If nothing else, social media can tell you if you got the message out

Due to the immediacy of public input an commentary, it is now simpler to assess the extent to which any set piece event is able to capture attention and also whether you got the message across. The US President State of the Union (hashtag #SOTU) is one such event and key to this is firstly capturing attention and secondly getting the message across.

Mashable produced some great analysis of what the social web was talking about when discussing the the SOTU. It certainly captured an active audience, 400,000 tweets is a significant number, and of those the majority talked about issues relating to education and the economy, they also note clear spikes in issue attention suggesting Obama is leading the online commentary. This, however, is an engaged audience who not only listen to SOTU but wish to add commentary and debate the issues. Sadly there is no sentiment rating to assess the extent of whether they were largely supportive or not.

A more representative sample was used to test out whether Obama's messages got through to the audience. An article in New York magazine shows two word clouds, one for Obama's speech and one from recall among 4,000 of the audience. Obama's cloud is dense and full of the sort of language one would expect. There are a lot of issues raised but also those buzzwords 'new', 'people' and references to nation and national identity with America/American/Americans. The 4,000 viewers picked out a less dense package of words. Aside from education, the key terms were descriptive as opposed to the terms Obama may have liked to have had resonate. Words such as 'Inspiring', 'hopeful', 'optimistic' describe a mood as opposed to issues - this tells us something about what audiences pick out however. But then there is the major key word they heard 'Salmon' - not a major policy area!

What do we learn from this, well we can get instance responses from an audience. Usually this would be the most engaged group however. This may look pretty positive but this may lead to a false sense of security about how you led an agenda and how politically aware the majority of people are. Asking a mass audience shows that what you think people heard may not always be what they actually left with in their minds.

Book Review: Game Change

There are usually a few books that come out after each US Presidential election, but 2008 really seems to have led to a whole industry of writing. The first, and in my opinion best, overview of the campaign was Dennis W. Johnson's Campaigning for President; a book that takes an overview of the key innovations and explains why Obama won. As an edited collection it is able to cover a lot of ground with contributions from a range of academics - to understand what the campaign was about this is the one to buy. But for those who wish to get inside the campaign Game Change is something quite special. Subtitled 'Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime', this tells the insider story of relations between those contesting the presidency, between the presidential and vice-presidential candidates and details the biography of the campaign. Authors John Heilemann and Mark Halperin are journalists and the project seems to have been approached from the perspective of an investigative journalist. Interviews have been conducted with a range of front line and back room operatives central to the campaign and the picture painted is one of both strategic thinking and deployment of resources as well as pragmatic seat of the pants flying that at times verged on panic. Wonderful stuff!

So what do we learn from this? The story of the bitter rivalry that blew up between the Clintons (Hillary and Bill) and Obama is striking. When the visible aspects of this were only the negative advertisements, to get a sense of the personal side to the contest is fascinating. In particularly Hillary Clinton's blinkered disbelief that the 'upstart' would not only take her on but force her to accept defeat. The chaotic organisation, or at times disorganisation and disfunctionalism within Clinton's team is also striking; this contrasts with Obama's slick operation that, although not without its problems, kept on top of strategy and perhaps this led to the emphatic victory in the race. Biden was a temporary spanner in the works, but soon got his game together and he is a marginal figure in the story largely. The John Edwards story is a further sideline but nonetheless an amusing aside, as he stumbles along badgered by his wife and dogged by rumours of an affair and subsequent love child it is clear why he never made any impact and never got a position in the Obama administration.

The McCain story is shorter and details the thinking within the campaign as they drift from frontrunner to being dead in the water to the emergent victor (of the nomination) in a matter of months. Again the disfunctionalism in his team is striking, but the real story is Sarah Palin. Her introduction, rise to stardom and then public and private meltdown, with hints of her verging on psychological collapse, is a fascinating and somewhat tragic story. The decision to include her in the campaign was ill-planned, and without full checks on her ability or background. While she showed herself to be an initial competent performer this did not withstand interrogation. Her brand crashed and burned very quickly, those advising her were probably as much to blame as McCain for choosing her and Palin herself.

