A video for future reference:
Friday 15 October 2010
Tuesday 27 July 2010
Recruitment
I love the simple clarity of this thought. It is surely applicable in a far wider sense than only the political context in which David Plouffe uses it.
"Say you are a business trying to expand your percent of market share against an established brand-name product. Your competitor's customers have been buying their products for decades and are unlikely to sample something new. How do you outsell that competitor without converting their customers? You have to recruit new buyers."
David Plouffe, The Audacity to Win, 2009
"Say you are a business trying to expand your percent of market share against an established brand-name product. Your competitor's customers have been buying their products for decades and are unlikely to sample something new. How do you outsell that competitor without converting their customers? You have to recruit new buyers."
David Plouffe, The Audacity to Win, 2009
Friday 23 July 2010
Social Media Safari
Thanks to DrBexl for recommending this on her Digital Fingerprint blog.
This is an interesting video about social media and change:
This is an interesting video about social media and change:
The Social Media Safari from Jonathan Marks on Vimeo.
Thursday 22 July 2010
Growing Knowlege at the British Library
Take a look at the following link to an exhibition at the British Library which sounds really interesting. Especially for researchers!
http://www.bl.uk/growingknowledge/
http://www.bl.uk/growingknowledge/
Monday 12 July 2010
A Networked Nation
There has been a lot of discussion today about Martha Lane Fox's Manifesto for a Networked Nation - available here which she, as UK Digital Champion is presenting to the Prime-minister. It's an interesting manifesto which could have far reaching consequences particularly because a majority of the millions of people who do not have access to the internet are the over 65s, unemployed people and young families. There is a compelling argument that these groups should be given equal opportunites to access the potential of the internet at its best.
Friday 9 July 2010
GE2010 Extended Article. Part iii: The Reason For Online Engagement
"But the real excitement, and progress, has been in Labour's largely unreported grassroots campaigns. "Philosophically they seem to have the right idea" says McGregor [director of London based Blue State Digital, which worked on Barack Obama's 2008 campaign] "getting supporters to make phone calls and knock on doors. A big part of campaigning should be using new media tools to build relationships that help in activating activists..."" (Jemima Kiss, Guardian May 2010)
The Labour doorstep site was the Labour Party's site for organising Labour supporters for action in the election and then used the Labour doorstep hashtag as a means to organise Labour activists on Twitter. This included use of a Flickr photostream and opportunity to upload supporter’s videos and photos for use by the campaign and on the site.
The Liberal Democrats used a similar programme through 'ACT' which was their web based activist organisation. Events - organisation of fundraising, coffee mornings etc. - online groups for conversation and to generate support. The video on 'what is ACT' has been viewed by 2000 people on Youtube (Youtube 24/05/10).
The Conservatives also used similar initiatives on their site myconservatives.com. In an article for ‘Wired’ magazine, James Crabtree of Prospect magazine wrote of the site:
“Built over nine months using Drupal by developers LBi ... it was launched at party conference to give local activists tools to help them organise events, raise money and access a virtual phone bank to call wavering voters. The site won enthusiastic internal reviews, not just from the usual digital boosters but also from the party's hardheaded press chief, Andy Coulson.” (James Crabtree, Wired Magazine, 24th March 2010)
On the 22nd March 2010, The Guardian's Jemima Kiss reported in an article on the 'Cash Gordon' web campaign funded by the Conservative Party. The site which was designed to smear the Labour party for their links with the Unions in Britain, did so through a point system to encourage users to read, comment on and share the campaign through Facebook Connect.
"But if this all seems a little too slick - it is probably because the site is based on an off-the-shelf template developed by a US anti-healthcare lobbyist. In the words of @wdjstraw: "Tory #cashgordon campaign brought to you by the team that tried to scupper US healthcare reform. #ToryFail" (Jemima Kiss, Guardian.co.uk, 22/03/10).
This case, however was not widely reported and had very little noticeable effect on public perception of the party. It can be noted that it was a story commented on and written about by many Labour party members and as such perhaps became a part of the back-and-forth of party politics. It was posted on LabourList, LeftFootForward (a group who 'often find ourselves in agreement with left of centre policies and politicians' ) and Political Scrapbook which is 'a left-leaning political weblog' on 22nd March.
Candidates themselves have taken up online media and used it to better communicate with voters in their constituencies. The Conservative candidate, Charlie Elphicke is one such example of a candidate engaging with voters online:
“Like other candidates, Elphicke uses Facebook, Twitter and the party's newer MyConservatives social-networking platform. Last year he launched a site that allowed people to donate £10 via their mobile phones -- until regulators shut it down. But his most successful innovation has been his own website, Elphicke.com.” (James Crabtree, 24th March, 2010)
YouTube
The video sharing site, ‘Youtube.com’ was set up and has evolved only since the last General Election in the United Kingdom in 2005. Through visits to the site direct and by embedded videos on sites across the Internet, YouTube is used by huge numbers of people. Its use in the election campaigns ranged from each of the parties using their own channels for their own films, to viral homemade films rubbishing policy and personality, through to an alternative prime-ministerial debate.
One of the most watched videos on Youtube during the election was the spoof video entitled ‘Common People’, which poked fun at the history and links of much of the Conservative party. All three parties posted their own videos and were also the butt of jokes at their own expense. These each had their effect in swaying individual voters but overall were in low numbers compared to what might have been expected and what was predicted by some commentators in the run up to the election campaign.
Youtube and Facebook collaborated during the election campaign to run their own ‘Digital Debate’. This allowed users of both sites to submit their questions via text or video. The best of these questions was then put to each of the three main party leaders and they recorded video responses in order to answer them. These were then made available on Youtube for users to comment on and vote. The poll of self selecting Facebook and Youtube users came out overwhelmingly in favour of Nick Clegg.
Advertising
One of the major areas that was paid for by the parties was online advertising. Within the giving to parties by individuals of over £7500 the Conservatives were given the most money, over £7.3 million whilst Labour were given over £5.2 million and the Liberal Democrats only £724,000 in the same bracket. This gave the Conservatives a significant advantage in terms of budget, which undoubtedly had an effect on how much money was available to them to spend advertising online:
“Both the Conservatives and, to a lesser extent, Labour made sophisticated use of Google's AdSense system to place political messages next to search terms. On polling day, the Tories went one step further, buying what they described as the best piece of online real estate you can find, the front page of YouTube, to place an advert telling users to vote Conservative.” (Rory Cellan-Jones 7th May 2010)
As well as making use of Google’s AdSense, the parties were keen to access the market available through Facebook:
"The political parties are creating highly targeted advertisements where they can advertise direct to the voters they need to reach in order to win a marginal seat. It’s highly powerful and much cheaper than full page ads in national newspapers." (Channel 4 News, 21st March 2010)
Traditional Media
As Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign manager David Plouffe puts it below, the ‘traditional’ media voice still has an important part to play in effective election campaign strategies:
“ We tried to be on our target voters’ network TV, cable, satellite and on demand; on their radios; all over the Internet; in their mailboxes; on their landlines and their cell phones, if we could; at their doorsteps; and out in their communities. Balanced communications across all mediums is critical in any messaging effort today.” (David Plouffe, 2008)
Jon Snow of the Channel Four News Programme, wrote the following for The Times:
“The campaign has shown that television, whose power I mistakenly expected to have waned, is as great as ever. So far, the rare campaign “moments” have all been captured by television: from the debates, to the egg attack on David Cameron and the closed white door of Gillian Duffy’s Rochdale home.” (Jon Snow, The Times, May 1st 2010)
The ‘traditional media’, which I am taking to mean television and newspaper coverage were not unaffected by the ‘new media’ usage of both the parties and those consuming content. The voters were engaging with and finding information online as well as through more traditional sources.
“For anyone watching the campaign closely, the blogs and social networks - particularly Twitter - provided a fascinating running commentary from an array of mostly partisan viewpoints. That seemed to make every event, from the TV debates to the "bigoted woman" row, happen at warp speed - so that, after a few hours, it was time to move on to something new.” (Rory Cellan-Jones, 2010)
Another effect of the instant nature of social media was that journalists and amateurs alike were informing their followers instantly of breaking news or of times and places for events. The journalists engaged on sites such as Twitter also benefited from this instant transaction – able to follow news and opinion as they were written and broadcast. This ability to instantly gauge voter reaction (or the tech-savvy, online section of said group) to events or breaking news represents a significant change from previous elections.
In a similar way social media changes the way that politicians themselves can gauge the mood of their electorate and to ‘hear’ better what those people who vote for them think, do and say in response to their policies and what politicians do in the public eye:
“The politicians need to be looking at what the people are saying, and see how their policies are being perceived and what the populous’ topics are” (Andrew Walker, Co-founder of Tweetminster, CNN Video piece, 29th April 2010)
Conclusion
Although this extended article is not comprehensive, there are significant indicators of how and to what extent the three main parties used digital media tools to engage the electorate. As striking as the recent use of the internet and social media by the three main parties is, it has been neither what pundits expected nor a holistic approach. No one party has significantly out-performed the others. There were glaring omissions, with engagement on a handful of the most noticeable platforms.
