Contact
Social media is the new political arena
Lauren Armstrong
President Obama is called the Social Media President. During the 2008 elections, Obama embraced technology that extended beyond e-mail and websites to fully harness the power of social media to reach and energize people.
With the New Mexico primaries behind us, we are starting to see many candidates embracing the potential of social media. Brian Colón, candidate for lieutenant governor, avidly engages through Facebook and Twitter, posting his experiences from the campaign trail, sharing news and driving fundraising.
State Auditor Hector Balderas uses Facebook as a way to build and maintain relationships with his constituency. Gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez uses her Facebook page to share her campaign positions and communicate with her supporters.
The common thread is that all of these candidates use social media as a way to communicate directly with their supporters. When put simply, this does not sound revolutionary. What makes this so significant is they are reaching out en masse, in a very personal way, to voters.
Traditionally, walking, phone calls, e-mails and events have been the way to directly interact with the public. This meant candidates were only able to meet a very small portion of the public. They had to rely on third-party communication, ie. commercials, interviews, mailers and word-of-mouth support, to spread their messages and establish rapports with voters.
Social media revolutionizes candidate-voter relationships. Now, Brian Colón shares his life with his Facebook friends. He is able to talk with them, but what is more important is they are able to talk with him. His Facebook friends can send him an e-mail or post on his wall and know that it is Brian who is responding to them. They can meet him, and get to know him, and find out for themselves who this candidate really is.
Addressing negative press and scandal
A big question in social media and politics is what happens when you are not receiving positive attention? What if you are in the news due to negative press or scandal? People shy away from the front line of social media when confronted by personal/professional controversy. It feels easier and safer to communicate your position through a news release or a sound byte.
However, social media is the perfect platform to actively and informally combat negative press and deal with the potential fallout from scandal. It is the ultimate “your side of the story.” In this day of hyper communication and constant contact, keeping silent can cause more trouble than speaking up.
For instance, the controversy with Tiger Woods was heightened because he kept silent. His lack of engagement became as much a part of the controversy as the infidelity itself.
A local example of controversy and social media was the appeals judge race between Dennis W. Montoya and Linda Vanzi. Montoya’s social media strategy was not risk averse when it came to addressing the controversy head on. On his Facebook profile, he discussed the issues with his friends and did not shy away from the controversy. In the discussions on his profile, Montoya would clarify his position when asked, and he would answer any questions from his Facebook friends.
His strategy paid off. According to his Facebook friends list, he did not lose any friends. In fact, he gained friends. His transparency led to a successful social media campaign. Though he did not win the primary, his social media presence won him many voters he may not have had otherwise.
Connecting with people
Though not every candidate will face challenges like those in the Montoya/Vanzi race, mudslinging and controversy are often a part of the campaign landscape, and social media can help combat and address these issues. The social media platform gives candidates a chance to speak to issues that the press might not cover, or respond to issues in a highly personal manner.
The dialogue that social media fosters allows the candidate to become more than just another talking head. The candidates who are utilizing social media are saying they want to connect with people and they are interested in not only listening to what the voters have to say, but they want to participate in the discussion. Social media is the new political arena.
Armstrong is the senior consultant at SM Cubed, a social media consulting firm. By way of disclosure, she consulted for Hector Balderas and continues to consult for Dennis W. Montoya.
8 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Social media sites are useful tools in building your network, getting your message across and advancing your cause. However, it comes not without risks. Make sound decisions/policies regarding social media use in your organization by checking these out:
http://bit.ly/9twcQMTwitter
http://bit.ly/bsrh9CFacebook
http://bit.ly/94MFMBSharePoint
Let me know what you think…
kelly@
Social media and places like Facebook and Twitter are here to stay. No one questions the use of TV ads, phone calls and direct mail, but many no longer watch TV – opting for the Internet instead. The response rate for direct mail is 1 – 2 % and most people screen phone calls. But no one questions using these means of communications. Social media definitely needs to be part of the mix. Although some peiople don’t use it, most do, and it should not be ignored.
However, social media is not effective if candidates don’t know how to use it. It is not a one-way communication, but a means to engage others. In the social media, candidates should talk about others, not just themselves, and they should respond to comments from friends.
I was active during the last few months with the Colón campaign, and firmly believe that social media made a difference. With a margin of victory of less than 5,400 votes, I would not bet against the effects of his social media program.
Catherine Sherwood.
Hummmm… intersting everyone is focusing on Obama’s commencement speeches, He also said “don’t make excuses and blame others for your failures”. Just more hypocrisy, as with his other commencement speeches, he is clueless, like those who think Facebook and Twitter are solutions to communications.
