Social Media is a Continuous Political Polling System
Obama’s first Oval Office address took place this week to update America on the BP oil crisis. The reaction and backlash from his short speech was quickly seen via social media outlets Facebook and Twitter. As Mashable reports, many users were unhappy with Obama’s speech. The article did highlight how social media has become the virtual water cooler for politics today. What is really unique about this trend is that political candidates and those already in office can have direct feedback with their constituents as they “fan” or “like” posts on Facebook and then tweet about them. Followers are likely to share their honest opinions via social media as well giving the politician a clearer insight into those he or she actually represents. 
Companies such as Twitalyzer or Twitteranalyzer have made it easy to get statistics about a Twitter account. Statistics such as how many retweets or mentions an account is receiving is available with just a click of a button. The disadvantage of social media serving as the new water cooler is that it makes word-of-mouth that much more important. Information can spread at a seemingly lightning speed because it is literally at our fingertips. If someone votes on a bill or piece of legislation that constituents do not agree with, it only takes a few seconds for word to get out and spread throughout the virtual world.
Twitter rumor & fake account hit Australian politics
A recent social media hoax in Australia sent a controversial rumor around Twitter. The incident (described below) makes two things evident:
1. If you don’t claim your own social media space as a public figure, someone else will.
Create an official account. Even if it only features brief news updates, an official account lets the public and media know what messages come from you and which are ugly rumors. Stop misinformation before it spreads.
2. Create a social media strategy.
The article below points out using social media for the sake of using social media doesn’t proactively help you. While the first tip here deal with risk management, real benefits are seen when social media is used with purpose.
Either way, your voters are there. The media is there. At a minimum, you need to be there too.
One evening, a couple of weeks ago, the Twittersphere went into a frenzy as the following 82 characters appeared on computer and iPhone screens across the country:
Mr Rudd needs to rule out US-style death panels from his health care “reform” plan
The Twitterer responsible for the tweet was @BronwynBishopMP, a user whose profile features an official photograph of Ms Bishop and a comprehensive archive of serious, sober tweets related to her portfolio. The user’s 500+ followers (this writer included) had until that point not doubted for a moment that @BronwynBishopMP was the real deal; the account bore none of the classic hallmarks of other Twitter fakes such as comedy avatars or sarcastic tweets.
“Death panels!” screamed Twitter in response to those 82 characters, gobsmacked (but not entirely surprised) that an opposition MP in Australia had pulled out the strawman defence used by opponents of proposed US healthcare reforms. It was a beautiful moment for the online political discussion community which loves nothing more than a bit of madness in their political thrust and parry.
For the next thirty minutes mainstream journalists with Twitter accounts flailed about, desperately seeking proof or otherwise that the account was genuine, fingers hovering over the publish button on hastily-written death panel articles; the phone lines were apparently jammed at Bronwyn Bishop’s Canberra office. Eventually, journalist Lyndal Curtis got through to Bishop’s staff and announced to a breathless online network that @BronwynBishopMP was indeed fake – the real BB does not possess a Twitter account.
Looking back through the fake’s archives there is only one small clue that points towards impersonation, probably laid quite purposefully by the extremely patient faker:
One of the first issues I want to pursue is one that gets little media attention – the problem of identity theft amongst senior Australians
Overall it’s pretty nice work, you gotta admit.
It’s only one small and isolated incident, but a handy pointer to this year’s likely political and social media epicentre. Twitter looks like being the hot social media tool of the 2010 federal election, picking up where YouTube left off in 2007. In the first half of that year, as the election approached, every serving or prospective politician signed up an account, proudly displayed a YouTube graphic on their websites, and did … something. Social media efforts back then ranged from stiff and sickening videos from Prime ministerial incumbent John Howard and challenger Kevin Rudd, to some truly bizarre efforts from obscure Senate hopefuls such as Stewart “hammer the screw” Glass.
But it’s highly doubtful that any of the enthusiastic YouTube stuff swung more than a handful of votes, if it swung a single vote at all. If anything, electioneering YouTube videos did nothing more than provide fodder for journalists looking for something to report and rusted-on political bloggers looking for something to take the piss out of. When social media is used for its own sake there is unlikely to be any real benefit for the user.