In an election campaign the real test of any campaign strategy is what happens concerning voters. The votes matter, not necessarily the winning but improving the level of engagement, both for a single party and overall. The Conservatives went into the election as favourites and their use of digital media was respected above that of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Holding up the Conservative strategy to the 2008 presidential election campaign however, proved an interesting comparison. James Crabtree reported on an interview with Joe Rospars, the former head of online operations for the 2008 Obama Campaign, for Wired Magazine:
“"For all their databases and search-engine tricks, you have to ask; what is the quality of interaction most people will have with the Tories during your British election? If they're still only getting leaflets, or even emails, and not a knock on the door from a neighbour they know, then they are only halfway to getting what we did." Other knowledgeable observers who have spoken on condition of anonymity have voiced similar doubts.” (Crabtree, 2010)
Jon Snow of the Channel Four News Programme summed up his thoughts in an article for The Times following the election:
“It seemed that in our own elections, all three main parties would follow, adopting their own social media strategies. But intriguingly, the web has not been the master of this election. While Mr Obama appeared the master of the new medium in America, here the new medium appeared more the master of the politicians, frequently running irreverent circles around them — via sites for spoofing posters, witty Twitter asides or viral parodies on YouTube.” (Jon Snow, 2010)
The potential of the Internet to political parties is that it can be used to reach potentially hard to reach voters. The interactive nature of Web 2.0 technologies and sites allows a greater freedom to explore and listen to varied voices individually among the crowd of the electorate. True engagement online needs to be multi-layered, multi-platform and involve the principles of the ‘long-tail’ – reaching down to the smallest and most unapparent groups of people. The Obama campaign succeeded in engaging hugely varied groups of people through social networks, email, online video and many other tools used well. They were effective as part of a wider strategy which was coherent and high-quality as a whole. The emphasis for engagement online was to increase offline engagement.
This election, whilst seeing an increase in the use of digital media tools to engage voters, did not see this done in a novel or innovative way. At times the use of technology was completely ignored in favour of traditional methods such as campaign posters. It is unlikely that there will be another election with opportunities like it, however. The technology being used now is likely to be so common place and become even more pervasive that it will not be treated as a separate or ‘new’ area. The question over how best to engage the electorate, in the unique and intense General Election environment in the United Kingdom through use of this digital media technology, remains unanswered.
The Labour doorstep site was the Labour Party's site for organising Labour supporters for action in the election and then used the Labour doorstep hashtag as a means to organise Labour activists on Twitter. This included use of a Flickr photostream and opportunity to upload supporter’s videos and photos for use by the campaign and on the site.
The Liberal Democrats used a similar programme through 'ACT' which was their web based activist organisation. Events - organisation of fundraising, coffee mornings etc. - online groups for conversation and to generate support. The video on 'what is ACT' has been viewed by 2000 people on Youtube (Youtube 24/05/10).
The Conservatives also used similar initiatives on their site myconservatives.com. In an article for ‘Wired’ magazine, James Crabtree of Prospect magazine wrote of the site:
“Built over nine months using Drupal by developers LBi ... it was launched at party conference to give local activists tools to help them organise events, raise money and access a virtual phone bank to call wavering voters. The site won enthusiastic internal reviews, not just from the usual digital boosters but also from the party's hardheaded press chief, Andy Coulson.” (James Crabtree, Wired Magazine, 24th March 2010)
On the 22nd March 2010, The Guardian's Jemima Kiss reported in an article on the 'Cash Gordon' web campaign funded by the Conservative Party. The site which was designed to smear the Labour party for their links with the Unions in Britain, did so through a point system to encourage users to read, comment on and share the campaign through Facebook Connect.
"But if this all seems a little too slick - it is probably because the site is based on an off-the-shelf template developed by a US anti-healthcare lobbyist. In the words of @wdjstraw: "Tory #cashgordon campaign brought to you by the team that tried to scupper US healthcare reform. #ToryFail" (Jemima Kiss, Guardian.co.uk, 22/03/10).
This case, however was not widely reported and had very little noticeable effect on public perception of the party. It can be noted that it was a story commented on and written about by many Labour party members and as such perhaps became a part of the back-and-forth of party politics. It was posted on LabourList, LeftFootForward (a group who 'often find ourselves in agreement with left of centre policies and politicians' ) and Political Scrapbook which is 'a left-leaning political weblog' on 22nd March.
Candidates themselves have taken up online media and used it to better communicate with voters in their constituencies. The Conservative candidate, Charlie Elphicke is one such example of a candidate engaging with voters online:
“Like other candidates, Elphicke uses Facebook, Twitter and the party's newer MyConservatives social-networking platform. Last year he launched a site that allowed people to donate £10 via their mobile phones -- until regulators shut it down. But his most successful innovation has been his own website, Elphicke.com.” (James Crabtree, 24th March, 2010)
YouTube
The video sharing site, ‘Youtube.com’ was set up and has evolved only since the last General Election in the United Kingdom in 2005. Through visits to the site direct and by embedded videos on sites across the Internet, YouTube is used by huge numbers of people. Its use in the election campaigns ranged from each of the parties using their own channels for their own films, to viral homemade films rubbishing policy and personality, through to an alternative prime-ministerial debate.
One of the most watched videos on Youtube during the election was the spoof video entitled ‘Common People’, which poked fun at the history and links of much of the Conservative party. All three parties posted their own videos and were also the butt of jokes at their own expense. These each had their effect in swaying individual voters but overall were in low numbers compared to what might have been expected and what was predicted by some commentators in the run up to the election campaign.
Youtube and Facebook collaborated during the election campaign to run their own ‘Digital Debate’. This allowed users of both sites to submit their questions via text or video. The best of these questions was then put to each of the three main party leaders and they recorded video responses in order to answer them. These were then made available on Youtube for users to comment on and vote. The poll of self selecting Facebook and Youtube users came out overwhelmingly in favour of Nick Clegg.
Advertising
One of the major areas that was paid for by the parties was online advertising. Within the giving to parties by individuals of over £7500 the Conservatives were given the most money, over £7.3 million whilst Labour were given over £5.2 million and the Liberal Democrats only £724,000 in the same bracket. This gave the Conservatives a significant advantage in terms of budget, which undoubtedly had an effect on how much money was available to them to spend advertising online:
“Both the Conservatives and, to a lesser extent, Labour made sophisticated use of Google's AdSense system to place political messages next to search terms. On polling day, the Tories went one step further, buying what they described as the best piece of online real estate you can find, the front page of YouTube, to place an advert telling users to vote Conservative.” (Rory Cellan-Jones 7th May 2010)
As well as making use of Google’s AdSense, the parties were keen to access the market available through Facebook:
"The political parties are creating highly targeted advertisements where they can advertise direct to the voters they need to reach in order to win a marginal seat. It’s highly powerful and much cheaper than full page ads in national newspapers." (Channel 4 News, 21st March 2010)
Traditional Media
As Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign manager David Plouffe puts it below, the ‘traditional’ media voice still has an important part to play in effective election campaign strategies:
“ We tried to be on our target voters’ network TV, cable, satellite and on demand; on their radios; all over the Internet; in their mailboxes; on their landlines and their cell phones, if we could; at their doorsteps; and out in their communities. Balanced communications across all mediums is critical in any messaging effort today.” (David Plouffe, 2008)
Jon Snow of the Channel Four News Programme, wrote the following for The Times:
“The campaign has shown that television, whose power I mistakenly expected to have waned, is as great as ever. So far, the rare campaign “moments” have all been captured by television: from the debates, to the egg attack on David Cameron and the closed white door of Gillian Duffy’s Rochdale home.” (Jon Snow, The Times, May 1st 2010)
The ‘traditional media’, which I am taking to mean television and newspaper coverage were not unaffected by the ‘new media’ usage of both the parties and those consuming content. The voters were engaging with and finding information online as well as through more traditional sources.
“For anyone watching the campaign closely, the blogs and social networks - particularly Twitter - provided a fascinating running commentary from an array of mostly partisan viewpoints. That seemed to make every event, from the TV debates to the "bigoted woman" row, happen at warp speed - so that, after a few hours, it was time to move on to something new.” (Rory Cellan-Jones, 2010)
Another effect of the instant nature of social media was that journalists and amateurs alike were informing their followers instantly of breaking news or of times and places for events. The journalists engaged on sites such as Twitter also benefited from this instant transaction – able to follow news and opinion as they were written and broadcast. This ability to instantly gauge voter reaction (or the tech-savvy, online section of said group) to events or breaking news represents a significant change from previous elections.
