Greetings from San Francisco, a lunatic leftie enclave, or the sole remaining pocket of sanity in a morally bankrupt nation (depending on whether and how far you hang to the left or to the right).
The brains trust here at RMM is exploring the applicability of the now-famous KUDOS approach (have you been paying attention there at the back?) to the world of politics, and with good reason. If political campaigns are wars of words and ideas, then the Democratic primaries clearly point to the next big battleground upon which such contests will be fought around the world: social networks. You could stretch the metaphor – and I will, because the editorial standards here at rmmlondon.com are lax to nonexistent – and argue that social media properties like will.i.am’s much-watched “Yes We Can” video are the sea-launched cruise missiles that will, one day soon, be a major determinant of victory or defeat.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fZHou18Cdk[/youtube]
Blogs like Daily Kos and The Huffington Post, and Web sites like Politico, are vibrant forums for political debate, energizing a newly conscious electorate. And check out the comments section of any online newspaper article that contains even the slightest political reference. Thousands of responses stream in within minutes of posting.Clearly, many people of voting age are actively participating in political discussions online, creating and posting viral spoofs of campaign ads, calling each other names and generally demonstrating the kind of intolerance and mass hysteria that – to our huge enjoyment – represent politics today.
Let’s put aside for the moment how social media can help political organizations govern – engaging citizens in civic life, for the want of a more exact definition, and a critically important issue. Rather, let’s see if we can help answer some of the myriad questions that will increasingly confound campaign strategists, just as they confound marketers, the world over.
For example, and in no particular order:
To what extent can you control the delivery of your message when it’s subject to instant scrutiny, contradiction and endorsement by anyone with an opinion and an Internet connection?
How can you prevent it from being buried – or diluted, if you prefer – by the constant back and forth of online discussion?
How much does your share of the online conversation translate to action, i.e. votes?
How do you extend the reach of your message online beyond the youngsters to whom social networking is as natural as picking up the phone?
How do you monitor and quantify what voters or your opponents are saying about you?
How much is your message of the hour, day or week resonating?
How effective are those social media tactical weapons, and how do you increase their impact?
And there are a lot more questions where they came from. Fortunately, we know all of the answers. Every single one of them.
Lots of good stuff to come, so stay tuned for more posts from Dan, Iain, me and anyone else who wants to pitch in.
I think the second issue is key: can you translate netroots support into grassroots action. Merely downloading will.i.am’s video is not the same as spending eight hours in a drafty public school somewhere in Maine caucusing for Obama. On the other hand, the sheer ammount of ‘noise’ that this sort of sociaial media activity creates has undeniably helped foster the – ahem – soft media ride that Obama’s been getting.
[...] in his infinite wisdom, has already noted the profitable use of social media activities by the current US presidential campaigns. Whether [...]