twitter on the trail again - how to best use Tweets while campaigning.
Lately we’ve been receiving quite a few emails about the growing relevance of New Media in politics - specifically social networking. Some of these ideas, and the debates they create, are quite interesting.
First there is the ever-continuing discussion on the use of Twitter, which we have been covering rigorously over the past several months. In a recent Winning Campaignsarticle , Christopher Massicotte of NGP Software (an online political finance tool) analyzes the increasing importance of a Twitter presence.
For the most part, Massicotte’s analysis falls along the lines of what we’ve been saying for a while (see our post “How is New Media Changing Politics?” from the 21st Century Campaigning series).
These were his “Do’s and Don’ts” of political Tweeting:
Do’s:
1) Follow as many people as you can on Twitter that are relevant to your campaign and use Twitter Search often;
2) Be interesting and original in what you are tweeting;
3) Talk to people about THEIR interests – by doing that, you are showing that you are human;
4) Make sure that it is the candidate who is tweeting. The campaign can have a Twitter account as well – but people are turned off when they realize that the tweeting has been “staffed out;”
5) Put a link to your Twitter site on your campaign website as you would with all of the other social networking tools that you are using.
Don’ts:
1) Don’t Tweet about anything that you wouldn’t want published on the front page of the New York Times. There are a number of news reports of “Tweets gone bad,” please don’t let this happen to you;
2) Don’t lock your tweets. Twitter allows you to lock your tweets so that people have to request to follow you and no one outside your group of followers can see what you are saying. You are not going to bring in new people this way;
3) Don’t tweet just for the sake of tweeting – I stop following people who fill up my Twitter feed with irrelevant and uninteresting things that have no appeal to me;
4) Don’t follow too many people – your feed will get too congested and you might miss something important – you don’t have to read every tweet. Most politicians do not follow anybody, but read their @replies;
5) Don’t fool yourself into thinking Twitter is the next greatest way to raise money. Twitter is a great tool for attracting new supporters and gets your message out virally, but putting links to your contribution page right in a tweet is the fastest way for people to stop following you.
For those of you have been following our input about Twitter, we agree with all but one of those ten points: the Fourth “Do”: “Make sure that it is the candidate who is tweeting.”
As many campaign workers will readily agree, many politicians have some trouble staying on message - especially new politicians. If a campaign follows the Fourth “Do” then there seems to be an increasing chance that the campaign won’t follow the First “Don’t”.
That being said, he has a point. Followers don’t like it when they can tell a Twitter account has been “staffed out.” But there may be a compromise position on this issue: if a campaign manager, consultant, etc. decides the candidate is responsible enough with message to use Twitter themselves (or not responsible enough, for that matter) they can make an individual decision for that specific campaign accordingly. After all, every campaign is unique.
Tomorrow we will analyze another interesting idea that has come up lately: will social networking kill email? And if so, what will be the implications for political campaigns? Come back to find out!
Summary: As the gay rights movement builds momentum, we ask "how are LGBT activists using New Media to advance their cause?"
As many of you are probably well aware, a swarm of LGBT rights advocates marched through Washington DC on Sunday in protest of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and in support of gay marriage.
When asked about the White House’s views towards the demonstrations, NBC Washington correspondent John Harwood said they view it as “the internet left fringe…[and that] those bloggers need to take off the pajamas and realize governing a closely divided country is complicated.”
Watch it here:
In fact, the blogosphere has been a widely used tool by the LGBT-supportive community - and they appear to be using that tool effectively. So we thought we would point out what we believe are the “Top 3 Blogs for Gay Rights Advocacy” - which we chose based on three determinants: 1) Building Sympathy for the Cause, 2) Supplying Ample Information on the Progress of Gay Rights, and 3) Organizing Support for LGBT Advocacy.
Asterisk
Written by a self-described gay Christian, he explains his blog as such:
"All my life, I’d placed an Asterisk next to my name. Nobody else saw my Asterisk, but I did. It was a constant reminder that both of the most important parts of me were mutually exclusive. That my difference made me a bad person…
…Nowadays, I don’t worry about my Asterisk. As far as I’m concerned it’s gone…
…And that’s what this blog is about; exposing the Asterisk, and with that exposure, removing it."
