It suddenly occurred to me, in reading an article online about the White House using MySpace, Twitter and Facebook as a methods of information distribution, that there has suddenly been a sharp realization by politicians- no doubt brought on by the 2008 campaigns- that the Internet is finally useful. Sure, MySpace, YouTube, and similar technologies have been around for previous elections- such as the 2006 elections- but here in the 2008 elections, especially with the presidential race (which makes the world pay more attention anyway), campaigns needed a new form of advertisement, and the Internet was finally “there”, providing an open opportunity to whomever may have wanted to take it. So, the question everyone seems to be asking themselves is simple- is this a fad, or is this something for future campaigns to follow? What can we see from 2008?
First off, let me be forthcoming. Despite the fact I have a Twitter account and a Facebook account, I really like neither of those. Naturally, I don’t really like MySpace much either. I’ve never found myself very much in tune with the social networking craze- while I know how to use them and I do so to great effect, I don’t seem to understand the desire to make my life known. Most of the people I have met over 25 years of age are in the same boat- understanding and oftentimes using, but not really “getting” it- not understanding what makes people want to make 140 character “tweets” of their life, nor what makes people want to photoblog their often not very interesting lives. Still, we can’t argue about it- with millions of people using these services daily, they are a viable advertising mechanism.
So how does one use these, and still maintain a political edge? At what point do we differentiate valid advertisement methods online with silly preteen-style social networking? This is a rather difficult thing to decide. Invariably, though, typical political campaigns in 2008- even those on the presidential level- broke off into one of three groups: the non-adopters, the adopters, and the obsessors.
The non-adopters are campaigns in which never used social networking sites, and often never even had websites. These campaigns were often focused on the good ‘ol campaign methods- signs, stickers, and handshakes- and they often did so fairly well. These campaigns may have been mentioned indirectly online- such as in online newspapers and such- but they never really put any effort online. These campaigns missed out on a lot of online research and potential interest from shut-ins and similar people, but in a similar fashion they saved themselves the time/effort/expenditure of making an “online presence”- which may have translated into more votes. Most commissioner races I have seen/worked for fall into this category, at least until I get my hands on them.
The adopters are campaigns in which I classify as using, but not obsessing over social networking- in my mind, often the best. These campaigns did indeed use technologies like Flickr for images or Facebook for social networking, but they did so at a distance- no poor campaign staffer was sat at a desk obsessing over Digg ratings or something silly like that. These campaigns basically used what they needed, and worried little about what they did not need- and oftentimes, this played out the best. Many Congressional campaigns here in NC did this to great effect.
The obsessers are those who just went overboard- and yes, I include the Presidential candidates as well. Campaigns in this category- most notably, ironically, the Obama campaign- spent way too much time, effort and money trying to appease a surprisingly small user base on various social networking sites, often hiring people to essentially sit around and spam sites like Digg and Facebook. While this indeed helped the respective campaigns gain dominance online, it often felt faked and rather useless- because realistically and very unfortunately, the money spent versus the number of voters won over was in poor ratio.
What can we learn from these three types of campaigns? As always, moderation is best. The essential problem with social networking, much like any other form of advertising, is that too many people take it too far or not enough- and it harms a campaign. Spending no time on social networking sites like Facebook may save time and energy (and give you one less thing to worry about), but it ends up missing massive swaths of internet-savvy voters who want that kind of connection with their politician(s). Those campaigns who go overboard make themselves often a laughingstock of the internet, spending gross amounts of money on ridiculous advertising methods (the Obama ads in the videogame Burnout Paradise, when connected to the internet, come to mind) that really do nothing for the campaign. Who wants to spend millions of dollars advertising to gamers who like to crash cars into other cars? How is that congruous with voting for the Democratic party?
The take home message from 2008, for future campaigns, is simple: everything in moderation- be it old advertising or new advertising. Don’t get caught up in new trends too quickly, as they can often be entirely useless. However, simultaneously, keep yourself close to the cutting edge of technology, and be willing to experiment a bit- you never really know what will gain attention from voters, and you may be the innovator to an entirely new form of advertising. If you are a small campaign, find yourself a proverbial basement dwelling geek- look for someone with a pale teenage son with long hair- and pay him a small nominal fee (or convince him to volunteer) to handle your social networking, and get him to find all of his friends to help promote it. If you are a mid-sized or bigger campaign, find someone like myself to handle your work- someone who knows technology and can utilize it to the best of your ability. Keep your plans cheap and effective- because, again, like eating Krispy Kreme donuts, moderation is everything.
Tags: digg, facebook, myspace, photobucket, social networking, twitter
