Have a very Partisan Xmas

The Conservative and Labour Party are giving us a treat for Xmas, both a little bit of fun but conveying a strong party message. For a whole £5 you can buy the Conservative supporter in your life Ed Miliband's Policies for Britain, a 204 page notepad. Yes folks its blank, but its a fun notepad.

Less costly, but allowing fun everyday between Dec 1st and Xmas is the Coalition Advent Calender, behind each is a broken promise to remind you why Labour argue you should not trust the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats.

All good clean fun, and all very festive, but as both can be shared an opportunity to get a message relayed across social networking sites.

Vodaphone's failed viral campaign #mademesmile

Its a great idea, you want to get a bit of positive word of mouth. You start an online campaign and so do a bit of crowdsourcing. You find an appropriate hashtag (the symbol which placed before a term allows searching and grouping of tweets) and invite Twitter users to say what 'makes them smile'. In theory it creates a buzz about the brand and gets coverage online and offline. More importantly, in theory, it associates the brand with the making people smile. Well this was what could have happened for Vodaphone in a parallel universe when they offered free phones to those who told the world what made them smile.

The major mistake was to not take into account the environment for the brand. If you are a brand ticking along just searching for a bit of positive coverage it can work fine. Tetley, the tea company, invite users to send in pictures of their mugs to 'The Gaffer' at @tetley_teafolk; it seems to be going ok but Tetley don't have enemies. Vodaphone face significant criticism for not paying taxes in the UK. UK Uncut, campaigning against cuts and tax dodging, invited their followers to hijack #makemesmile. Very soon it became a trending topic, the content said it all. See this article for examples.

Just like Labour's #changewesee, Vodaphone managed to attract opponents which shaped the messages at key times. Conservative/LibDem supporters placed a lot of observations of negative changes they saw on Labour's site. The lesson is that letting the online crowd have control over your message is a dangerous one, but the outcomes can be predictable. Basically if your brand is in trouble, possibly avoid giving your critics a space on your own website to say what they think. It can end up with your opponents getting the positive coverage and not you!

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.

Its all about having a digital footprint

As part of the CENMEP project I have been reviewing how UK political parties used the Internet at the 2009 European parliamentary election. Looking back at Wainer Lusoli's work from 2004 it is hard to see any significant differences in strategy. Websites are now better constructed using the most up to date technologies, but only if you have the resources. In the case of the the majority of the 25 parties standing it was an online brochure offering little that was engaging when compared to the norms of Internet use across the corporate and not-for-profit sector. The big difference is the migration into social networking sites. Most parties now feature on Facebook, many use Twitter, YouTube is an easy way to promote videos be they sophisticated or home made, Flickr hosts photos of the leader or perhaps candidates. These do offer a new level of engagement, as on the whole you can comment on many of the material posted but I wonder if that is really the intention. Few parties seem to do much that encourages interaction. It seems to be, as the post title suggests, a way of extending the party's digital footprint; being found easily and so getting the message out as opposed to communicating with potential voters. So is the use of social networking little more than a way of advertising for free for political organisations? Beyond a small minority that seems to be the case. But the question is can we expect more, can the interactive features of SNS be adapted for political purposes within the context of a persuasive campaign? The suggestion is that we will see more of this at the UK 2010 election but whether there will be a substance to this online migration is a big question - all thoughts and predictions welcome.

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.

Jo Swinson experiences the dangers of SNS

Social networking is becoming a part of the political communication process for many MPs, and linking up Twitter and Facebook is a way of getting messages out to a range of audiences. A couple of studies undertaken by myself and Nigel Jackson have shown party politics to be the least popular usage of such sites and perhaps this is one bit of clear evidence why not.

Liberal Democrats have the greatest number of MPs using social networking, and there is a logic for them to do things like this by Jo Swinson: advertise what party leader Nick Clegg contributed to PMQs. The mainstream media focus on the battle between prime minister and prime minister in waiting, not the actions of the minor parties to the same extent. So they try to alter this imbalance. However, once they are party political, and if they amass an array of friends or followers from outside of the party circle, they can gain comments such as this. If removed it suggests censorship, if not they have a highly negative, and yes pretty crude, comment about the current party leader on their profile. This can be embarrassing either way. Therefore, there are dangers with using SNS to promote the party in this way as such comments can also be mediated by other members of these communities and the result can be the antithesis of what was intended.

The social media battle

Something that McCain has been slow to engage in and hence he is the loser. Jeremiah Owyang has completed an analysis of the results of the social media campaign by both the major candidates and the following headlines emerge:

Facebook

Obama: 2,379,102 supporters

McCain: 620,359 supporters
Obama has 380% more supporters than McCain
MySpace

Obama: Friends: 833,161

McCain: Friends: 217,811
Obama has 380% more supporters than McCain
YouTube

Obama: 1792 videos uploaded since Nov 2006, Subscribers: 114,559 (uploads about 4 a day), Channel Views: 18,413,110

McCain: 329 videos uploaded since Feb 2007 (uploads about 2 a day), Subscribers: 28,419, Channel Views: 2,032,993
Obama has 403% more subscribers than McCain

Obama has 905% more viewers than McCain
Twitter

Obama: @barackobama has 112,474 followers

McCain: @JohnMcCain (is it real?) 4,603 followers
Obama has 240 times more followers in Twitter than McCain

The key question is will this matter at all. There is no geographic boundary on social media engagement so these online supporters may not even be in the US never mind the all important swing states and bellweather states. But is he does win then it may well be the case that social media may have be seen as a significant and central tool for future campaigns.

