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
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
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.
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)