Coming back to the future, it’s also highly doubtful that the class of 2010’s Twitter efforts will be any more successful at changing votes. While social media – if used cleverly – is probably an effective medium for organising and mobilising existing support, its effectiveness in influencing support is less clear.
Unfortunately, at this time there’s no real way of making assessments about social media’s impact on political outcomes beyond broad, anecdotal observations. Political analyst Possum Comitatus says the impact probably won’t be properly measurable until after this year’s poll because social media didn’t hit a critical mass of users until about 2008. But based on social media’s larger role in American politics, Possum reckons it so far seems to have potential in the areas of small donor fundraising and debunking of myths propagated by political opponents. At the most recent Presidential election, social media “definitely succeeded in the first,” says Possum, while efforts at debunking myths were “pretty much a dismal failure.”
Back here in Australia we are starting to see a preview of how Twitter might be used in the lead up to this year’s federal election. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is a reasonably prolific tweeter who (between he and his team) pumps out a steady stream of carefully-crafted on-message units of spin, interrupted very occasionally by an insight into the Rudd family’s cinema preferences. Opposition leader Tony Abbott maintains a Twitter account (as does his penis, strangely enough), although his tweets are sparse and tentative. There are a few dozen other politicians active on Twitter but, by-and-large, their efforts are fairly dry and uninspiring.
It’s a bit of a shame, really, because through Twitter a politician has a chance to communicate directly with their supporters and potential supporters, transmitting their message while revealing a little bit of the human personality behind the grey exterior that often dominates their public image. This, combined with the interactivity built into the core of social media, can maximise the connection voters might feel with politicians and possibly influence votes. But just like in 2007, simply putting a Twitter badge on your website and making a few cursory and unidirectional efforts at using the tool will result in precisely zero impact on your electoral prospects.
We’ll have to wait and see how it all pans out, of course, but in the meantime we simply must give a special mention to Victorian state opposition leader Ted Baillieu who last week went above and beyond the call of political duty, taking time out from electioneering to give storm and building advice to the Twitterers of Melbourne:
With extreme and heavy rainfalls on unattended construction sites over 2-3 days, exposed foundations may need extra attention and repair
Good on ya, Ted.
Sorry to break it to you, Mr. Woster, but social media’s not going anywhere
I ran across an article today that proposed some interesting questions that makes me think the author might not “get it” yet when it comes to political campaigns and social media. The section is bolded in the article below. I’m going to attempt to answer these questions in a simple way.
1. Who cares?
Well, I’d say the candidates care, their fans care, their opponents care, and you should probably care too. The why is better addressed with the remaining questions.
2. Does Knudson have a microwave oven?
I have no idea, but I would think yes. Why? Because microwave ovens changed everything. It made life faster, more convenient, easier, and unhealthier if not used in moderation. Do you see the parallel? Social media changed everything. Communicating is faster with social networks like Facebook and Twitter available literally everywhere via Internet and mobile phones. Finding supporters is easier and more convenient with Facebook’s ability to narrowly target an audience. And like all things, social media would make for a very unhealthy campaign if overly relied on and not balanced alongside other campaign activities.
3. How important is the Facebook fan count when compared to available campaign funds, advertising, personal appearances and debates?
Oh, Mr. Woster, it is important for all the reasons listed in question number 2. Facebook can be used to promote fundraisers, to help moneybombs go viral, and to thank supporters for their contributions. Facebook is a form of advertising in itself. It helps with SEO and appears in Google’s real-time search. It creates awareness and gives politicians a free and open platform to connect with voters, learn about issues, and respond. It even offers incredibly targeted display ads. It helps politicians know where to appear and offers the option of inviting fans to events and debates to make sure their kept in the loop.
The use of Facebook within political campaigns isn’t about placing a weight or priority on it against everything else. It’s about integrating social media in a way that enhanced everything else. Donations, advertising, debates, and appearances shouldn’t stop, but social media helps make them more personal, interconnected, and appreciated.