We chose this blog because of how it effectively and appropriately builds sympathy for the LGBT community - the blog is filled with heart-wrenching stories about discrimination against LGBT individuals. For example, his most popular post at the moment is about a lesbian who was denied her right to see her partner as she was dying in a southern hospital.
From the post:
We arrived shortly after 3:30 in the afternoon, around 4pm, a social worker came out and introduced himself as Garnett Frederick and said, “you are in an anti-gay city and state. And without a health care proxy you will not see Lisa nor know of her condition”. He then turned to leave; I stopped him and asked for his fax number because I said “we had legal Durable Powers of Attorney” and would get him the documents. Within a short time of meeting this social worker, I contacted friends in Lacey, WA, our hometown, who went to our house and faxed the legal documents required for me to make medical decisions for Lisa…
…A Hospital Chaplain appeared and asked if I wanted to pray and I looked at her dumbfounded as if I hadn’t already been doing that for over four hours. I immediately asked for a Catholic Priest to perform Lisa’s Last rites. A short time later, a Catholic priest escorted me back to recite the Last Rites and it was my first time in nearly 5hrs of seeing Lisa. After seeing her I knew the children needed to see her immediately and be able to say their goodbyes and begin the grieving process. Yet the priest escorted me back out to the waiting room. Where I was faced with the young faces of our beautiful children to explain “other mommy” was going to heaven.
You can consider this the Huffington Post of the gay rights movement. It is complete with opinions, news, commentary, and even the more light-hearted issues of LGBT advocacy. Based out of Portland, it is one of the most well-maintained blogs we’ve seen in a while
From the “About Us” page:
"Since March 2005 we’ve been bringing news regarding the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. At times we’ve been known as being a bit controversial and sometimes it even gets us in hot water namely with anti-gay lobbyists and legislators, but mainly we’re known as a great source of news for the GLBT community."
We chose this website because of the massive extent of information it provides on the progress of gay rights.
To try to give you a taste would be futile, you’ll just have to check it out for yourself.
Like Gay Rights Watch, The Bilerico Project provides well-rounded news, analysis, and light-hearted coverage of the gay rights movement. The only difference is that this website is more politically active.
From the “About Us” page:
"The Bilerico Project is the web's largest LGBTQ group blog with over 75 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer contributors. The Project features LGBTQ activists, politicos, journalists, novelists, advice columnists, and video bloggers who are high-energy, inquisitive, eloquent experts in their professions.
Some are among the top LGBTQ pundits and leaders in the country; others have made their mark in their state or local communities. Each brings a unique perspective and background to their work, offering analysis and opinion on almost every aspect of LGBTQ politics and culture. They spark creative and productive conversations among our growing readership. Our goal is to foster those conversations in order to strengthen us as individuals and as a community.
At Bilerico Project, we don't break the news. We shape the news."
We chose this blog because it does a great job at advancing the gay rights movement via organizing support for LGBT advocacy. For example, they have an Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) Targeted Legislator of the Day, who they put pressure on to support the yet-to-be-passed bill.
And one recent post looked like a fundraising email:
Once again, a generous donor and Bilerico reader has offered to match donations to our ActBlue Maine Page up to $1000 to help protect marriage equality for all families! The deadline is in six hours!
We need your help, though! Our donor will only match if at least 12 people contribute. After all the excitement of the National Equality March, let's come out in strong support of Maine and help us meet our goal!
Donate to No On 1/Maine marriage equality via Bilerico's ActBlue page and your donation will be doubled! You have to act fast though - state law cuts off contributions for this reporting period at 11:59pm tonight! Donate now to get twice the benefit!!
If 1/4 of our RSS subscribers alone gave $5, we'd be able to give Maine an extra $6000 at the last moment when they need it most. If you can't do much, can you give $5?
To try to undermine the impact these blogs have on public opinion - and even the future of public policy - would be unwise. Just as the online network of Tea Party activists and other conservatives seems to have shifted public opinion on economic concerns lately, the online network of gay or pro-gay bloggers appears to be affecting the social debate.
Support for gay rights - including gay marriage - is at an all time high. If these bloggers can upkeep its relevancy and continue building sympathy for the cause, providing extensive coverage of gay rights progress, and organize activism, the goals of the gay rights movement are sure to be met in time.
