Facebook and Twitter: The Once and Future Kingmakers
The younger generation, in addition to literally growing up alongside all these recent technological advances, understands that our world is increasingly a connected one. Between reality TV and the “voyeur videos” prevalent on YouTube, the distinction between the personal vs. the public is ever blurred. As such, they have understandably utilized social media for its social aspects (hence its name). Students and younger professionals initially embraced location-based networking sites like foursquare with the assumption that there are—or should be—no particular secrets or boundaries. Shrewdly, these sites have incentivized participation, partnering with businesses for discounts and special deals. As a result, we see more people willing to offer their privacy as a sort of postmodern form of currency. We can expect to see a widespread deployment of these various platforms by a variety of demographics for a variety of purposes.
Think of the time and money (and paperwork) saved once the world effectively turned digital during the last decade and a half. Consider how miraculous it must have seemed for political operatives to have email and Internet searching, both of which eliminated expensive, time-consuming research and outreach efforts. The simple act of creating a website was a space age advancement for an industry where communication is crucial. Now think about what Facebook and Twitter do to this equation.
Initially, an individual’s presence on the Internet was anonymous; now one’s persona is their web presence. If Facebook enables us to communicate with a network of friends, Twitter makes it possible to broadcast to virtually the entire connected universe. Facebook is by nature personality-based (who and what you “like”), and broadcasts these preferences to a controlled circle of acquaintances. Twitter breaks beyond social circles and is capable of disseminating messages via an echo chamber effect that places a premium on information, not personality. Put another way, Facebook allows you to see what people you know are saying; Twitter is universally searchable and therefore more optimized for viral distribution. On Facebook you can only see what people you know are saying about an event; on Twitter you can see what the entire world is saying.
For obvious and understandable reasons, political operations have been quick to incorporate these advancements into their arsenals. With Facebook and Twitter, the very notion of what a “friend” signifies is less literal. Twitter can create an intimacy that is not contingent upon personal contact. A voter can claim they “know” or have “met” their congressperson via a webcasted Town Hall, or by following their Twitter feed. The advantage for politicians is the crafty ways they can at once reach a mass audience while imparting what are often received as personalized messages. If this sounds inconsequential, consider how many millions of dollars and hours have been spent over the centuries involving candidates traveling the country for carefully-staged photo-ops wherein they “meet” their constituents. With one tweet this can be accomplished in seconds, at no expense.
“Strategery”
Mike Shields, a political strategist with almost two decades of experience inside (and outside) the nation’s capital, has a sign on his office wall that reads “It’s not the strongest of the species that survives nor the most intelligent but the one most responsive to change.” Darwin’s quote certainly applies to so many areas of existence, but it has special relevance in the world of campaigns and elections.
“There is a constant arms race in politics,” he says. “Both parties want to adapt and implement the latest tools and technology to their advantage.” Once again, the notion of data and its import is reiterated by an insider with myriad battle scars. “It boils down to the simplest scenario: you have to figure out who is most likely to show up and vote and then, how do you get them to vote for you?” To achieve success, the candidate with the most (or best) data has a distinct advantage.
The data, Shields confirms, is not necessarily new, but the ways it is gathered are, and technology has dramatically improved the process. For instance, in 2008 Obama’s website requested visitors to sign in first, before entering—as opposed to giving them the option to do so at the end of their visit when they might forget. This way, in a rather unobtrusive but remarkably effective fashion, the campaign captured crucial information. That Obama used Facebook effectively (creating groups, encouraging specific communities to interact and operate independently, etc.) is uncontested, but Shields is already anticipating the next wave of innovation. “Web ads will be the future of political advertising,” he predicts. “Where broadcast TV (ads) are inevitably reaching everyone, including non-voters, a specific website enables you to target a niche audience and ensure that a specific message is received.”
That said, Shields also suggests that good old fashioned email is still the most effective method of communication. “Having a strong online presence can help you overcome other deficiencies,” he says. “It is imperative to have an effective e-campaign; this is still as important as any other factor, particularly as it relates to fundraising and candidate messaging.”
Kombiz Lavasany, who worked at the DNC during the 2008 elections and is now at {new} partners, has been at the vanguard of much of this activity. As such, he is in as secure a position as anyone to discuss the past and predict the future. In fact, he suggests that we are only beginning to see the real impact and implications of social media. “Twitter was not mainstream until after the ’08 election,” he says. “Reporters who have been using it did not get on the bandwagon until late ’08 and early ’09.” 2012, he suggests, will be the first campaign that fully integrates Twitter and Facebook.
Peter Pasi, an Executive VP at emotive, llc, has seen the battlefield from the Republican side of the fence. In his opinion, after 2008 the GOP finally understood that an appropriately robust web presence was necessary in order to organize and facilitate online contributions. In less than two years there was an increased Republican presence on Facebook, and there is no question that social media had a dramatic impact on the 2010 elections. “Facebook was initially fun; now it’s a business,” Pasi says. “Today we see people paying specialized companies to manage their Facebook feeds and tweet for them.”
Another potential game changer, also mentioned earlier, is the evolution of mobile content and delivery. People can now watch high resolution videos on their phones, as well as make donations. Pasi references the concept of conversion rates and how it applies to people who browse vs. those who buy. “The conversion rates via a smartphone are essentially 100%,” he says. “If you see an ad, you don’t even need to wait to get to a PC; you can email a donation right on the spot.”
Murshed Zaheed, also from {new} partners, traces his unique understanding of community outreach and attitudes to sports message boards from the late ‘90s. His expertise and political leanings led him to work with a then largely-unknown candidate named Howard Dean. Zaheed has since been a witness to (and player in) the ways Democrats have incorporated each new iteration of technology into their strategic goals. Where Democrats once enjoyed a distinct advantage, it was in 2010 that Zaheed saw Republicans make tangible strides. With a more level playing field, and abundant evidence that politicians on local and national levels fully appreciate the import of technology (in general) and social media (in particular) we should expect the intersection of innovation and elections to reach a crescendo next year.