In a similar way social media changes the way that politicians themselves can gauge the mood of their electorate and to ‘hear’ better what those people who vote for them think, do and say in response to their policies and what politicians do in the public eye:
“The politicians need to be looking at what the people are saying, and see how their policies are being perceived and what the populous’ topics are” (Andrew Walker, Co-founder of Tweetminster, CNN Video piece, 29th April 2010)
Conclusion
Although this extended article is not comprehensive, there are significant indicators of how and to what extent the three main parties used digital media tools to engage the electorate. As striking as the recent use of the internet and social media by the three main parties is, it has been neither what pundits expected nor a holistic approach. No one party has significantly out-performed the others. There were glaring omissions, with engagement on a handful of the most noticeable platforms.
In an election campaign the real test of any campaign strategy is what happens concerning voters. The votes matter, not necessarily the winning but improving the level of engagement, both for a single party and overall. The Conservatives went into the election as favourites and their use of digital media was respected above that of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Holding up the Conservative strategy to the 2008 presidential election campaign however, proved an interesting comparison. James Crabtree reported on an interview with Joe Rospars, the former head of online operations for the 2008 Obama Campaign, for Wired Magazine:
“"For all their databases and search-engine tricks, you have to ask; what is the quality of interaction most people will have with the Tories during your British election? If they're still only getting leaflets, or even emails, and not a knock on the door from a neighbour they know, then they are only halfway to getting what we did." Other knowledgeable observers who have spoken on condition of anonymity have voiced similar doubts.” (Crabtree, 2010)
Jon Snow of the Channel Four News Programme summed up his thoughts in an article for The Times following the election:
“It seemed that in our own elections, all three main parties would follow, adopting their own social media strategies. But intriguingly, the web has not been the master of this election. While Mr Obama appeared the master of the new medium in America, here the new medium appeared more the master of the politicians, frequently running irreverent circles around them — via sites for spoofing posters, witty Twitter asides or viral parodies on YouTube.” (Jon Snow, 2010)
The potential of the Internet to political parties is that it can be used to reach potentially hard to reach voters. The interactive nature of Web 2.0 technologies and sites allows a greater freedom to explore and listen to varied voices individually among the crowd of the electorate. True engagement online needs to be multi-layered, multi-platform and involve the principles of the ‘long-tail’ – reaching down to the smallest and most unapparent groups of people. The Obama campaign succeeded in engaging hugely varied groups of people through social networks, email, online video and many other tools used well. They were effective as part of a wider strategy which was coherent and high-quality as a whole. The emphasis for engagement online was to increase offline engagement.
This election, whilst seeing an increase in the use of digital media tools to engage voters, did not see this done in a novel or innovative way. At times the use of technology was completely ignored in favour of traditional methods such as campaign posters. It is unlikely that there will be another election with opportunities like it, however. The technology being used now is likely to be so common place and become even more pervasive that it will not be treated as a separate or ‘new’ area. The question over how best to engage the electorate, in the unique and intense General Election environment in the United Kingdom through use of this digital media technology, remains unanswered.
Monday 28 June 2010
GE2010 Extended Article. Part ii: The Social Networking Sites
At the time of the last General Election in the United Kingdom there were less than 5 million users of social networking site Facebook, compared with over 400 million in 2010 (Facebook, 2010). Twitter did not exist and YouTube was an embryonic company with its first video upload on 23rd April 2005. Although there were social networks and blogs available, the world-wide take up of social networking sites has only occurred in the last 5 years.
The Social Networking Sites
Each of the three main political parties had a presence on the main social network sites of Facebook and Twitter. They did not have a maintained presence on more than a handful of sites, particularly those that have the potential to reach voters in hard to reach demographics. The 2008 Obama for America campaign used many more in comparison:
"Pulling out all the Web 2.0 stops, [Obama's] campaign used not only Facebook and Youtube, but also MySpace, Twitter, Flickr, Digg, BlackPlanet, LinkedIn, AsianAve, MiGente, Glee - and others." (Fraser & Dutta, Guardian 2008.)
The main web sites of the Liberal Democrat and Labour Party's contained links to their content on Youtube, Facebook and Twitter. The Conservatives’ contained links to the same as well as links to ‘Livestream’, ‘delicious’ links and their podcasts on itunes. (Sources - the party websites)
Facebook
The three main parties had Facebook pages before the election campaign started but the changes during the campaign in terms of Facebook users ‘becoming fans’ or ‘liking’ each of the parties (Facebook changed its system from ‘fans’ to ‘likes’ during the course of the election campaign) are worthy of note. The content of the Facebook pages was roughly the same for each of the parties. Each contained links to their external websites, regular postings of latest videos created or events, as well as space to engage either through Facebook comments or by linking to an external mailing list or volunteering to work with the party in users’ local area through the organisational sites for each of the parties.
In terms of numbers of fans or ‘likes’, those recorded from the pages on 15th April were Conservatives (43,000), Labour (20,000) and Liberal Democrats (20,000). Contrast this with the 21st April where the Conservatives had climbed to 54,000, with the Liberal Democrats at 52,000 and the Labour party trailing at only 27,000. This trend in support for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats over Labour in active Facebook users was continued, as reported by the Guardian on 3rd May:
“The Conservatives were again leading with 74,500 over the Liberal Democrats with 74,000 and the Labour Party trailing at only 33,000.” (Charles Arthur, The Guardian 3rd May 2010).
While this is not a mathematically verifiable indicator (users can ‘like’ more than one party, ‘likes’ do not necessarily guarantee support or votes etc.) it acts as anecdotal evidence of the level of engagement and more importantly indicates the numbers of Facebook users who would have been receiving daily posts and updates from the parties via the social networking site.
Whilst all parties had pages about themselves, Gordon Brown did not have an official page for labour party leader where both Nick Clegg and David Cameron did so and gained the added reach and promoting power that those connections gave.
Facebook users themselves engaged in their own ways – beyond the control of any of the parties. Some of the strongest user-generated ‘viral’ campaigns on Facebook during the General Election were anti-Conservative Party campaigns. The poster campaigns launched by the Conservatives were quickly rubbished online and a group formed to share and comment on them, as Charles Arthur of the Guardian wrote:
“The social network has dozens of groups relating to the parties: though the "Vandalised Conservative Billboards" group, with 123,000 members, outranks the Conservatives' own (74,500)” (Charles Arthur, Guardian 3rd May 2010).
Another of the most popular groups on Facebook in terms of members was the “National not voting conservatives day” group created with 146,000 supporters on the May 5th (BlueRubicon, Facebook Election 2010 Stats). This was a popular protest movement against what the Conservatives had been trying to do on Facebook by raising their own groups for support on May 6th.
Facebook used its influence as a network to engage UK users of the site by setting up Democracy UK. This page was a deliberate move to act as a central hub for the information pertaining to the election and acted as a single space through which users could find out up to date information. Through a similar but separate effort ‘Voter Registration’ in partnership with the Electoral Commission, over 14,000 extra voter registration forms were downloaded through the site. The BBC’s Digital Election Correspondent Rory Cellan Jones commented on the use of Facebook during the election:
“Facebook, a much bigger network than Twitter, seemed uncertain how to engage its users at the beginning of the campaign - but by the end they were flocking to political pages, creating groups and generally showing more enthusiasm for politics than might be expected of a group often caricatured as news-averse and self-obsessed. Facebook's tie-up with the Electoral Commission to promote voter registration also appears to have been a success, with visits to the registration site soaring after links appeared on users' profiles.” (Rory Cellan-Jones, 7th May 2010)
Twitter
The Social Networking Site Twitter was launched publicly in July 2006. The site is widely reported in the press for its growth and the instantaneous nature of the platform for publicly available comment and opinion. Figures released in early 2010 demonstrate the reach and growth of the network:
“According to worldwide comScore figures released today, Twitter’s own site attracted 73.5 million unique individuals in January, up 8 percent from December, 2009 (when it had 65.2 million visitors). Its annual growth rate is still a phenomenal 1,105 percent. A year ago, Twitter.com attracted only an estimated 6 million visitors.” (Erick Schonfeld on Feb 16, 2010, Tech Crunch)
Twitter was used both by individuals who represent the parties (including their ‘celebrity’ supporters) and by direct accounts created to represent the views of each party and to raise awareness of events and news items. In the build-up to the election Reuters employed a ‘sentiment analysis’ firm to analyse the support for each party on Twitter:
“Edward Schneider, a consultant at Crimson Hexagon, said: “Twitter reveals the Tories to be the most talked about, as well as the most polarising, party in recent weeks. Over 40 percent of Twitter conversation on UK politics in the last two weeks has concerned the Conservative Party, compared to only 28% for Labour.” (Reuters, April 6th 2010)
Whilst individual and party controlled Twitter accounts created and disseminated partisan viewpoints, there were some serious consequences to using social media during the campaigns. Perhaps the most widely reported of these were the use of said social media tools, particularly Twitter and via the aforementioned Facebook group, to discredit and undermine the Conservative Party’s pre-election poster campaign:
“...the Tories have also found social media can be used to their cost. In January they launched their first campaign poster, featuring Mr Cameron’s face and the caption: “We can’t go on like this. I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS.” In campaigns past, voters would have liked or lumped it – and told their friends. Yet with photo-editing software and a Twitter account, now they tell the country. Within days, doctored versions mocking Mr Cameron and his message were all over the web, TV and newspapers.” (Jon Swaine, Telegraph 6th April 2010.)