The focus stays on Obama and the Clintons a lot, perhaps as that was where the real story of the 2008 campaign was. There is little said of the online machine Obama's team built; beyond this being a rich source of campaign finances. Also there is much about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright issue, yet little about some of the other events of the campaign - Joe the Plumber does not feature for example despite his name being constantly referenced by McCain in the third and final debate. In fact the latter stages of the fight seem to be a footnote when compared to the detail on the process of winning the nominations, a time when Obama and Clinton where the big game in town. However, despite some detail some readers may expect to feature being absent, it is a fascinating read - an series of in-depth insider accounts of a campaign written in an accessible style and at times reading like a political thriller. Great fun, but also a great insight into the world of the political strategist

Online campaigning as collaborative diegesis

If your first thought is 'Huh' bear with me. I was at an interesting research seminar yesterday run here at Bournemouth by colleague Joe Flintham who was talking of the notion of a collaborative diegesis. Diegesis may sound a complex thing but it is something we are all familiar with, it is the world which is created by any narrative, that which involves us and we are transported to when we read a book, watch a film etc. For Joe, his work is on fiction and collaboration in stories using a range of media (see Hauntology for one of his experimental projects which invited people to add sounds while exploring a 'haunted' table with drawers). I was struck by the idea of a collaborative narrative which builds and develops a story and was thinking of its application beyond the world of fiction.

Here was my thought. Social Networking Sites are naturally collaborative, a profile page on Facebook, YouTube etc can be populated by the creator but also by visitors to that profile. Each contributing comment on a post, picture or video adds to the original item and so provides a further dimension that can be experienced by future visitors. Political profiles, be they fan pages, individual MP's pages or party video sites usually allow comments. The similarity with contributions to something like Hauntology is striking. Some are reflective on the original item; some tangential and related to the host, production values, spelling, whatever; some relate to the meta-narrative (big picture) such as a campaign or contest, values or a world view; they are each personal and had meaning at the time of their posting. Of course there is censorship of the contributions, and perhaps this results in a wholly supportive narrative, this is a necessary feature of oppositional politics. However is something like the contributions to the Post shown on the right, something which seems almost a unique feature of Obama's campaign and presidency in terms of the numbers contributing if nothing else, a collaborative diegesis? Is this creating a world constructed by a collaborative narrative which is enveloping Obama as the character at the centre? Is this narrative not only persuasive, in terms of the endorsements of Obama by the members of the Facebook community, but also transportational; does it conjure the image of a world in which Obama has a free hand, or the world he wants to create, and so why he should be supported. It was an idea inspired by Joe's talk and so all feedback and comments welcome.

Co-producing a campaign

There is perhaps nothing more persuasive than a message than comes from someone you feel to be similar to yourself. We are persuaded most often by our friends and loved ones, they have a profound impact upon our attitudes and behaviour on a daily basis; most of the time we are unaware of that impact. Many campaigns attempt to replicate the power of what, I guess, can be called peer pressure. The Conservative party wall of videos, the fan pages on Facebook, all attempt to get the public to endorse a party on the basis that people like them are already doing so.

Barack Obama is doing the same with the issue of Health Care Reform. The campaign ran a competition to make a video that would promote the campaign. The YouTube site claims there have been "nearly 1,000 submissions, 20 amazing finalists, and more than 3 million views" for the call. The have selected a winner: Eric Hurt (the video is below)

The winning video is very simple in its message. It links well to the theme of Organising for Amwerica by offering short future narratives from children on what would happen if they have an accident and need medical care. It is a message to get people to donate to the campaign, to lobby on behalf of the campaign, and so to put pressure on elected representatives to pass the reform bill. The power of this is the people who are backing the campaign, this one video has received 70,404 views and received 135 comments since it was posted eight hours ago; scanning the comments they are all positive about the campaign. The tactics of soliciting people's input and posting on a social network allows the supporting citizens to co-produce the campaign messages and make the camapign belong as much to the people as to Obama. Whether they represent a majority or not it gives the impression of a movement; whether there are any lessons that can be drawn from this and applied elsewhere is difficult to say. Obama has a unique approach to being President, if he wins this campaign he may well be seen to be the ultimate advocate of people power; if not he may be able to shrug this off as a brave attempt to back the people that was thwarted by vested interests on Capitol Hill. It seems that co-production is not just persuasive, but also offers a win-win zone for Obama and the people of the US.

Politician Endorsement

Odd to see a politician being used in an advertisement as a positive endorser of a message. It seems the power of the 'Yes We Can' slogan, its symbolic meaning, coupled with Obama's reforms is striking a chord in the US and so is being used to back social messages. No idea why this was emailled to me but thought it was interesting enough to share.

A bit of satire

Though there is perhaps the argument that I should have tried harder, I just could not resist sharing this satirical video depicting the US presidential campaign of 2008.

