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.

No Surprises there then

It seems that the latest bout in the fight between Derek Draper and Paul Staines is not just a spat about whether sites were or were not offline but is a little deeper. Surprise, surprise Labour are doing badly in the polls so their tactic is to smear the opposition. This is always done, The Conservative Demon Eyes Poster, Michael Howard as Fagin, the Obama bin Laden stuff. But it has been turned into a big story on the BBC, today's Telegraph, various blogs with various comments about desperation, being appalled, it being ludicrous the shock and amazement goes on. The problem is though there is no surprises here. It would be obvious it was happening, it is a pretty obvious tactic and consistent with the tone of Labour's campaigns recently. It is also consistent with a rather ham-fisted attempt to create a Labour supporting journalistic blog in the same vein as Iain Dale's Diary and Order Order, mistakenly they think that they can use this not just to spread the Labour message but also scurrilous gossip about opponents. The bit that is surprising is that once again Labour got caught in this way and made to appear so underhand and devious to the man in the street, and this can only be due to the lack of an effective or stable communications team. Brown hailed himself as the non-spun PM after Blair stepped down, this is of course rubbish but, as this great piece by Fraser Nelson suggests, what he has is a largely reactive communications operation which has little long term strategy and (it seems) little job satisfaction or loyalty. While the next election will not be won by communication strategy alone, as the polls wax and wane you can't help wondering if Brown had a more efficient team and strategy would he be losing out as badly in the court of public opinion?

Does repeat-remind get boring?

I always wonder about this, I remember one candidate for election in 2001 saying that Labour had a repeat-remind mantra that stated when you were sick of saying something the majority of your audience may only just be starting to retain the message, I was not convinced. I am equally unconvinced about the effectiveness of Obama's continuing strategy. From the start he has avoided out and out negativity but compared himself to other candidates as the outsider versus the insiders. His outsider status is founded on his public (mass movement) funding. With McCain this attack is clearly valid, however since signing up to his emails that is the only message I get. Maybe I am in the wrong demographic to get other messages but it seems to be the same message over again: "John McCain [is] trying to convince you that you've been swept up and tricked into wanting change... To sell this ridiculous idea, McCain and the RNC are using huge checks from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to run negative ads attacking Barack Obama and the millions of volunteers and donors who have joined this campaign for change". I can see the aim, to solidify the movement he has created online and on the streets against McCain, but I suspect this is something they are anyway. But I do wonder if the US voter is getting a little bored with this, it is a message I have seen replicated on websites, campaign ads etc etc, is this the real cause of Obama fatigue, not just his omnipresence i nthe media but because when he appears he says the same thing too often? More generally, when does this lose its resonance and become as boring as certain car insurance ads that we barely notice anymore?

A powerful message?

If you want people to accept you message it is important to push against an open door. It appears that Brown's image has been tarnished by the perceived volte face over holding an autumn election. The Conservatives are wise to press home this advantage. This communication begins with a premise many receivers may well agree with, that Brown should have called an election, then takes the reader on a journey arguing that a change is needed to reform a number of policies 'taxing pollution, not families' for example. The strapline that 'services are delayed until the election of a Conservative government is a clever one.

The question is whether readers will accept the final conclusion as readily as they will the opening premise. There may well be a point of exit for many readers who are yet to be convinced that the Conservatives are a viable alternative government, the fact that debate centred on Brown gaining his own mandate may suggest that Brown was not expected to lose and may not have done so despite the 'tax reform bounce' the Conservatives gained. This may be a short lived advantage, furthermore if this becomes a core message that is repeated too much then it may be rejected as no longer relevant.