Candidate suspensions were another high-profile consequence of opinions expressed through social network sites. Both the Labour and Conservative Party’s had to suspend candidates standing in the General Election. The Scottish newspaper ‘The Daily Record’ reported:
“Stuart MacLennan became the first Twitter casualty of the general election when he was axed by the party for his offensive behaviour. Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy took the decision to fire MacLennan as the party's candidate in Moray after reading the online comments in which the 24-year-old branded one woman a "boot" and joked about slavery.” (Torcuil Crichton, Daily Record 10th April 2010.)
Reuters reported that “The party withdrew its support for Philip Lardner's candidacy in the Scottish constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran after he wrote: "Homosexuality is not 'normal behaviour'." (Reuters, 28th April 2010). The freedom of speech and information available publicly on the social networking sites allowed individual voters and the wider press to examine and follow candidates, increasing the ‘spotlight’ under which candidates and pundits alike were scrutinised.
Three Prime Ministerial Debates were held for the first time during the course of the General Election Campaign. Twitter played an important role in reporting on reaction to the debates and how each of the leaders fared. Rory Cellan-Jones wrote, of the engagement with the Prime Ministerial Debates:
“...a growing number of people have followed these major events via two screens - a laptop perched on their knees as they sit in front of the television, connecting with social networks to comment live on what they're seeing. This has in turn made possible an industry of what's being called "sentiment analysis", which attempts to understand what has been said online.” (Cellan-Jones, 30th April 2010)
Tweetminster, a site which exists to analyse and encourage political engagement and current affairs on Twitter actively recorded data from tweets during the debates. According to their figures, in the first debate over 36,000 people ‘tweeted’ about the debate, with a peak of 41 ‘tweets’ a second. In the final debate of the three the engagement level was lower at 33,000 people, although this was higher than the second debate. The ‘sentiment’ (an internal algorithm is used to measure the amount of positive tweets vs negative tweets to gauge overall reaction to an individual or topic) indicated that Nick Clegg received roughly the most positive reaction over all three of the debates.
The debates saw a high level of engagement by around 30,000 individuals on Twitter. This does not appear to be a significant number as a percentage of the population of the UK, or even compared to the twenty-three million estimated UK users of Facebook, however polls can be created extrapolating views from one thousand people that accurately reflect the population of the USA (NCPP), so it does have potential as a means to accurately gauge reaction. This reaction was largely out of control of the political parties, although does include the tweets from the parties themselves and their supporters to create these ‘sentiment’ statistics.
The main parties’ engagement was largely equal in use of Twitter, although some sources would indicate that the Labour Party had the most ‘influential’ users of the site. Prior to the General Election Campaign, the independent public relations agency Edelman released a list of the top two hundred political users of Twitter in terms of influence. Of the top twenty-five on the list ten were Labour (Edelman, 23rd April 2010), four were Conservatives and four were Liberal Democrat party members or representatives, indicating that within that particular sphere Labour had the most influential Twitter users of the three main parties.
This section has explored the use of Facebook and Twitter by the political parties. While these are two of the most widely used social networks, there are many others. The direct engagement by parties with other social networks was very low. The Conservative Party website for instance, included links to profiles on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. If you compare this to President Obama's site 'Organize for America' (Formerly Obama for America) there are currently links to more than 15 different social networking sites. These are mostly US based sites, but are used by key voting groups within the electorate, often harder to reach through traditional media methods.
The Social Networking Sites
Each of the three main political parties had a presence on the main social network sites of Facebook and Twitter. They did not have a maintained presence on more than a handful of sites, particularly those that have the potential to reach voters in hard to reach demographics. The 2008 Obama for America campaign used many more in comparison:
"Pulling out all the Web 2.0 stops, [Obama's] campaign used not only Facebook and Youtube, but also MySpace, Twitter, Flickr, Digg, BlackPlanet, LinkedIn, AsianAve, MiGente, Glee - and others." (Fraser & Dutta, Guardian 2008.)
The main web sites of the Liberal Democrat and Labour Party's contained links to their content on Youtube, Facebook and Twitter. The Conservatives’ contained links to the same as well as links to ‘Livestream’, ‘delicious’ links and their podcasts on itunes. (Sources - the party websites)
The three main parties had Facebook pages before the election campaign started but the changes during the campaign in terms of Facebook users ‘becoming fans’ or ‘liking’ each of the parties (Facebook changed its system from ‘fans’ to ‘likes’ during the course of the election campaign) are worthy of note. The content of the Facebook pages was roughly the same for each of the parties. Each contained links to their external websites, regular postings of latest videos created or events, as well as space to engage either through Facebook comments or by linking to an external mailing list or volunteering to work with the party in users’ local area through the organisational sites for each of the parties.
In terms of numbers of fans or ‘likes’, those recorded from the pages on 15th April were Conservatives (43,000), Labour (20,000) and Liberal Democrats (20,000). Contrast this with the 21st April where the Conservatives had climbed to 54,000, with the Liberal Democrats at 52,000 and the Labour party trailing at only 27,000. This trend in support for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats over Labour in active Facebook users was continued, as reported by the Guardian on 3rd May:
“The Conservatives were again leading with 74,500 over the Liberal Democrats with 74,000 and the Labour Party trailing at only 33,000.” (Charles Arthur, The Guardian 3rd May 2010).
While this is not a mathematically verifiable indicator (users can ‘like’ more than one party, ‘likes’ do not necessarily guarantee support or votes etc.) it acts as anecdotal evidence of the level of engagement and more importantly indicates the numbers of Facebook users who would have been receiving daily posts and updates from the parties via the social networking site.
Whilst all parties had pages about themselves, Gordon Brown did not have an official page for labour party leader where both Nick Clegg and David Cameron did so and gained the added reach and promoting power that those connections gave.
Facebook users themselves engaged in their own ways – beyond the control of any of the parties. Some of the strongest user-generated ‘viral’ campaigns on Facebook during the General Election were anti-Conservative Party campaigns. The poster campaigns launched by the Conservatives were quickly rubbished online and a group formed to share and comment on them, as Charles Arthur of the Guardian wrote:
“The social network has dozens of groups relating to the parties: though the "Vandalised Conservative Billboards" group, with 123,000 members, outranks the Conservatives' own (74,500)” (Charles Arthur, Guardian 3rd May 2010).
Another of the most popular groups on Facebook in terms of members was the “National not voting conservatives day” group created with 146,000 supporters on the May 5th (BlueRubicon, Facebook Election 2010 Stats). This was a popular protest movement against what the Conservatives had been trying to do on Facebook by raising their own groups for support on May 6th.
Facebook used its influence as a network to engage UK users of the site by setting up Democracy UK. This page was a deliberate move to act as a central hub for the information pertaining to the election and acted as a single space through which users could find out up to date information. Through a similar but separate effort ‘Voter Registration’ in partnership with the Electoral Commission, over 14,000 extra voter registration forms were downloaded through the site. The BBC’s Digital Election Correspondent Rory Cellan Jones commented on the use of Facebook during the election:
“Facebook, a much bigger network than Twitter, seemed uncertain how to engage its users at the beginning of the campaign - but by the end they were flocking to political pages, creating groups and generally showing more enthusiasm for politics than might be expected of a group often caricatured as news-averse and self-obsessed. Facebook's tie-up with the Electoral Commission to promote voter registration also appears to have been a success, with visits to the registration site soaring after links appeared on users' profiles.” (Rory Cellan-Jones, 7th May 2010)
The Social Networking Site Twitter was launched publicly in July 2006. The site is widely reported in the press for its growth and the instantaneous nature of the platform for publicly available comment and opinion. Figures released in early 2010 demonstrate the reach and growth of the network:
“According to worldwide comScore figures released today, Twitter’s own site attracted 73.5 million unique individuals in January, up 8 percent from December, 2009 (when it had 65.2 million visitors). Its annual growth rate is still a phenomenal 1,105 percent. A year ago, Twitter.com attracted only an estimated 6 million visitors.” (Erick Schonfeld on Feb 16, 2010, Tech Crunch)
Twitter was used both by individuals who represent the parties (including their ‘celebrity’ supporters) and by direct accounts created to represent the views of each party and to raise awareness of events and news items. In the build-up to the election Reuters employed a ‘sentiment analysis’ firm to analyse the support for each party on Twitter:
“Edward Schneider, a consultant at Crimson Hexagon, said: “Twitter reveals the Tories to be the most talked about, as well as the most polarising, party in recent weeks. Over 40 percent of Twitter conversation on UK politics in the last two weeks has concerned the Conservative Party, compared to only 28% for Labour.” (Reuters, April 6th 2010)
Whilst individual and party controlled Twitter accounts created and disseminated partisan viewpoints, there were some serious consequences to using social media during the campaigns. Perhaps the most widely reported of these were the use of said social media tools, particularly Twitter and via the aforementioned Facebook group, to discredit and undermine the Conservative Party’s pre-election poster campaign:
“...the Tories have also found social media can be used to their cost. In January they launched their first campaign poster, featuring Mr Cameron’s face and the caption: “We can’t go on like this. I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS.” In campaigns past, voters would have liked or lumped it – and told their friends. Yet with photo-editing software and a Twitter account, now they tell the country. Within days, doctored versions mocking Mr Cameron and his message were all over the web, TV and newspapers.” (Jon Swaine, Telegraph 6th April 2010.)