I did catch the sarcasm in your article, Mr. Woster. I realize you don’t literally think Knudson doesn’t have a microwave, and I doubt you step outside when someone’s using yours. But I hope that you catch the importance of Facebook highlighted in my response. There’s no need to resist something that can be so beneficial.
Woster: Election by Facebook
Kevin Woster Journal staff | Posted: Monday, March 1, 2010 8:00 am | (0) Comments
<!–
–>Poor Dave Knudson. He only has 396 Facebook fans.
Prior to last week, I didn’t realize how sad that was. But then, I’d never done the Facebook thing, either. All the other kids – the ones in news, that is, especially the ones without gray hair – seemed to be doing it, so I checked it out.
It even got to be a news story in the U.S. House campaign, something about Kristi Noem topping Blake Curd and Chris Nelson in attracting Facebook fans in the U.S. House race.
I would have never known about such a potentially decisive campaign development, except for Paul Guggenheimer. He brought it up Monday during our “Political Junkies” show on South Dakota Public Radio.
I’ve been trying to ignore the whole Facebook thing in hopes that it would go away. I tried the same thing with other passing fades, such as the Internet, cell phones and microwave ovens. Lately I’ve started to admit, however, they might be here to stay.
Still, I persistent in defending my narrow technological comfort zone, when possible. I lost my Internet boycott when my bosses decided it would be part of the news business. I do have a microwave oven, but I try to step into the bathroom or out on the deck when it’s in operation. And I don’t have a cell phone, or a wrist watch – although lack of the latter might say more about a lack of responsibility and obsession with mortality than it does about technology.
Lately I’ve focused my technological boycott energies on Facebook, ignoring it myself and deleting all invitations to become Facebook fans for others. So I was unsettled when Guggenheimer brought it up, and dismayed to learn that fellow political junky, Argus Leader reporter Jonathan Ellis, had actually collaborated on a newspaper story on the race for Facebook fans in the U.S. House race.
I respect Ellis, and his news judgment. So, I felt less like a crusader in the war against technology and more like a behind-the-curve newshound with pre-Cambrian online skills.
Oh, how the techno-world turns. It seems like only yesterday that I learned to “Google,” and also learned how to pervert a proper noun into an improper verb in ways that I still find socially troubling. But I do it. I “Google,” therefore, I am.
I’m not sure if you can “Facebook,” yet. But I can and did “Google” Facebook, starting with Noem, of course. She had 1,481 Facebook fans Friday morning, topping Curd with 928 and Nelson with 713.
Incumbent Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is still out front in the House Facebook race, with 2,254 on a personal Facebook site and another 601 on her congressional site.
I was on a roll, so I tried the governor’s race, where the Facebook fan count breaks down like this: Dennis Daugaard, 1,618; Scott Munsterman, 1,486; Scott Heidepriem, 1,235; Ken Knuppe, 617; Gordon Howie, 438 and Dave Knudson, 396.
It raised a couple of questions: First, who really cares? Second, I wonder if Knudson has a microwave oven.
Wait, make that three questions: How important is the Facebook fan count when compared to available campaign funds, advertising, personal appearances and debates? I tend to wonder. I guess I’m not entirely sold on Facebook as a defining force in the campaign.
But then, I’m a just a mostly grown-up Lyman County kid. We’re old fashioned out that way, you know, unlike all those techno-giants over in Jones County.
And speaking of John Thune, he has 53,915 Facebook fans.
That’s just showing off.
From Jack and Diane to Senate Seat?
If You Can’t Say Something Nice…
Labour chairman David Wright Labour MP Party of Telford, allegedly used the words “Scum sucking pig” in a Tweet, to describle the Tories, (conservative party in the UK). Currently he is claiming that a third party tinkered with his account adding the words scum sucking- to what should have read “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.”
Twitter & Politics in the UK
The BBC was mandated to use social media not long ago, and now the UK’s politicians are debating if they should jump aboard the social media bandwagon. Here’s an article on Twitter, Politicians, and the UK:
Somebody will put their foot in it.
Opinion may be divided about how much influence YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and the rest of the social media phenomenon will have on this year’s general election.
Sites like YouTube have become huge since the 2005 electionBut there is one thing all the experts can agree on.