Summary: What the GOP lacks in Twitter message discipline, they make up for in followers.
The traditional stereotype of the GOP in Congress is a group of old conservative white men who probably aren’t too savvy with the modern world.
Except the Congressional Research Service recently released a study which finds Republicans in Congress are almost twice as likely to use Twitter, and they tweet almost four times as often.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had the most subscribers to his tweets, but two Democrats — Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — did make it into the top five list maintained by the website TweetCongress, which describes itself as “a grass-roots effort to get our men and women in Congress to open up and have a real conversation with us.” It lists Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in the top five, as well, and puts the current total of congressional Twitterers to 190. The CRS report, meanwhile, found that 4,186 people subscribed to — or followed — the median Republican senator, versus 2,874 for the median Democratic senator. The median Republican congressman had 1,615 followers, compared with 969 for Democratic colleagues.
Still, TechPresident.com’s Micah Sifry tells Politico “few members of Congress are really using Twitter very effectively. Most aren’t engaging a community all that well and, instead, use the tool primarily to broadcast a PR-style message that isn’t likely to get spread around much by others.”
David All, a Republican Internet strategist hired recently to help bolster [Rep. Joe] Wilson’s presence online — including on Twitter — said the site “is not the end-all, be-all, but it has proven to be a good tool to help public officials, trade associations, major brands and media achieve their online goals.”
He asserted that “every effective communications professional or major association needs a real strategy for utilizing Twitter at all times — especially during key events where real-time response is crucial.”
But that still isn’t stopping Republicans from posting stupid tweets, which is something we’ve covered a lot here before. The article relays some new ones:
A handful of House members were called out for tweeting during President Barack Obama’s February address to a joint session of Congress, including Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), whose account tweeted, “Aggie basketball game is about to start on espn2 for those of you that aren’t going to bother watching pelosi smirk for the next hour.” That was followed quickly by another message reading: “Disregard that last tweet from a staffer.”
In July, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a member of the Navy Reserve, was criticized for disclosing his location while on duty, which risked running afoul of military rules.
Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) raised eyebrows when he used his very active Twitter account to compare the Iranian protests over their disputed election to House Republicans’ efforts to “expose repression” such as a House Democratic “clampdown” on Republican amendments.
It’s been interesting to watch the growth of Twitter in the past year in the political world, especially among Republicans, because it brings a lot of implications with it. Unfortunately for the naïve GOP consultant quoted earlier, few of those implications are positive unless you have the sort of message discipline that Republicans clearly don’t have right now.
Summary: Keeping voters engaged and predicting election outcomes – What we learned from Twitter in the New York City Elections.
Democratic strategist Joe Trippi picked up a surprising piece of news on his blog recently: it seems that the use of Twitter and Facebook by Democratic candidates in New York City could have helped one predict the outcome of Tuesday’s primaries there.
Nancy Scola of TechPresident.com wrote in a blog post yesterday that the winners of the races for Public Advocate, Manhattan District Attorney and City Comptroller might have done as well as they did thanks to the online support they built with social networking websites.
From the post:
In the New York City Public Advocate race, city councilmember Bill DiBlasio scored something of a surprise win, 33% to 31%, over former two-term Public Advocate Mark Green. (It's only a temporary "win." Since neither candidate broke the 40% mark, under city law the race goes into a run off.) While Green's name recognition is strong in the city, given his past service to the city in the same position he was gunning for, this time around his campaign never seemed to build up steam -- which is borne out by the social media numbers at play. DiBlasio collected 3,265 followers, combining his Twitter and Facebook numbers, to Green's far fewer 445…
…The Manhattan District Attorney race had been contentious, dramatic, and up for grabs. It looked for a time like Judge Leslie Crocker Snyder might emerge victorious over Cyrus Vance, despite the fact that Vance was the heir apparent to the influential sitting DA Robert Morgenthau. But Vance fairly trounced Snyder last night, 44% to 30%. A somewhat unforeseen story, but one nonetheless foretold by their respective Facebook and Twitter tallies. Vance had 1,582 admirers and followers to Snyder's 881. Attorney Richard Aborn came in third in both votes and online allies, with 26% of the vote and 720 followers and fans.