Candidate suspensions were another high-profile consequence of opinions expressed through social network sites. Both the Labour and Conservative Party’s had to suspend candidates standing in the General Election. The Scottish newspaper ‘The Daily Record’ reported:
“Stuart MacLennan became the first Twitter casualty of the general election when he was axed by the party for his offensive behaviour. Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy took the decision to fire MacLennan as the party's candidate in Moray after reading the online comments in which the 24-year-old branded one woman a "boot" and joked about slavery.” (Torcuil Crichton, Daily Record 10th April 2010.)
Reuters reported that “The party withdrew its support for Philip Lardner's candidacy in the Scottish constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran after he wrote: "Homosexuality is not 'normal behaviour'." (Reuters, 28th April 2010). The freedom of speech and information available publicly on the social networking sites allowed individual voters and the wider press to examine and follow candidates, increasing the ‘spotlight’ under which candidates and pundits alike were scrutinised.
Three Prime Ministerial Debates were held for the first time during the course of the General Election Campaign. Twitter played an important role in reporting on reaction to the debates and how each of the leaders fared. Rory Cellan-Jones wrote, of the engagement with the Prime Ministerial Debates:
“...a growing number of people have followed these major events via two screens - a laptop perched on their knees as they sit in front of the television, connecting with social networks to comment live on what they're seeing. This has in turn made possible an industry of what's being called "sentiment analysis", which attempts to understand what has been said online.” (Cellan-Jones, 30th April 2010)
Tweetminster, a site which exists to analyse and encourage political engagement and current affairs on Twitter actively recorded data from tweets during the debates. According to their figures, in the first debate over 36,000 people ‘tweeted’ about the debate, with a peak of 41 ‘tweets’ a second. In the final debate of the three the engagement level was lower at 33,000 people, although this was higher than the second debate. The ‘sentiment’ (an internal algorithm is used to measure the amount of positive tweets vs negative tweets to gauge overall reaction to an individual or topic) indicated that Nick Clegg received roughly the most positive reaction over all three of the debates.
The debates saw a high level of engagement by around 30,000 individuals on Twitter. This does not appear to be a significant number as a percentage of the population of the UK, or even compared to the twenty-three million estimated UK users of Facebook, however polls can be created extrapolating views from one thousand people that accurately reflect the population of the USA (NCPP), so it does have potential as a means to accurately gauge reaction. This reaction was largely out of control of the political parties, although does include the tweets from the parties themselves and their supporters to create these ‘sentiment’ statistics.
The main parties’ engagement was largely equal in use of Twitter, although some sources would indicate that the Labour Party had the most ‘influential’ users of the site. Prior to the General Election Campaign, the independent public relations agency Edelman released a list of the top two hundred political users of Twitter in terms of influence. Of the top twenty-five on the list ten were Labour (Edelman, 23rd April 2010), four were Conservatives and four were Liberal Democrat party members or representatives, indicating that within that particular sphere Labour had the most influential Twitter users of the three main parties.
This section has explored the use of Facebook and Twitter by the political parties. While these are two of the most widely used social networks, there are many others. The direct engagement by parties with other social networks was very low. The Conservative Party website for instance, included links to profiles on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. If you compare this to President Obama's site 'Organize for America' (Formerly Obama for America) there are currently links to more than 15 different social networking sites. These are mostly US based sites, but are used by key voting groups within the electorate, often harder to reach through traditional media methods.
Friday 25 June 2010
GE2010 Extended Article. Part i: The International Social Media 'Climate'
How did the three main political parties engage the electorate through use of digital media tools during the United Kingdom’s 2010 General Election?
Introduction
The General Election in the United Kingdom on 6th May 2010 came at the end of a month of campaigning. This campaign was the first election campaign to include televised Prime Ministerial debates. It was also the first election to be held since Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and other Web 2.0 start-ups became household names and widely used in the United Kingdom. It was widely reported that this election campaign would be the first ‘Social Media Election’ in the United Kingdom. Channel Four News’ article of March 24th 2010 sums up the hype:
“As the election in the UK draws closer, all eyes are on our three major political parties - Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats - to see how they will harness the power of social media and the internet.” (Channel Four News Website, 24th March 2010.)
The Telegraph newspaper ran a similar piece on 6th April 2010 with the headline “Facebook, Twitter and other social media will have an unprecedented impact on the General Election campaign.” (Telegraph, 6th April 2010.)
The aim of this extended article is to explore how the three main parties did in fact use digital media tools during the 2010 General Election Campaign. It will highlight the climate in which the campaigns were conducted, emphasising changes in international usage of social media since the last General Election, ask how and why the three main political parties engaged with potential voters and evaluate critically where they did and did not use social media and digital tools to fully engage voters in the course of the General Election Campaigns.
The International Social Media ‘Climate’
The past 10 years have seen a dramatic increase in the uptake of social media. In fact, the term itself was seldom used even 10 years ago. The Web 2.0 'revolution' which is characterised by the shift from corporately controlled content to massively user-generated content on the Internet has had a dramatic effect on the way that politics and news in general is created and engaged with. There has been an undoubted shift from news controlled almost exclusively by professional reporters and traditional media networks, to widely available user-generated content and the proliferation of non-professional opinion. The individual has seemingly been empowered to affect the mainstream news ‘cycle’ and can now broadcast their own thoughts and ideas, often for free, nearly always without any kind of editorial supervision.
Perhaps the most widely broadcast and written about examples of social media use in political spheres have been the American Presidential Elections of 2004 and 2008. The 'Dean for America' presidential campaign was the first fully to embrace internet campaigning and use social media tools to allow the public to engage with their campaign. Through the use of their own website, 'www.deanforamerica.com' the campaign encouraged online engagement and donations, as well as creating sites such as 'dean.tv' where they posted videos from the campaign and encouraged supporters to post their own videos and engage with the 'community', whilst using all these methods to create new supporters and activists 'on the ground' (This was before YouTube existed). Joe Trippi, the campaign manager, reflects on the campaign at its end:
"Now, here it is at the end of 2003 and we're actually on top, ahead in the polls, raking in more than $50 million, $15.8 million in this fund-raising quarter alone - a record - most of it from small donations of $100 or less. And whose fundraising records are we beating? Our own! From the quarter before." (Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, 2004.)
The small donations had largely come from supporters on the internet giving what they could afford. The campaign did much to galvanise support from those who could not afford the £2500 giving limits that exist in the US Presidential Races. This was in stark contrast to their Republican opponents who largely received their money through events that were designed to attract the donations of large amounts, often at the limit for each individual.
The ‘Dean for America’ campaign only existed during the Democratic Primary stage of the Election. Governor Dean was eliminated from the race and John Kerry went on challenge George W. Bush in the Presidential Election, but the ‘seed had been sown’ and the 2008 Presidential race built upon the successes seen in the use of the Internet in the 2004 race, particularly on the Democratic side.
David Plouffe, campaign manager on the Obama for America campaign put it like this:
"So many people are living their lives through technology, how can we expect their interaction with politics to be the one exception?" (David Plouffe, The Audacity to Win 2009.)
The nature of the ‘Obama for America’ campaign lent itself to the organising potential of the internet and social networks, where events can be advertised and talked about and friends can easily recommend candidates to others within their networks. The Obama campaign strategy made use of large organisations ‘on the ground’, consisting largely of volunteers: local people talking to local people. The internet enabled early supporters of Obama to engage with the campaign:
“...our grassroots supporters had already been organizing on their own through our social networking site, mybarackobama.com or MyBO. It made easier our decision to send a modest amount of staff into these states- they would not have to start from scratch with only a few assets to call in.” (David Plouffe, 2009.)
The campaign organisation also made use of and attracted huge crowds to rally events which could be advertised and registered for online. The online portion of the campaign had direct relevance to the operations of the Obama campaign across the states that were fiercely contested during the election.