Having watched it twice i think it is slightly pro-Obama given its depiction of McCain as a warmonger and the serious digs at Obama were the discredited 'Osama bin Laden' attacks and his relaxed communication style shown on chart shows and some public appearances. Kind of nice to see the whole contest given a pseudo-South Park make over.

One great put down

It does seem incredible that anyone can even make the link between health care reform and acting like a fascist dictator but that seems to be one tack of the anti-free health care campaign.

The respoonse "having a sensible with you would be like having one with a dining room table" (sic) is a classic from Senator Barney Frank. It also indicates just how polarised society is on this issue and how it taps into deeply held ideological positions that are engrained within US psychology. For some reason it is just not American for a broad swathe of the society Obama is trying to convince of the efficacy of this policy.

Conservatives try to emulate Obama

One of the key elements of Barack Obama's campaign was the mybarackobama (MyBO) section of his website. What this did was allow subscribers to network with campaigners in their region, set up their own campaign initiatives as well as be led by the Obama team in terms of phone and door-to-door canvassing. Subscribers also received extensive amounts of emails, mainly asking them to donate to the campaign. The Conservatives are emulating this technique with MyConservatives.com. It is described as an online network, though currently it is a little short of members but it is early days. The activities that the site permits are taking an active role in campaigns in target constituencies; donating; phone canvassing; and setting up fundraising events 'with online ticketing'. It is not clear how the networking aspect will work, particularly for drawing together activists as was clearly happening within MyBO. Also it seems there is no blog in place to be used as a hub for campaigning. It is, however, interesting that an Obama technique has been picked up and transplanted by a UK party; the question is whether it will take off and what role this will play in the election campaign.

Street-Level Campaigning

It may seem strange to most except Daniel Hannan that there is a huge debate raging in the US about free health care. The anti campaign is talking about this as if it will bring on the end of civilisation, it is talked of as a threat to civil liberty. Obama is of course leading the campaign for free health care and it is an uphill struggle all the way. The communication strategy, as would be expected, is multi-layered including appearances on every primetime television channel (except Fox of course). But the most interesting is conducted beneath the media radar and is at the ground level. The communication is from members of his movement, or so we are told, people like Nicola Aro. The email via the mybarrackobama.com community begins with the campaign message "I was lucky enough to be one of the thousands of people who heard President Obama speak about health reform recently at the University of Maryland. As he told the fired up crowd, "Change starts with people -- especially young people -- who are determined to take this nation's destiny into their own hands.""; it then moves on to ask for volunteers to support the campaign and lobby their representative. The Campus Phone Booth idea is about people calling other people and getting them to do the lobbying for them.

Basically it is an attempt to maintain the power of the movement that supported Obama's campaign for the Presidency. More importantly it is about citizen advocacy, people convincing their peers to get involved and back the President's initiative. It is an attempt to counter the public debate that centres on the negatives. It could be a highly persuasive tool if enough students and young people can be mobilised to run a booth and second can then mobilise others to lobby Senators. It is risky, but if it can tap into support for the initiative, and those being asked to give their time believe that they can make a difference by doing so, it could be a highly successful way of putting pressure on Senate.

Twitter Control

I know that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are all now within Obama's team, but one would think that they would not all be saying exactly the same thing and almost exactly the same time. However it seems that the Obama machine is now in charge of all their Twitter accounts and so, if you are sad/unlucky/fortunate (delete as appropriate) to subscribe to all you end up with the feed (left). So who really thought that the live confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor needed that much publicity? More substantially, does this not suggest the stifling of the voices of those included into government because of their talent, I know it is 'only' Twitter, but it suggests a strong control mechanism over public/political communication from anyone with the Obama team. This seems to run counter to the notion of including your rivals and to the open and transparent image of the administration. or am I just a pedant?

White House 2.0

In an era when politician's promises tend to be rhetorical and empty with little sign of being actioned, it is good to see immediate action. President Obama stated in his recent Weekly Address, that government must "recognize that we cannot meet the challenges of today with old habits and stale thinking... we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative." His pledge was to "reach beyond the halls of government" and engage the public. The result has been to 'be where the people are'; Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Vimeo, Twitter, YouTube and iTunes. The White House blog post "Technology has profoundly impacted how – and where – we all consume information and communicate with one another. WhiteHouse.gov is an important part of the Administration’s effort to use the Internet to reach the public quickly and effectively". But it is not simply a strategy of reaching out and getting the public to engage with information, as a Politico's review suggests questions posed via social networks are also answered via the White House blog so putting people directly in touch with their government. Is this the future of government? Could any other politician either institute such a strategy, or perhaps gain the level of engagement Obama enjoys; that is the big question? Also, whether it will last is a question though that depends on Obama and the way he encourages the use of these tools and the extent to which there remains an audience.