And in the Comptroller race, Queens councilmember John Liu pulled out 38% of the vote over Brooklyn councilmember David Yassky's 31%. (A result that, again, calls for a run-off at the to take place at the end of the month.) Surprising? Perhaps. But not if you're keeping tabs on how popular Liu and Yassky were doing online. Liu's Twitter-plus-Facebook tally amounted to 1,159 followers and fans, while Yassky pulled in with somewhat fewer, at 364 admirers and followers.
Of course, Scola was also right to point out that not all of the candidates had a vote total that corresponded with their social networking support.
In the Comptroller's race, David Weprin managed to amass almost as many followers as the top two candidates in the race (1,858 to Liu and Yassky's combined 2,073). But he won a much smaller share of the vote, with just 11%. And in the Public Advocate contest, Queens councilmember Eric Goia racked up more than five times the friends and followers as the second place finisher Green -- but he managed to only place a disappointing far third.
Having a lot of followers on Twitter or supporters on Facebook does not mean your campaign will automatically be successful, and relying on such websites for Election Day is a poor strategy that no well-run campaign would take.
However, utilizing these resources as a tool for fundraising or recruiting volunteers can make a campaign very strong - and it’s very possible that Tuesday’s winners had been doing just that.
As we wrote about New Media in our 21st Century Campaigning series last month:
Keeping supporters engaged is a highly important function of any campaign. Without engaged supporters, a campaign is unable to raise money or find volunteers to knock on doors and make phone calls.
That means campaigns have to keep supporters interested and active in the daily developments of the race.
…the effectiveness of such outreach comes down to what we call the “Twitter talent.” A major part of it is passing the “‘Who Cares?’ Test” - you have to post something relevant that your followers will be interested in.
In fact, some of the NYC candidates were doing just that with their Twitter and Facebook outreach. Scola mentions how Mark Green used his Twitter feed creatively, tweeting 100 “New Ideas for a Better City” to his followers.
Unfortunately for Green, creative tweeting is just one of the necessary parts of an effective New Media strategy. A campaign also needs to continually grow their list of supporters and followers in order to raise more money and get more volunteers. To that effect, it is very beneficial for a campaign to hire a New Media Coordinator who can devote their time to building a social networking base, among other things.
Luckily for candidates like Green, they have time to do these things before the run-off election.
Summary: Today, WAYLA focuses on picking and choosing followers on Twitter, stemming from Colorado Republicans "scrubbing" their liberal followers - what it means for each party, for future campaigns, and what they're missing.
On Monday, ColoradoPols.com - a Democratic-leaning political blog in Colorado - reported that Republicans on Twitter began purging liberals from their list of followers over the weekend.
From the post:
Apparently the word went out over the weekend that "liberals" are attempting to "follow" Republicans on Twitter. This is being interpreted as a bad, nefarious thing, needing to be stopped, although "following" on Twitter is in most other circles considered desirable. In fact we're not certain under what circumstances attracting Twitter followers is undesirable, but then again we've been following Republican “tweets” ourselves. We understand why some of them would prefer to not have just anybody seeing this stuff.
We're told that the advice to begin 'purging' liberals from high-profile conservative Twitter accounts was supposed to have gone out quietly, with the goal being an under-the-radar purge.
Colorado State Senator Dave Schultheis (R-09) didn’t do it very quietly, however, tweeting “Important! Many libs and progressives attempting 2 Follow conservatives. Scrub your "followers" I blocked three more today. #tcot #redco”
This development is interesting for two reasons.
The first is how the GOP is using Twitter. They want to be able to rally supporters without the other side getting word of the language or tactics they’re using.
Unfortunately for them - as they should know - anything done or said in the political realm in this day and age can be leaked faster than water in a sieve. Just take President Obama’s comments about Kanye West the other day, or many of the embarrassing tweets Republicans have made that we have relayed here on WAYLA.
"The point is that politicians wouldn’t (in most cases) say those sorts of things to rally supporters in a speech - because that too would be picked up by the mainstream media - so they shouldn’t try to engage supporters with such rhetoric in the social networking realm either."
It seems that Colorado Republicans don’t read this blog.
The second reason it’s interesting is how liberals are acting in terms of new media - or rather, political people in general.