The Obama Campaign broke the Democratic Primary records of the ‘Dean for America’ campaign in terms of fundraising and also engaged large demographics that had either never voted before or were independent voters. Plouffe sums up how important the internet was to the campaign:
“Technology played a key role in our success. Reaching an audience involves more than just figuring out who your audience is; it also means knowing how to find them. Part of the reason our campaign was so successful is that we were able to identify early that many of the people who we wanted to reach were spending more of their time on the Internet. We realized that a smart, and large, Internet presence was the best way to provide people with the opportunity and the tools to get involved in the campaign...We met people where they lived, instead of forcing them to deviate from their habits or lifestyle to seek us out.” (David Plouffe, 2009.)
Introduction
The General Election in the United Kingdom on 6th May 2010 came at the end of a month of campaigning. This campaign was the first election campaign to include televised Prime Ministerial debates. It was also the first election to be held since Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and other Web 2.0 start-ups became household names and widely used in the United Kingdom. It was widely reported that this election campaign would be the first ‘Social Media Election’ in the United Kingdom. Channel Four News’ article of March 24th 2010 sums up the hype:
“As the election in the UK draws closer, all eyes are on our three major political parties - Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats - to see how they will harness the power of social media and the internet.” (Channel Four News Website, 24th March 2010.)
The Telegraph newspaper ran a similar piece on 6th April 2010 with the headline “Facebook, Twitter and other social media will have an unprecedented impact on the General Election campaign.” (Telegraph, 6th April 2010.)
The aim of this extended article is to explore how the three main parties did in fact use digital media tools during the 2010 General Election Campaign. It will highlight the climate in which the campaigns were conducted, emphasising changes in international usage of social media since the last General Election, ask how and why the three main political parties engaged with potential voters and evaluate critically where they did and did not use social media and digital tools to fully engage voters in the course of the General Election Campaigns.
The International Social Media ‘Climate’
The past 10 years have seen a dramatic increase in the uptake of social media. In fact, the term itself was seldom used even 10 years ago. The Web 2.0 'revolution' which is characterised by the shift from corporately controlled content to massively user-generated content on the Internet has had a dramatic effect on the way that politics and news in general is created and engaged with. There has been an undoubted shift from news controlled almost exclusively by professional reporters and traditional media networks, to widely available user-generated content and the proliferation of non-professional opinion. The individual has seemingly been empowered to affect the mainstream news ‘cycle’ and can now broadcast their own thoughts and ideas, often for free, nearly always without any kind of editorial supervision.
Perhaps the most widely broadcast and written about examples of social media use in political spheres have been the American Presidential Elections of 2004 and 2008. The 'Dean for America' presidential campaign was the first fully to embrace internet campaigning and use social media tools to allow the public to engage with their campaign. Through the use of their own website, 'www.deanforamerica.com' the campaign encouraged online engagement and donations, as well as creating sites such as 'dean.tv' where they posted videos from the campaign and encouraged supporters to post their own videos and engage with the 'community', whilst using all these methods to create new supporters and activists 'on the ground' (This was before YouTube existed). Joe Trippi, the campaign manager, reflects on the campaign at its end:
"Now, here it is at the end of 2003 and we're actually on top, ahead in the polls, raking in more than $50 million, $15.8 million in this fund-raising quarter alone - a record - most of it from small donations of $100 or less. And whose fundraising records are we beating? Our own! From the quarter before." (Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, 2004.)
The small donations had largely come from supporters on the internet giving what they could afford. The campaign did much to galvanise support from those who could not afford the £2500 giving limits that exist in the US Presidential Races. This was in stark contrast to their Republican opponents who largely received their money through events that were designed to attract the donations of large amounts, often at the limit for each individual.
The ‘Dean for America’ campaign only existed during the Democratic Primary stage of the Election. Governor Dean was eliminated from the race and John Kerry went on challenge George W. Bush in the Presidential Election, but the ‘seed had been sown’ and the 2008 Presidential race built upon the successes seen in the use of the Internet in the 2004 race, particularly on the Democratic side.
David Plouffe, campaign manager on the Obama for America campaign put it like this:
"So many people are living their lives through technology, how can we expect their interaction with politics to be the one exception?" (David Plouffe, The Audacity to Win 2009.)
The nature of the ‘Obama for America’ campaign lent itself to the organising potential of the internet and social networks, where events can be advertised and talked about and friends can easily recommend candidates to others within their networks. The Obama campaign strategy made use of large organisations ‘on the ground’, consisting largely of volunteers: local people talking to local people. The internet enabled early supporters of Obama to engage with the campaign:
“...our grassroots supporters had already been organizing on their own through our social networking site, mybarackobama.com or MyBO. It made easier our decision to send a modest amount of staff into these states- they would not have to start from scratch with only a few assets to call in.” (David Plouffe, 2009.)
The campaign organisation also made use of and attracted huge crowds to rally events which could be advertised and registered for online. The online portion of the campaign had direct relevance to the operations of the Obama campaign across the states that were fiercely contested during the election.
The Obama Campaign broke the Democratic Primary records of the ‘Dean for America’ campaign in terms of fundraising and also engaged large demographics that had either never voted before or were independent voters. Plouffe sums up how important the internet was to the campaign:
“Technology played a key role in our success. Reaching an audience involves more than just figuring out who your audience is; it also means knowing how to find them. Part of the reason our campaign was so successful is that we were able to identify early that many of the people who we wanted to reach were spending more of their time on the Internet. We realized that a smart, and large, Internet presence was the best way to provide people with the opportunity and the tools to get involved in the campaign...We met people where they lived, instead of forcing them to deviate from their habits or lifestyle to seek us out.” (David Plouffe, 2009.)
Friday 14 May 2010
DigiElectNation?
General opinion in the press and in the blogosphere(there must be a better term) seems to indicate that this was not the 'internet election' that was predicted in the UK. The TV debates seem to have overshadowed the use of social networking sites in swaying opinion. Statistically, however, big gains were predicted for the Lib-Dems but the election results did not provide them.
That is how things appear on the surface of the situation. I am currently working on a short paper about the use of social media in the 2010 election, I hope to uncover a more in-depth picture of whether these are true assertions or not.
There have been some very interesting statistics coming from tweetminster. The guardian digital content blog reports here on whether tweets can be used to accurately predict vote turn out.
I was interested also in Rory Cellan-Jones' (BBC's Digital Election Correspondent) statement quoted here by the guardian: "I said [to my editors] that 'This is the one campaign where it might have a specific role, where we can concentrate on it specifically. Next time it will just be part of every political correspondent's job."
That is how things appear on the surface of the situation. I am currently working on a short paper about the use of social media in the 2010 election, I hope to uncover a more in-depth picture of whether these are true assertions or not.
There have been some very interesting statistics coming from tweetminster. The guardian digital content blog reports here on whether tweets can be used to accurately predict vote turn out.
I was interested also in Rory Cellan-Jones' (BBC's Digital Election Correspondent) statement quoted here by the guardian: "I said [to my editors] that 'This is the one campaign where it might have a specific role, where we can concentrate on it specifically. Next time it will just be part of every political correspondent's job."
Tuesday 11 May 2010
Just how big is SocialMedia?
Well if there is an answer (what is the question?), this provides an interesting insight. This was created by Gary Hayes of Personalize Media
Friday 7 May 2010
Social Media Revolution
There is a large buzz around this video today and with good reason. Some amazing stats about the numbers involved with social networking and what that means for all of us. A big challenge for individuals and businesses alike! See for yourself:
Wednesday 5 May 2010
Digital Space
Is the digital space and digital connection equivalent to a 'physical' connection?
This is a question that comes up time and again in my research, indirectly or by assumption. Are relationships online equivalent to those offline. What difference does that make to companies and organisations? The offline connection often results in an online one. But to the majority of internet users does the reverse occur so readily? Is the connection created online as strong as one offline to a cause or charity for instance?
Offline we use body language, read tone and voice internation - none of which is available to us in the digital space. The pace and ebbs and flows of conversation offline make a big difference. The online often uses 'on' or 'off', you either talk or listen: email; blog comments; your friend 'is typing' on msn messenger or facebook chat; the back and forth of twitter.
Is there a different form of connection or relationship generated? One that is based on information and factual transmission. Causes or voices that appear silent or unreachable(a large corporation or charity with tightly controlled press releases for instance) suddenly have a voice and direct communication is possible.
This is where many businesses and charities have been able to harness social media. The towering, closed international organisation suddenly has a new voice in the digital space and real people can engage with it where before they wouldn't have dreamed of it. The Third Sector has left the building.
This is a question that comes up time and again in my research, indirectly or by assumption. Are relationships online equivalent to those offline. What difference does that make to companies and organisations? The offline connection often results in an online one. But to the majority of internet users does the reverse occur so readily? Is the connection created online as strong as one offline to a cause or charity for instance?
Offline we use body language, read tone and voice internation - none of which is available to us in the digital space. The pace and ebbs and flows of conversation offline make a big difference. The online often uses 'on' or 'off', you either talk or listen: email; blog comments; your friend 'is typing' on msn messenger or facebook chat; the back and forth of twitter.