Scott, I agree with what you said about Social Media not being the only source of outreach. Galrepub is right that not everyone uses social media. And there are those out there like Dr.J who do not find a value in it. However, with 41% of the US population using Facebook(1) and 7% using Twitter(2), social media is becoming an integral part of peoples lives. As Scott said, people don’t wonder what they are going to do when they get online anymore. But with anything, it has to be done right. You cannot focus all your communication in one arena, otherwise you will definitely exclude part of your demographic. If you do not use your social media properly then it will become like junk mail. However, if you integrate it into your op-eds, phone calls, mailers, interviews, events, emails and websites, it will become a hub of communication because it is one of the few platforms that fosters direct and personal communication with both a single person and a wide audience.
Galrepub mention the commencement speech President Obama gave. Here is what he said: “And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — (laughter) — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.”(3)
Of course technology can become a distraction, but it is also a tool. He is charging us as a society to make sure that we use it for more than games and gossip, but to use it to become informed and to influence. Just like this forum, we are able to discuss and share our various opinions and use this technology as a source of information.
I am glad that my blog has sparked such an interesting discussion.
@laurencubed
facebook.com/smcubedconsulting
1. Facebook Usage: http://www.insidefacebook.com/2010/06/02/us-led-facebook-growth-for-second-month-in-a-row-in-may-2010/
2. Twitter Usage: http://www.edisonresearch.com/twitter_usage_2010.php
3.http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-obama-hampton-address-transcript,0,7478536.story
The point of social media is to create and maintain a constant flow of information to the specific people who sign up to follow the page. That is typically supporters and not the specific geographic location represented. These supporters often have opinions and express them. It works to share information and react not really debate. In addition, social media is becoming a new organization of the web. No longer do we open a browser and think, “what should I do online today?” Facebook and Twitter offer a place where you can instantly find information that your friends like/share or information regarding specific brands that you are interested in. A new organization where content and information finds you instead of you going out and finding the information. Those who are still skeptical will continue to have to be reached by traditional means.
This is why social media should certainly not be the sole source for communication especially if you are, like me, representing a specific geographic location. This is why I write op-eds, letters to the editor, blogs and perhaps most importantly hold community meetings. I think I’ve been involved in 4 community meetings in the first 5 months of this year.
Email is definitely a more direct way to communicate with people. The problem with email is that people send it, and then assume that the receiver got it, forgetting about imperfect spam filters that sometimes keep the message from ever being communicated. That is my guess what happened in the situation mentioned by galrepub. Anyone who sends an email, gets no response, probably ought to follow up in an alternative form to verify the communication went through. The interesting thing to note is that with social media, you can simply log onto the page to verify that it went through. Email has no way to do this.
If you have emailed me and I failed to respond please try again. I do my best to reply to each and every person no just on email, but on my blog, social media, phone calls and letters.
Facebook and Twitter are fine but, what about all the people who do not use these? Or people who do not even own computers? For Mr. Krahling to say this is how he keeps his District updated, he is missing people in his district who either do not use or have access to Facebook, etc. Is this why he does not respond to emails from his district? Seems to me, he is missing contact with many people. Mr,.Obama used Facebook, etc. to pick up the young vote. Isn’t he the one who said at a commencement a few weeks ago that all these “are a distraction in life”??
Sorry, but Facebook and particularly Twitter are nothing but toys with little to no value. Twitter is just a one way blast of stuff “about me”, who cares? An uninterrupted stream of human consciousness is just not interesting unless you already know and love the person. I like to comment and debate, thus Twitter is useless. Facebook allows that, but if you read the comments on politicians’ pages they are mostly uninformed sycophants who are in love with the candidate or those who strongly disagree. In addition, low level staff members man and write their Facebook pages, so the politicians are clueless what is on them. They typically use them to spread some partisan talking point their political strategists and party leaders tell them to push out. There is no debate on any intellectual or rational level, just shouting and nothing changes. The problem with the current generation is that they mistake technology and posting random comments for real debate, conversation, and understanding. Facebook and Twitter for politicians is just the latest form of junk mail, and a way to perpetuate the “echo chamber” politicians want to live in where everyone agrees with them and they are wonderful.
I agree completely. As a commissioner I communicate with people on Facebook and Twitter daily. Today I tweeted just after a vote at our commission meeting. I also use it to engage people by asking them for their comments and responding to it. Social media is, well, socially so I find it important to consistently update and respond. I guess that’s the marketing consultant in me making sure that I practice what I preach. I also think it is important to engage others when relevant topics come up… like this one. The other day the Sun News posted an article about the animal shelter. I thought it was relevant for me to leave a comment letting people know where I stood on the issue.
While I haven’t faced a crisis on the scale of Tiger Woods, I do engage people when I make a mistake or I respond to criticism. I think that is important and the only way to show credibility.
Check out my fan page to see more or if you want to stay up to date on Dona Ana County politics from a commissioner’s perspective. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Scott-Krahling-is-my-County-Commissioner/98875966213?ref=ts