The simple psychology of it is that it is alright to follow the opposition on Twitter - it doesn’t compromise your own ideological principles. Similarly, many smart campaign workers will sign up for the email lists of their competition.
[In fact, there are occasionally email wars between liberal groups (like, say, MoveOn.org) and conservative groups (like, say, FreedomWorks). In these wars, one group will email its supporters saying something somewhat confrontational in order to drive support (typically in money or online petition signatures) and someone from another group will receive the email too. Then they’ll use it to send out their own email, blasting the original, and driving their own support (in money or e-petitions). Sometimes it can go back and forth for a while.]
Contrast that sneaky way of watching the competition with another new media tool - Facebook. On Facebook, in order to keep track of an opposing politician or ideological group automatically, one needs to become a supporter. A follower is one thing, but identifying yourself as a supporter is too much too handle!
Nonetheless, the media follows - and “supports” - everyone in order to keep tabs on their campaign activities. That’s how we get word when somebody like Sarah Palin coins a phrase like “death panels” with a status update.
Colorado Republicans have hardly anything to fear in liberal followers on Twitter - it’s the press that they should look out for.
Summary: New media keeps gaining political relevancy! After President Obama commented on hip-hop artist Kanye West's recent interruption of Taylor Swift at the VMAs, WAYLA continues to show how new media sources can affect politics, positively and negatively, every day.
I have to admit, when I first saw the video of Hip Hop artist Kanye West interrupting teen Country star Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards (see below) I never expected it to find its way to this blog.
But today the blogosphere has been rapidly spreading the news about President Obama’s take on the incident. Apparently he was in an off-the-record discussion with a CNBC reporter when he called Kanye a “jackass” for his actions at the VMAs.
Not knowing the comments were off the record, ABC News reporter Terry Moran tweeted it with his own commentary: “Now THAT’s Presidential.”
After realizing it was off-the-record, Moran deleted the tweet. Yet the news was already out there and spread like an epidemic. ABC has since released a statement apologizing for Moran’s tweet to Politico.
Why on Earth is this important?
It’s hard to imagine that most Americans are actually going to care about Obama’s unofficial comment - after all, it’s a personal feeling that is probably already held (verbatim) by most Americans.
Here’s the take from Newsweek’s blog, “The Gaggle”:
“In a White House that is so very careful about staying on message, Obama’s Kanye commentary was perhaps the most filter-free moment we’ve seen in a while, and let's face it, the slip-up was pretty harmless. Why shouldn’t Obama be able to call out Kanye for acting like a jackass? Is there anyone who actually disagrees?”
But the story is still important - not so much because of what Obama said, but how his thoughts were leaked.
We’ve talked a lot about Twitter over the past few months. We talked about its role in the Iranian elections, how campaigns can use it effectively, and even did a case study on how it has affected this very blog.
We’ve also mentioned some of the more irresponsible and damaging tweets that have come to light in 2009. For example, how one Republican operative tweeted “JUST HEARD THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS,” around June.
But the Moran tweet raises a new interesting question about irresponsible tweets: what about journalists who cover politics? What can campaigns or public relations experts do when media professionals abuse (even accidently) new media?
I guess we’ll have to watch how White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs handles this story to find out.
Part 10 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”
Those who are highly engaged in the political realm hear a lot about the prospects of “New Media” everyday. But what role does New Media really have in politics? More importantly, how can New Media be used effectively by campaigns and politicians?
When people think of New Media, they often associate it with social networking - Facebook, Twitter, etc. - but in fact it encompasses much more than that. Resources such as YouTube, social bookmarking sites (Digg, Reddit, etc.) and the blogosphere are some of the other important tools in the New Media hype. And all of these tools are becoming more and more important in politics.
For example, as newspapers fall by the wayside, campaigns are increasing their outreach to bloggers. As we noted in Part 6 of this series, campaigns can engage these citizen journalists by sending them interesting YouTube videos, news clips, and other online materials regarding the race. It helps build a relationship with friendly bloggers and that can help get your name and message out there the way you want it to.
Yet, much of the New Media world requires navigation on the part of the user. In other words, if a voter is not interested in the campaign, they’re not going to subscribe to an email list, become a fan on Facebook, or a follower on Twitter.