Is there a different form of connection or relationship generated? One that is based on information and factual transmission. Causes or voices that appear silent or unreachable(a large corporation or charity with tightly controlled press releases for instance) suddenly have a voice and direct communication is possible.
This is where many businesses and charities have been able to harness social media. The towering, closed international organisation suddenly has a new voice in the digital space and real people can engage with it where before they wouldn't have dreamed of it. The Third Sector has left the building.
Monday 3 May 2010
The Cult of The Amateur
Ever wandered if there are downsides to the Web 2.0 'revolution'? Well, Andrew Keen's 2007 book The Cult Of The Amateur is as complete an exposition of the downsides as I have yet come across.
Perhaps a gross over-simplification, but I perceive his three main arguments to be that:
1. The Web 2.0 culture is killing the 'expert' and proliferating what is already 'known'.
2. The Web 2.0 culture is not 'free': it is sucking life out of industry and retail in many different sectors (printmedia, music, film etc.).
3. The wisdom of crowds is no wisdom at all - that pioneers and true revolutionaries are often outcasts, shunned by the crowd of their day.
Although I do not agree with everything which Keen argues, it is undeniable that parts of our society and therefore people's livelihoods are being severely affected by the Web 2.0 culture. This book provides a challenge to society and the future of the web that is worth considering. We don't hear much about the downsides of the changes happening all around us.
Interestingly, since I first wrote notes on this at the end of last week a friend of mine has referred to the positive effect of the 'wisdom of the crowd' in relation to voting. Does the crowd know what is best for itself? I haven't decided yet.
It is an important idea for the Web 2.0 generation. Charles Leadbeater bases much of his book We-Think on the idea. Google uses it as basis for what you will want to receive in results. Facebook are now using it all over the web in their controversial Open Graph.
Perhaps a gross over-simplification, but I perceive his three main arguments to be that:
1. The Web 2.0 culture is killing the 'expert' and proliferating what is already 'known'.
2. The Web 2.0 culture is not 'free': it is sucking life out of industry and retail in many different sectors (printmedia, music, film etc.).
3. The wisdom of crowds is no wisdom at all - that pioneers and true revolutionaries are often outcasts, shunned by the crowd of their day.
Although I do not agree with everything which Keen argues, it is undeniable that parts of our society and therefore people's livelihoods are being severely affected by the Web 2.0 culture. This book provides a challenge to society and the future of the web that is worth considering. We don't hear much about the downsides of the changes happening all around us.
Interestingly, since I first wrote notes on this at the end of last week a friend of mine has referred to the positive effect of the 'wisdom of the crowd' in relation to voting. Does the crowd know what is best for itself? I haven't decided yet.
It is an important idea for the Web 2.0 generation. Charles Leadbeater bases much of his book We-Think on the idea. Google uses it as basis for what you will want to receive in results. Facebook are now using it all over the web in their controversial Open Graph.
Thursday 29 April 2010
Digital Economy Bill Now Act
Having been wandering about the Digital Economy Bill's status, today I found out that it was passed in the final days before the dissolution of Parliament and is now the Digital Economy Act.
The Digital Economy Bill comes out of the Digital Britain Report which was published in June last year and involved everything from the digitisation of Government services to the transfer from analogue to digital radio in the coming years. Being over 300 pages long it may not be your chosen night time read(!) but it will have far reaching consequences. You can find the full Digital Britain Report here. Most relevant to what this blog discusses is Chapter 4: Creative Industries in the Digital World as well as the discussion of privacy and safety in Chapter 7, although it is very detailed. A useful introduction to the Report's consequences can be found here.
A question about the Act also formed part of the very sparsely covered Youtube/Facebook primeministerial debate yesterday. This has had 160,000 views at the time of writing. Interestingly far lower than the TV debates...
The Digital Economy Bill comes out of the Digital Britain Report which was published in June last year and involved everything from the digitisation of Government services to the transfer from analogue to digital radio in the coming years. Being over 300 pages long it may not be your chosen night time read(!) but it will have far reaching consequences. You can find the full Digital Britain Report here. Most relevant to what this blog discusses is Chapter 4: Creative Industries in the Digital World as well as the discussion of privacy and safety in Chapter 7, although it is very detailed. A useful introduction to the Report's consequences can be found here.
A question about the Act also formed part of the very sparsely covered Youtube/Facebook primeministerial debate yesterday. This has had 160,000 views at the time of writing. Interestingly far lower than the TV debates...
Tuesday 27 April 2010
The Seven Inviolable, Irrefutable, Ingenious Things Your Business or Institution or Candidate Can Do in the Age of the Internet...
"The Seven Inviolable, Irrefutable, Ingenious Things Your Business or Institution or Candidate Can Do in the Age of the Internet That Might Keep You from Getting Your Ass Kicked But Then Again Might Not"
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Joe Trippi, 2004)
The following are the seven things that Trippi describes in his book with a simplified explanation of each. Please do get hold of a copy and read these in full!
1. Be First - There is very little about the Internet that is proprietary...the first everything has a headstart building a community...(rule 1a - If you're not going to be the first mover, you'd better be a hell of a lot better.)
2. Keep it Moving - Don't be static... Don't let your website be wallpaper.
3. Use an Authentic Voice - Have real people write real stuff.
4. Tell the Truth - The internet has an inherent transparency... Tell them what you want. Don't manipulate
5. Build a Community - Create a commons, a town square, a place where people can come together...
6. Cede Control - Once you invite people in, they're going to want to do more.
7. Believe Again - Have some faith in the [] people again.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Joe Trippi, 2004)
This advice is still massively relevant to all sorts of organisations today. They are very important areas that we see missed so much - we see 'websites as wallpaper' all the time! Bland press releases with no space for community. Many examples, in my own immediate experience spring to mind of organisations that believe this in their ethos and are trying to engage but miss out on the potential of the internet as a way to do it.
The tools for the job have improved massively since 2004; many of them free. What is holding you back? Will your organisation survive and thrive without this sort of engagement?
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Joe Trippi, 2004)
The following are the seven things that Trippi describes in his book with a simplified explanation of each. Please do get hold of a copy and read these in full!
1. Be First - There is very little about the Internet that is proprietary...the first everything has a headstart building a community...(rule 1a - If you're not going to be the first mover, you'd better be a hell of a lot better.)
2. Keep it Moving - Don't be static... Don't let your website be wallpaper.
3. Use an Authentic Voice - Have real people write real stuff.
4. Tell the Truth - The internet has an inherent transparency... Tell them what you want. Don't manipulate
5. Build a Community - Create a commons, a town square, a place where people can come together...
6. Cede Control - Once you invite people in, they're going to want to do more.
7. Believe Again - Have some faith in the [] people again.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Joe Trippi, 2004)
This advice is still massively relevant to all sorts of organisations today. They are very important areas that we see missed so much - we see 'websites as wallpaper' all the time! Bland press releases with no space for community. Many examples, in my own immediate experience spring to mind of organisations that believe this in their ethos and are trying to engage but miss out on the potential of the internet as a way to do it.
The tools for the job have improved massively since 2004; many of them free. What is holding you back? Will your organisation survive and thrive without this sort of engagement?
Monday 26 April 2010
Embracing the "bottom-up" nature of the Internet
"The companies that will thrive - the companies that are thriving - are those that embrace the bottom-up nature of the Internet culture." In the final chapter of his book Joe Trippi outlines what was learnt through the course of the Dean Campaign in the prospective 2004 Presidential election campaign, which acted as a pioneer and record breaker in use of the Internet.
As they are very relevant to business and non-profit sectors alike, I will write tomorrow in more depth on his seven points for businesses/instiutions/candidates. Trippi argues that the companies that "...make the turn[to embracing the bottom-up internet culture] will be those that figure out how to empower their customers to have a say in the products they buy and use." That as a result customers will become part of the process, naturally forming a community around the product or service. And that your company will improve for it. Customers will offer better and more appropriate ideas than your organistion alone can produce.
The idea that so many businesses and charities seem to be missing is that we the users and customers can be part of so much and can be far more engaged than at any time previously by what the internet makes possible. Where feedback can be instant. Where ideas can be discussed and improved upon without the need for formed and polished presentation beforehand. In which customers are valued and given ownership and sense of belonging. Do you agree? Are you engaging on the Internet?
As they are very relevant to business and non-profit sectors alike, I will write tomorrow in more depth on his seven points for businesses/instiutions/candidates. Trippi argues that the companies that "...make the turn[to embracing the bottom-up internet culture] will be those that figure out how to empower their customers to have a say in the products they buy and use." That as a result customers will become part of the process, naturally forming a community around the product or service. And that your company will improve for it. Customers will offer better and more appropriate ideas than your organistion alone can produce.