Some hapless candidate will say or do something which will make them an instant, if unwitting, internet star – bringing instant shame and embarrassment to their party.
“Candidates are going to have to be on their guard all the time,” says Tim Montgomerie of Tory-supporting blog ConservativeHome.
Social media was in its infancy at the 2005 general election – now it is everywhere and the consequences for politicians are only just beginning to sink in.
‘Too many tweets’
With so many camera and Twitter-enabled phones in circulation no political meeting can ever be considered private again, argues Mr Montgomerie.
“Everything you say could potentially be recorded. You are being watched all the time and you have to be careful what you say,” says Tim Montgomerie.
I think Cameron would be good at it. It’ll be a great medium for communicating in a warm, direct way
Tim Montgomerie, Conservative HomeEven when they are relaxing after a hard day’s campaigning, election candidates can not be sure that the person fiddling with their phone at the next pub table is not Tweeting their every word.
But the benefits of social media for politicians on the campaign trail far outweigh the risk of making a gaffe, argues Tim Montgomerie.
Twitter, in particular, offers them a chance to get their message across to voters in a more relaxed, intimate way than was previously possible.
Tim Montgomerie has been urging Conservative leader David Cameron to overcome his wariness about the micro-blogging site, which allows users to post updates on their day in 140 characters or less.
“I think Cameron would be good at it. It’ll be a great medium for communicating in a warm, direct way,” he wrote in a recent blog.
‘Great medium’
But his pleas seem destined to fall on deaf ears. Mr Cameron made his views on Twitter plain last year, when he told a startled radio presenter he believed “too many tweets make a twat”.
If nothing else, the incident proved that you don’t need to be on Twitter to put your foot in it.
But with the opinion polls narrowing the Conservatives cannot afford any slip-ups.
The party is encouraging candidates to use Twitter and other social media websites – but party managers have also been accused of attempting to vet their online utterances, after an e-mail to candidates was leaked to the press which said “electronic publications such as websites, blogs and Twitter have to be approved before they are posted”.
The Conservatives say it would not be practical to vet everything that their 650 general election candidates say online and they were merely seeking to remind them to stick to party policy.
What worries Tim Montgomerie and other Tory supporters is that many more Labour MPs than Conservatives are active on Twitter.
Recent research by Tweetminster found that of 111 MPs tweeting, 65 were Labour, 23 were Liberal Democrats and 16 were Conservatives.
Gordon Brown does not have a Twitter account but his wife Sarah is a something of a Twitter phenomenon, with more than a million followers.
‘Chaos’
Of the big three party leaders, only the Lib Dem’s Nick Clegg has used Twitter to hold debates with voters and announce policies. Mr Clegg also boasts of having the maximum number of friends on Facebook.
But does any of this matter to voters?
Labour MP Tom Harris, one of the most prolific and widely-read political bloggers and Tweeters, believes most of the electorate will not even notice social media and it will have little, if any, impact on voting intention.
Gordon Brown’s early forays on YouTube were not judged a successHe believes the main impact of Twitter will be as a source of stories for the mainstream media – something he has bitter experience of, when comments he made about an “‘army of teenage mothers living off the state” were picked up by the newspapers.
“Whatever I write on Twitter now I have to just assume the Daily Mail will read it,” he says.
The other effect of social media on the general election campaign – and this is something most of the pundits seem to agree on – is that it will speed everything up.
“It will add to the general sense of chaos,” says Tom Harris.
Instead of worrying about the main TV news bulletins, party managers will now have to keep across literally thousands of media sources.
But far from loosening their grip on the political agenda, Mr Harris believes the internet has given the parties more control.
“If the parties want to respond or attack, they can now do it instantly. A lot more of the power to move the agenda is back with the parties,” says the Glasgow South MP.
Cameron spoof
And he is scathing about the ability of the big political blogs, a handful of which probably wield as much influence as newspapers in shaping the political agenda, to keep the spin doctors in check.
“There will be a huge push by all the like-minded bloggers, both left and right, to promote their own party’s agenda. I think you are going to get quite a lot of discipline,” he says.
Perhaps. But Mr Harris may be underestimating the ability of the internet to subvert party messages and take them off in unexpected directions.