So why are these tools still important?
There is one important group of voters that are still going to follow the campaign with these tools - supporters. Keeping supporters engaged is a highly important function of any campaign. Without engaged supporters, a campaign is unable to raise money or find volunteers to knock on doors and make phone calls.
That means campaigns have to keep supporters interested and active in the daily developments of the race.
Let’s use Twitter as an example. As we mentioned in our own Twitter study last month, the effectiveness of such outreach comes down to what we call the “Twitter talent.” A major part of it is passing the “‘Who Cares?’ Test” - you have to post something relevant that your followers will be interested in.
So we decided to do an analysis of the New Media strategies of the two main campaigns of the Virginia Gubernatorial race going on right now between Democrat Criegh Deeds and Republican Bob McDonnell.
Deeds has some Tweets and Facebook updates that supporters can use. He mostly uses the social networking tools to update supporters on where he’ll be speaking each day. Occasionally, he also throws in less useful updates.
Take these three Tweets (in chronological order) on August 1st:
“Today is Jerry Garcia's birthday. We turn to Workingman's Dead”
“At FedEx in hot anticipation of Sir Paul. Surrounded by good friends”
“Still waiting. @jbtaylor I like it all but I'm partial to the Revolver-Rubber Soul period for the Fab Four”
And in the past two weeks, he has only posted one link outside of Twitter. On Facebook, his posts have been more relevant - he regularly posts videos, events, and news bits that will encourage supporters. Yet his outreach to them on Facebook is still a little weak - he has less than 10,000 supporters while McDonnell has over 16,000. He also has just more than half as many followers on Twitter as McDonnell.
In fact, McDonnell uses Facebook just as well - constantly linking to his website on updates, informing supporters about upcoming events, and posting even more videos and positive news stories as Deeds. On Twitter, McDonnell constantly links to videos, pictures, news stories, and other websites that will be of use to supporters - engaging them so they will be encouraged to help his campaign.
Obviously, it would be irresponsible to credit McDonnell’s lead on Deeds solely with his dominant social networking strategy, but it certainly helps.
Another favorite New Media tool has been YouTube. Although we were quick to criticize this video for its inaccuracies, it certainly served its purpose well - it engaged and encouraged like-minded Recovery Act opponents.
Of course, using New Media as effectively as it can be used takes a lot of work. Campaigns that actually have a New Media coordinator - whose sole responsibility is social networking, engaging bloggers, posting on sites such as YouTube and Flickr, social bookmarking, etc. - can have a tremendous advantage in fundraising, volunteer support, and even message delivery.
Yet there is still a danger to such a strategy.
Back in June we mentioned how a few GOP operatives and activists were stepping over the line with some of their Tweets. For example, Mike Green of the GOP firm Starboard Communications tweeted “JUST HEARD THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS.”
He later apologized - using two tweets to do so.
And nobody has been scrutinized for their use of New Media by the traditional media sources than Sarah Palin. Just last week she talked about an Obama “death panel” euthanizing her baby with Down Syndrome on a Facebook status update.
The point is that politicians wouldn’t (in most cases) say those sorts of things to rally supporters in a speech - because that too would be picked up by the mainstream media - so they shouldn’t try to engage supporters with such rhetoric in the social networking realm either.
And that’s another reason to have a special New Media coordinator rather than a candidate updating their New Media tools themselves - message discipline.
Like so many other advancements in campaign politics, just because the technology is changing doesn’t mean the basic principles are.
Well, we hope you’ve enjoyed “21st Century Campaigning” - it was certainly a pleasure to give our predictions and analysis of the changes happening in the political campaign world. Soon we’ll be starting a new series that should be fun: “Politics in the Movies”
In 2009, What Are You Looking At? experienced a dramatic increase in readership between the months of May and June. Overall, traffic on WAYLA doubled in June relative to the traffic in May.
How did this increase happen?
There are several variables that went into the growth of visits to WAYLA - including more content to find with a Google search and a greater presence in social bookmarking - but one of the most noticeable reasons for this improvement was Twitter.
In fact, we found that there was at least a 20% increase in traffic that was directly attributable to Twitter. As our base of followers grew steadily at www.Twitter.com/HSGWAYLABlog, our referrals from Twitter to the blog grew exponentially.