The idea that so many businesses and charities seem to be missing is that we the users and customers can be part of so much and can be far more engaged than at any time previously by what the internet makes possible. Where feedback can be instant. Where ideas can be discussed and improved upon without the need for formed and polished presentation beforehand. In which customers are valued and given ownership and sense of belonging. Do you agree? Are you engaging on the Internet?
Wednesday 21 April 2010
Real Engagement?
Of the top fifteen political influencers on twitter seven are Labour, with only three Lib-dem and one Conservative according to Edelman's public affairs team. Fascinating as Labour appear to be so far behind on support on Facebook now: Conservative 54,000, Lib Dem 52,000, Labour 27,000 ('likes' rather than 'fans' now as Facebook have just changed their system).
Matthew Eltringham's blog post on CoJo has been asking questions of just how much people are really engaging: "Beyond the activities of the major parties, there's a mixed picture of just how much people are themselves engaging with the online election." A good point and one which sorts the politicians from the public; politicians are engaging on these sites but are the voters being engaged by their involvement?
I think to some extent yes, but it is not the 'groundswell' that I've been reading about behind the Dean campaign's use of the internet where they provided a space for "...these young people who wanted to do something [but] were not being mobilized and didn't feel empowered"(Trippi, 2004).
I'm not saying that the American system is right, there are many better ways for British people to engage than the American large scale and Presidentially focussed elections but there is not a grassroots movement happening here. So far TV is having a far larger effect on the election than the internet, demonstrably by the effects of the first election debate.
Matthew Eltringham's blog post on CoJo has been asking questions of just how much people are really engaging: "Beyond the activities of the major parties, there's a mixed picture of just how much people are themselves engaging with the online election." A good point and one which sorts the politicians from the public; politicians are engaging on these sites but are the voters being engaged by their involvement?
I think to some extent yes, but it is not the 'groundswell' that I've been reading about behind the Dean campaign's use of the internet where they provided a space for "...these young people who wanted to do something [but] were not being mobilized and didn't feel empowered"(Trippi, 2004).
I'm not saying that the American system is right, there are many better ways for British people to engage than the American large scale and Presidentially focussed elections but there is not a grassroots movement happening here. So far TV is having a far larger effect on the election than the internet, demonstrably by the effects of the first election debate.
Tuesday 20 April 2010
DoGooder
These films are the winners of the DoGooder Non Profit Video Awards, supported by See3 and NTEN. These films show just what can be done using film for non-profits. I find this one particularly affecting from the Canadian Cancer Society:
TRWNBT
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is an engaging and thought-provoking book for anyone interested in Politics, the Internet or anything in between(technology, post-modern culture etc) written by Joe Trippi who "unwittingly found [him]self in the right spot at the beginning of the twenty-first century, maybe the one guy who might have a chance at pulling together this grassroots, nuts-and-bolts, knock-on-doors, send-e-mails, use-the-Internet bulletin board-website political movement thing." (TRWNBT, 2004)
From Howard Dean's campaign manager in the 2004 US presidential election, this book could be seen as a campaign memoire of sorts but is far wider in its scope than that. I'm half way through but thoroughly recommend it. Do you 'get it'? Do you get the internet's power? Do you get the potential of the internet as a social space and tool for change and good in our twenty first century society? Is your organisation 'of' the internet or just 'on' it? What's the difference? Do I 'get it', even though I'm studying it, do I understand that potential and how 'real' an experience online interaction is for so many people?
From Howard Dean's campaign manager in the 2004 US presidential election, this book could be seen as a campaign memoire of sorts but is far wider in its scope than that. I'm half way through but thoroughly recommend it. Do you 'get it'? Do you get the internet's power? Do you get the potential of the internet as a social space and tool for change and good in our twenty first century society? Is your organisation 'of' the internet or just 'on' it? What's the difference? Do I 'get it', even though I'm studying it, do I understand that potential and how 'real' an experience online interaction is for so many people?
Thursday 15 April 2010
More Elections
In a week full of talk about the election, where every news programme runs 15mins on what happened on the campaign that day and there is soon to be the first live debate between the leaders of the main three parties, what has happened online? Something I've been watching is the fan sites on facebook. Since the end of last week the conservatives fan site has increased by roughly 3000 fans, the lib dems by 5000 and labour by a few thousand too. As I write the numbers stand at LD 19,456, C 42,830 and L 20,259. These numbers might seem big, but consider that even now Obama has over 8 million fans.
Those numbers and particularly their increase seem rather small considering this is the most important time for support of the parties in 5 years. Is politics compatible with the goal of many marketing campaigns these days: to make their comsumers into 'fans'? To see that brand as more than just the product but something that captures imagination and creates the fan-factor. Fans go to concerts, follow you, want to see you, want your autograph, have an emotional connection - think beatles fans, politics at the moment certainly seems unlikely to attract this kind of attention.
Those numbers and particularly their increase seem rather small considering this is the most important time for support of the parties in 5 years. Is politics compatible with the goal of many marketing campaigns these days: to make their comsumers into 'fans'? To see that brand as more than just the product but something that captures imagination and creates the fan-factor. Fans go to concerts, follow you, want to see you, want your autograph, have an emotional connection - think beatles fans, politics at the moment certainly seems unlikely to attract this kind of attention.
Friday 9 April 2010
On the Internet
What effect does using the web have on us? Why is the disembodiment of the web attractive and is it a good thing? Is it more than just a tool?
Reading Hubert L. Dreyfus' book On the Internet is forming an important introduction to some of these big questions on the use and effect of the internet. So far I have been surprised how much of his text rings true. Mainly as a warning against a hedonistic view of the internet as the be all and end all of current society. There is a limit and there are reasons some things need reality.
Some of these questions were also raised as part of Aleks Krotoski and the BBC's Virtual Revolution. In the final episode of the series 'Homo Interneticus', Dr Krotoski dicusses the effect of social networking on our relationships. Do we really have 500+ friends and what do we mean by friends in the context of facebook and other social networks?
The effect of the internet for good as a tool is undoubted, but like anything open and freely usable it is open to abuse and misuse. Do the bonds created online act as stongly as 'real' relationships. I say no, but being only on the verge of being a digital native (as opposed to an immigrant) myself, can I really judge? I think in fact this is a really important point and fundamentally divides many organisations' attitudes to the internet and use of social networks. If an organisation doesn't value the internet's potential for relationships then they tend to undervalue and underinvest in their online presence and often ignore social networks entirely.
Reading Hubert L. Dreyfus' book On the Internet is forming an important introduction to some of these big questions on the use and effect of the internet. So far I have been surprised how much of his text rings true. Mainly as a warning against a hedonistic view of the internet as the be all and end all of current society. There is a limit and there are reasons some things need reality.
Some of these questions were also raised as part of Aleks Krotoski and the BBC's Virtual Revolution. In the final episode of the series 'Homo Interneticus', Dr Krotoski dicusses the effect of social networking on our relationships. Do we really have 500+ friends and what do we mean by friends in the context of facebook and other social networks?
The effect of the internet for good as a tool is undoubted, but like anything open and freely usable it is open to abuse and misuse. Do the bonds created online act as stongly as 'real' relationships. I say no, but being only on the verge of being a digital native (as opposed to an immigrant) myself, can I really judge? I think in fact this is a really important point and fundamentally divides many organisations' attitudes to the internet and use of social networks. If an organisation doesn't value the internet's potential for relationships then they tend to undervalue and underinvest in their online presence and often ignore social networks entirely.
Thursday 8 April 2010
Social Media Election 2010?
The British general election has been called this week and the use of digital media is striking. Striking, not for any massive innovation, but for the fact they are actually using digital media tools, trying to engage the public where they are. Many articles have appeared this week, not least from the bbc who are keen to promote their election site which is actually informative and interesting.
Many are commenting that the 'new' is still subserviant to the 'old' media when campaigning, including presenter of radio four's media show Steve Hewlett's blog. So far I agree; there is no innovation like what was seen in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections in the US.
The websites of the three main parties are barely discernable one from another apart from their colours. Are they really engaging, being 'of' the internet rather than just 'on' it or have they all taken a class in 'what the public want to see'?
Many are commenting that the 'new' is still subserviant to the 'old' media when campaigning, including presenter of radio four's media show Steve Hewlett's blog. So far I agree; there is no innovation like what was seen in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections in the US.
The websites of the three main parties are barely discernable one from another apart from their colours. Are they really engaging, being 'of' the internet rather than just 'on' it or have they all taken a class in 'what the public want to see'?
What is this?
Answer: This is a space to show you and others the research that I am conducting into the use of Digital Media. I hope it will be an informative and occasionally interesting(!) mashup of formed and unformed thoughts, ideas, links and resources which come out of my research degree. For reference, the following is the working thesis title for my MSc by research:
Digital Media in a Social Networking Age: How can organisations better harness the power of an array of digital media tools, including social networks, to communicate their purpose/vision and unique message?
Digital Media in a Social Networking Age: How can organisations better harness the power of an array of digital media tools, including social networks, to communicate their purpose/vision and unique message?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)