Is the facade crumbling?

While no single event or mistake heralds a shift in emphasis or indicates decline but something is astray with Obama's communication after taking office. He makes gaffes, jokes about special Olympics, seems at times at sea during press conferences (see his response to the BBC's Nick Robinson yesterday) - it was not what he said it was the way he looked and spoke, maybe it was jetlag or maybe he is better at the scripted event. And then there is the presidential twitter feed, what do these mean. Are there links that are supposed to be there but have been forgotten? 'The Cost of Inaction' well we can guess but not too sure, 'Another Leg in the Stool', I think the only response to that is WTF unless i missed something. Now either it has been hacked into, and if so why has no-one noticed? Or someone is operating it that has no idea what they are doing. What ever the case it strikes me, as an objective observer, that Obama is not quite as good as a President as he was as a candidate and perhaps it is the fact that he doesn't have the same quality communication advisors and strategists around him. It was one thing to propel a candidate to the White House but, it seems, it is different to adapt that style to one of a president.

Gaining Views or Collecting Data

The Labour Party, and interestingly it is the party rather than the government or 10 Downing Street are inviting anyone "tell us what you want to say to the G20 world leaders before the summit and we’ll make sure we pass on as many of your comments as possible". The site asks for a question in no more than 200 words (though they state the optimum is 140 characters) and an email address, and this is the one bit that draws suspicion, they warn that "The Labour Party and its elected representatives may contact you using the data you supply". So clearly it is a device to collect emails and can be used for promotion, which is essentially a core rule of campaigning so understandable, and any contact from visitors may suggest wanting to start a conversation anyway. But the question is how many of the questions actually will be answered. You are able to view the questions, but there is nothing to say if these questions will be posed, how, or how any feedback will be given to those asking the question. An interesting idea though and gives the impression of listening to the 'market', however as with many of these things it requires some follow up to make people feel their views matter.

Just as an afterthought, whoever designed the picture did not think it through too well. Obama looks straight at the visitor smiling, this conveys the image of honesty and openness as well as him as a likeable person. Brown is staring into the distance looking serious but also slightly aloof (my impression) but it does kind of set them as being very different when Brown may well want a little of Obama's charisma to rub off on him. Perhaps it is intentional and serious Brown is felt to be the better image to convey but I wonder if the juxtapositioning of the two contrasting images is wise.

Is it good to be a little unprofessional?

Obama is really good at speeches, really good at set pieces and seems good with people face-to-face, but something he seems less good at is being 'off the cuff'. One imagines that advisers helped every television appearance prior to his victory, perhaps they need to now. On Jay Leno last night his first gaffe was to say that his bowling was: "It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something" - that got an instance response from the White House to reduce any damage. Then there was the dog question, on campaign he promised to buy his daughters a dog if he won, dog has not appeared yet. The joke: "Listen, this is Washington. That was a campaign promise," was ok, though perhaps not wise. But the vaguer "We're going to get a dog that is -- that I think the girls will have a great time -- I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with it. You know, they say if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog." does not inspire confidence. Now you can say it is normal to make a few gaffes and this just proves Obama is human; or you could worry that he makes similar (but more important) gaffes when doing is presidential diplomatic work. Whatever it could be a credibility issue and he may be encouraged to think about being more guarded and less unplanned if he wants to retain is good image.

People Power

This video is produced by Mitch Stewart who has taken over from David Plouffe as head, in a way, of Obama's campaign post election as President. the video pretty much says it all in terms of the strategy:

The last lines are perhaps the most interesting: "change comes to Washington and not from Washington", it is the people that Obama argues need to push for change. What this seems to aim to achieve is the firmly align the people with Obama against the system and vested interests. He remains in the strategic position of being the people's president acting on their behalf but fighting against a Congress and House of Representatives which contain those who represent corporations, themselves possibly but are against Obama led revolution - that is the implicit meaning of his campaign.

He presents his plan and asks his supporters, those who have shared their email with his campaign, to do all the same activities he asked of them to get him into the White House: campaigning among their neighbours, making phone calls and mobilising support behind the President. It could well be a powerful force to bring to bear against elected representatives if it works. I guess the question is will it, and can this be sustained?