Why Twitter Can Help a Blog
Today WAYLA has about 350 followers on Twitter - a number that is increasing on a daily basis. By tweeting approximately three times a day we have kept the blog relevant to those followers. They can now be consistently reminded to check out the newest blog post.
By including a few words on the content of our new posts, “What We’re Looking At” or headlines we have provided for the day, we can not only catch the eye of our followers, but spark enough of an interest to bring them back to the blog and read it. Not only is it helpful for us because it increases our traffic, but it gives our readers the opportunity to know what’s new at WAYLA and remind them to visit again.
According to Shannon Vallor - a professor at Santa Clara University who studies social networking - “the first place people go are these social-networking tools [such as Twitter] rather than the conventional media…more people are using the major media outlets as places to go after they've heard the basic story to get more information.”
Twitter can also be accessed easily with modern cell phones. This has a serious advantage for bloggers who analyze the news. One study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project finds that Twitter users are more than twice as likely to read the news on their mobiles as other internet users. Additionally, checking the news via phones is becoming increasingly common with smart phones as professionals become more and more “on-the-go.”
Using Twitter for increasing hits and the number of visitors a blog receives has other very practical reasoning behind it. Research shows that over 90% of the users of social networking websites (including Myspace, Facebook, and now Twitter) also read blogs.
WAYLA’s New Media Strategy
WAYLA has maintained a page at Facebook since February. While this provided some initial growth in traffic, continuing to increase hits was somewhat difficult. The reason is simple enough: WAYLA’s niche reader is not in his or her twenties - the prime age of a Facebook user.
According to the Pew study mentioned before, the median age for a Facebook user is 26 - not long out of college and not as likely to be involved professionally in political campaign strategy. The median age for Twitter users, however, is 31 - an age at which a person is much more likely to be interested in the sort of content we typically publish.
So in late May and throughout June, WALYA did a big Twitter push. We sent out an email blast, Facebook update, and even did a blog post letting our readers know that we were on Twitter. Our contacts that were not even very familiar with the blog started visiting on a regular basis once they were following us.
It wasn’t long before less familiar contacts - and even many people we didn’t know - were following us as well, deepening our pool of potential readers.
Can Twitter Help Your Business or Campaign?
Twitter is free and simple to use, so there’s no point in neglecting it. But in order for it to be helpful it must be used wisely. Much of it has to do with what we like to call “Twitter talent.”
A recent study by BlissPR - a public relations firm in New York - found that a majority of consulting firms are failing to use social networking. Those which do have Twitter accounts or Facebook pages either use new media too limitedly or fail to use it effectively - for example, they might post tweets that don’t pass what communications expert Ann Wylie calls the “who cares” test. Simply put: you need to provide your followers with useful information when you tweet.
Blogs can use it to drive traffic, campaigns can use it to update supporters about fundraisers or volunteer opportunities, and (as the Boston Globe found recently) restaurants can use it for posting their daily specials. All of these uses are effective because they provide followers with information they can use.
And because it simultaneously advances your purposes, tweeting effectively is to both their benefit and yours.
Following the presidential elections in Iran last week, protests have broken out in the streets for at least 5 days now with no real end in sight. What is truly remarkable about the situation is how much credit Twitter - the new-media social networking website - has been given for this “revolution”.
It is true that Twitter has been a uniquely accessible service for the protesters. While the government - in an effort to crack down on the information leaving Iran - has been slowing internet connection and removing websites such as Facebook, Twitter has been okay because it is so compatible with SMS text messaging. Furthermore, as cell phone reception is turned off in some areas, Twitter feeds can still be updated by “relay” websites.
But the Iran-Twitter fascination grew even more when the U.S. State Department announced that they asked Twitter to postpone some scheduled maintenance because, as Secretary Clinton says, “keeping that line of communications open and enabling people to share information, particularly at a time when there was not many other sources of information, is an important expression of the right to speak out and to be able to organize.”
She also added, humorously, “I wouldn't know a twitter from a tweeter, but apparently it is very important.”