One of the biggest hits on Twitter in recent weeks has been the myDavidCameron site, which allows people to come up with their own, spoof versions of the Tory leader’s recent “airbrushed” election poster.
More than 70,000 have had a go. With money tight for Labour at this general election, this kind of “viral” effort could prove crucial to the party.
But the biggest impact of social media may be at a local level – and this is where much of the parties’ efforts are being concentrated.
‘Creativity’
It is thought Conservative candidates are being encouraged to record their own YouTube videos saying what is important to them – ready for when voters type their constituency name into Google.
Former Liberal Democrat web chief Mark Pack believes the internet will spell the end of indentikit candidates, all repeating the same election message crafted for them by party HQ.
David Cameron made clear his views of Twitter’s risk during a radio interview“It will encourage individuality and creativity,” he says.
He even argues that round-the-clock scrutiny by camera-phone wielding voters is a good thing for aspiring politicians: “In a less politically divided age, the personal attributes of a candidate are increasingly important.”
But Mr Pack, who co-edits the Liberal Democrat Voice blog and is an associate director of PR firm Mandate, says social media may not truly come into its own until after the final vote has been cast.
With a possible hung Parliament and one or more of the parties potentially facing leadership contest, politicians are going to need a fast, cheap and convenient way to rally support and raise money.
As Barack Obama found during his US presidential campaign, when it comes to generating a “bandwagon effect”, the internet is hard to beat.
Social Media Spotlight on the Senate
After scanning Wikipedia’s article on the 2010 Senate elections, I decided to take a look at how the incumbents running for reelection are using social media. Here’s a spotlight on the top 4 senators seeking reelection within social media based on the number of Facebook fans.
Stats
Facebook: 21,935 fans
Twitter: 18,810 followers
YouTube: 16 videos with 9,730 total views
Facebook: 25,599 fans
Twitter: 31,882 followers
YouTube as a current Senator: 228 videos with 653,597 total views
YouTube for Senate election: 53 videos with 315,015 total views
Facebook: 17,477 fans
Twitter: 4,350 followers
YouTube: 36 videos with 27,948 views
Facebook: 53,814 fans
Twitter: 4,512 followers
YouTube: 2,988 total views
What they have in common:
A little personal
All four senators share at least a little bit of what they’re like on a personal level, whether that be differentiating between posts they wrote and posts from their staff (Boxer), letting you know they enjoy being a grandpa (DeMint), sharing their love of football and ice cream (Vitter), or informing you that they play basketball and hunt pheasants (Thune).
Linked up
The senators link to their other social media profiles from their Facebook. Whether through direct links, YouTube boxes, or just telling you that their on Twitter, YouTube, etc, they make sure their Facebook audience knows where else they can connect.
More than a news source
All four senators post more than just news content. Boxer features a link to a poll that asks her voters what issues are most important to them. She also links to her “Be a Boxer” campaign, which encourages financial donations towards her Senate reelection. DeMint recently promoted a moneybomb for Florida governor candidate Marco Rubio. The money bomb goal of $100,000 was met by mid-afternoon, $125,000 by 7p.m., and a new goal of $150,000 set for midnight. Vitter showed his state’s Super Bowl champion Who Dat pride by promoting a T-shirt saying “Who Dat say we can’t print Who Dat!” directed towards the NFL. John Thune’s Facebook informs voters about his events including his 49th birthday party where voters were encouraged to donate $49 towards his campaign.
Current and consistent
The senators post relevant, interesting information about themselves, their politics, or their personal lives. They also post frequently and consistently, giving their audience continuous reasons to keep coming back and new information to comment on.
Separation between their content and fan content
All four senators have 2 tabs on their Facebook pages – one for content that comes from them and one for content that comes from their fans. Many negative comments aren’t seen simply because the audience looks at content from the Senator first and only sees Fan comments if they think to click the Fan tab.
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!
Social Media Solutions prides itself on being a “hands on” social media agency. Our team has not only a strong educational background in business development, but also has a multitude of real-world experience in designing successful strategic initiatives for global corporations and small businesses alike. Our staff will partner with your company to ensure the development & implementation of the best social media strategy possible. 