And its about style

Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show does an amusing critique of Obama's persona during press conferences compared to those of his soon to be predecessor.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

President Goofus and President Gallant - Peer Pressers

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

What is remarkable is the difference, the respect paid to journalists, the honesty and transparent style - in particular saying it would be disingenuous to suggest there would be no political appointments to ambassadorships. It suggests a different style of presidency consistent with his change and man of the people brand. It also suggests a more controlled and measured President. Bush appears to spend a significant amount of time thinking on his feet and getting it wrong. Obama also shows he is thinking on his feet, he may face criticism for appearing to pause and think, but this may also show he is considering not just what the answer is but how to phrase it. It is a style which will be important, he will face the media a lot and the way he faces the tough questions will be increasingly important. As Stewart says there are some areas where he needs to up his game but he also needs to keep that humility.

Its the look

If you are President, you must look like a President, and have a beast of a car worthy of office. No environmentally friendly car for the leader of the US, but a top of the range and special 'Beast' of a Cadillac build to special personal specifications. It exudes wealth and power, but is this consistent with a man of the people?

Do endorsements from rappers matter?

And it is just a question! Perhaps one of the really novel events within the US presidential election contest was the creation of supportive videos and music independently of the campaign. Not just the rather naff Obama Girl, though that got a lot of coverage for him and for Obama Girl herself, but Will-i-am's Yes We Can. The novelty was that Obama's words had been inserted into the song making him appear as more than simply a politician on the victory trail but also a performer in his own right. A new song has appeared, My Flag which can be downloaded free here and is being promoted online. It does not yet have a Youtube video but it is interesting that there remains an impetus and enthusiasm to promote Obama in ways we would not normally consider as fitting with electioneering and campaigning. While much rests on his ability to deliver, if this continues it could be a highly significant arm of his permanent campaign: one he can do nothing about but is supportive of him as President. Does it matter, I think so, the fact that a DJ singer and rap artist is prepared to not just sample Obama but to build a song around his support and love for the President elect is a message to others like Jay and to wider society.

Professional and appropriate or subliminal and unethical?

There is an interesting discussion on this here

Market oriented volunteer-ism

Where next is the big question that surrounds Barack Obama. Not the obvious, the White House, but how does he convert his inclusive style of campaigning into a style of governance and how will he retain his movement of supporters and volunteers are interesting questions. There are some indications. A survey has been sent out to all subscribers. It firstly asks the basic data and points of identification; in particular which social groups volunteers belong to (this includes racial groups but also political issues and causes [environmentalists], students and seniors and Labor). Secondly it focuses on desires to continue to volunteer and what sort of issues (right) his supporters would be "interested in volunteering or organizing around". The point here may be two-fold; one you want people to campaign on issues they have an interest in and passion for: they will campaign harder. But also it may be a way of gauging what issues are most important to his keenest supporters so maintaining their support and interest by the setting of priorities for his government.

The rest of the survey asks about experiences of volunteering, the stories and achievements of those who have participated in his campaigns. This is more than likely to be used as part of a narrative of his campaign. The stories of the grassroots supporters is a story of the campaign, how he and his volunteer network mobilised people and their emotional attachment to the campaign and its success. This could remain symbolic as he can use the narrative to show how he was swept to power on the back of public euphoria for him as president as opposed to him being the least worst candidate; something that is quite distinct in modern politics.

The challenge for Obama is keeping the movement with him. Of course the mob-euphoria of election day will subside but if he can retain a volunteer network that will campaign for him and promote policies, lobby senators to support Obama, elect Obama-ites across the Houses of US government and of course mobilise other people it will give him immense power as a President: a very public mandate. This is fine at present, but the question will be to what extent he can hold that cohesion when faced with the real politik that is the job of President. The survey in itself also demonstrates a desire to continue including those who helped get him elected, he demonstrates adherence to the rules of relationship marketing: it is long term and not a one night stand with a single goal in mind. But it may just also be about reassurance. As he meets a range of former opponents and brings them into his team some may wonder if Obama will really offer the change they wanted; after he told the voters that both Hillary Clinton and John McCain (both of whom may end up with key positions) were part of the old system he wanted to change. Yes it suits his new politics of inclusion and co-operation but not the rhetoric of sweeping away the problems of the system that he suggested were linked to his opponents. Again the effects will only become apparent when President-elect becomes President and his honeymoon period is over; it is then that he will discover if he can maintain his movement.