So of course it wasn’t long before some in the media said that the State Department controls Twitter. The operators of the social networking service responded saying:
“When we worked with our network provider yesterday to reschedule this planned maintenance, we did so because events in Iran were tied directly to the growing significance of Twitter as an important communication and information network…
…It's humbling to think that our two-year old company could be playing such a globally meaningful role that state officials find their way toward highlighting our significance. However, it's important to note that the State Department does not have access to our decision making process. Nevertheless, we can both agree that the open exchange of information is a positive force in the world.”
But is Twitter really that significant in Iran’s protests?
The simple answer is “not really” - its role is being overblown by American media which are (for the most part) doing a particularly poor job covering the developments in Iran.
It is hard to say how much twittering is actually going on inside Iran. The tweets circulated by expatriates in the United States tend to be in English -- the Twitter interface does not support the use of Farsi. And though many people may be sending tweets out of Iran, their use inside Iran may be low, some say.
"Twitter's impact inside Iran is zero," said Mehdi Yahyanejad, manager of a Farsi-language news site based in Los Angeles. "Here, there is lots of buzz, but once you look...you see most of it are Americans tweeting among themselves."
And as Thomas Friedman points out in his recent New York Times column:
“…the Islamists and their regimes have a trump card: guns. Guns trump cellphones. Bang-bang beats tweet-tweet. The [only reason the] Sunni Awakening in Iraq succeeded because the moderates there were armed.”
And if you look at opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi’s Twitter feed (as of noon EST today) he only has about 15,000 followers - a small fraction of the number of protesters right now - and as you would probably imagine, many of those followers are from places other than Iran.
What the American fascination with Twitter in these protests has produced is suspicion on the part of the Iranian regime. The government of Iran now blames “intolerable” American meddling in their domestic affairs for the current demonstrations - exactly what President Obama was trying to avoid! As much as we Americans want to reject it, the actions taken by our State Department do give some weight to that argument.
What is much more interesting about Twitter is not the impact it has in Iran, but rather the impact it has in American politics.
A few weeks ago, we mentioned how RNC New Media Director Todd Herman tweeted “new racism = no better than old” in reference to Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Despite the fact that RNC Chairman Michael Steele was trying to stay away of accusing her of racism, the Rush Limbaugh rhetoric found its way onto Twitter.
Now Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker finds a slew of tweets made by GOP activists and operatives that keep them anywhere but on-message.
Take this recent tweet by Mike Green of Starboard Communication, a Republican consulting firm: “JUST HEARD THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS.”
It wasn’t long before Green apologized - using two tweets - for his comment.
"I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR THE COMMENTS I MADE ON TWITTER YESTERDAY. I MADE A MISTAKE.
I REALIZE THAT MY COMMENTS WERE HURTFUL, WRONG AND HAVE NO PLACE IN CIVIL DISCOURSE."
As Hertzberg points out, a simple “I made a mistake” would have sufficed, but the relatively long apology (for Twitter) was probably something his firm made him do.
Then there’s Rusty DePass, a GOP county chairman from South Carolina, who posted a rather crude update on Facebook referring to an escaped gorilla from a local zoo: “I’M SURE IT’S JUST ONE OF MICHELLE [OBAMA]’S ANCESTORS—PROBABLY HARMLESS.” In his less sincere apology, he told the press “I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest…the comment was hers, not mine” (referring to her belief in evolution).
New media can be extremely useful to political campaigning (which is why we use Twitter, follow us at www.twitter.com/HSGWAYLABlog) because it’s cheap and it reaches out to a broad audience that is no longer interested in seeing political TV ads or mailers. But it’s also creating problems with keeping operatives and activists on message - an incredibly important component of campaigns.
Of course, you can see more debate about the relevance of Twitter in Iranian politics by going to this article at TechPresident.com. But make no mistake about it, Twitter is going to play a much larger role (even if it’s less reported on) in the United States - especially come 2010.
“…likely Democratic primary voters exposed to television and online ads viewed our candidate, Chris Kelly for Attorney General, more favorably than those exposed only to television ads. Telephone polling of voters in two media markets uncovered a 19 point lift in Kelly's overall favorability ratings in Santa Barbara, where voters saw only television advertising, and a larger 23 point lift in Palm Springs where voters saw both television and online advertising. The study also showed a lift in favorability, recall and vote share among the campaign's key target audiences who were exposed to the TV and online ads.