Branding and Educating

This is a wonderful example of branding which, rather than bracketing off history, is selective in presenting the Conservative leaders: "For more than two hundred years... succeeded by being on the side of progressive change". Some of the 'achievements' of recent leaders seem a little desperate, and there are some great selections and omissions that are clear to anyone with a sense of history; saying that though it is easy to remember why, for example, Eden is remembered as a bad prime minister but not what he did get right. It has been posted to their Bebo and YouTube pages, and possibly more widely. A way of educating about the brand via social networks.

E-democracy?

Steve Schifferes writes on the BBC News website that the Internet has been pivotal for the Obama campaign. His case is that Obama capitalised on the fact that "The internet favours the outsider", his early use at the outset of his campaign allowed him to exploit the potential of "ability to quickly mobilise supporters and money online". Obama basically hit the ground running, Clinton was far slower in developing an effective Internet campaign. But it is not just about awareness and donations: "His use of social networking sites has helped Mr Obama to mobilise young people, a group which has traditionally been uninterested in politics". But a key point that Schifferes identifies is not about Obama's strategy. He claims that "Mr Obama's decision to run was influenced by the fact that a page created on MySpace by supporters not connected to any official campaign quickly signed up 160,000 supporters". In other words Obama became the figurehead of a campaign to change the traditional politics before he officially threw his hat into the ring and, following that, the independently developed Youtube videos such as 'Obama Girl' and 'Yes we can' by Will-I-am, were key to demonstrating the level of support he enjoyed beyond the usual candidate produced endorsements.

The point here is, whether anyone thinks Obama would make a good President or not, that he not only developed a grassroots campaign online but joined and existing campaign. So it is not just a case of strategy, there is a degree of synergy between his style of campaign and the communication and media tool use of those who support him. Perhaps this is the e-democracy some have spoken of for years, political choices being expressed online and building a momentum that could have a direct effect on the governing of a nation.

Testing the water

After the debacle of those Labour advertisements that were widely criticised for being anti-Semitic - a wonderful way of stealing their thunder in my view - anyone thinking that publishing online an ad you may feel to be controversial is a strategy to be considered with care. Brian Paddick allows visitors to his site, and invites his Facebook fans, to vote on whether he should focus his negative online advertising on criticising Labour and the failure to make Crossrail work successfully, or alternatively highlighting the number of times Boris Johnson has been sacked for lying across his career as a journalist and Shadow Minister. Actually visitors are then asked to donate to pay for the advertisements to be placed so it is voting with the wallet, an interesting idea though. You can, as a candidate, assess which advertisement is most relevant to supporters, has most resonance, and get them to pay for placing it. If you see a lot of either of these it could just be the result of his supporters wanting you to see it; if you see neither then perhaps it could be read as an indication that negativity isn't the best strategy.

The turnout challenge

I will be interested to find out if turnout for the London Mayoral Election is higher than expected this year, and in particular if it is higher among the 18-25s. The reason for the latter is that a Facebook group has been created by London Elects, presumably, the body overseeing the running of the contest. It is very simple, it has a logo that reminds about the date, offers links on how to register and who the candidates are and has created an event which all members of the London network are invited to join: once joined they can be contacted about the event by London Elects and reminded the day before and on 1st May. The attempt is clearly designed to reach out to a voter group that have lesser likelihood of participating via a media they are expected to use and interact with; hits all the buttons but will it work? Will it be just the over 30s Facebook users and political anoraks (yes, that is me I refer to) that sign up and vote or will a few 18 yr old new voters be drawn out by this experiment?

London Elects is not alone in getting a seat on the Facebook bandwagon. The Power of Information Taskforce has been created, under the leadership of Tom Watson MP (right), which aims at helping government departments make better use of the Internet. Just focusing on one site Netmums a "unique local network for Mums (or Dads), offering a wealth of information on both a national and local level", Watson argues "Having 100,000 mums on a social network like NetMums sharing ideas about how you bring up kids or what it's like to give birth can be useful to government because they can talk about the services that they provide. Government can be useful to them to give them advice on what's good and what isn't good". So perhaps the notion of political marketing will incorporate data collection on the issues of concern via monitoring social networks which will then be reiterated back to the public via manifestos.

But Watson sees a far more benign purpose and one that mirrors the growing trend for politician's use of ICT, he argues: "We have got to go where our citizens are congregating". Therefore he is selling the idea of going online, reaching out to voters/citizens and I guess getting them to then visit bespoke government and party sites, ergo: "it is genuinely so easy to set up a Wiki or a chat room and that it's useful to help people do their job and share ideas". True but for what purpose and with what effect? Engagement is the bottom line it seems but, as with the bid to get more voters turning out on May 1st, will it work?

Getting young people engaged

Here is Liberal Democrat Steve Webb's take on why politicians should use social media. It epitomises the LibDem philosophy of going out to where the people are (pavement or social media) and engaging them on their terms about their issues.

Is he correct?

Is this Inconsistent?

David Cameron, rightly I think, argued in a Guardian article on Monday that "The old answers - where politicians talked and people listened - will not work in a new age", suggesting that the Internet, globalisation of politics and political activism and social networking has revolutionised social interaction and that the Conservatives have adapted to this revolution. One bit of this adaptation is: "we launched our new ad campaign on Facebook. We also introduced a new "friends" programme, giving people the opportunity to support us with however small a donation they like. We understand that for many, the idea of signing up to a party as a full "member" doesn't fit with what they want", so adaptation is really asking for money via Facebook. This is not what Facebook is all about, supporting causes to some extent yes, but for an organisation to say 'be my friend, show me support and give me money' is not.

The second 'adaptation' is "answering your questions live on the Guardian website". This consisted of no more than 30 minutes, and is of dubious quality. We do not learn a lot ands he also wriggles out of tough questions referring, too often in my opinion, questioners to the Conservative website. The classic, tough question comes from 'Whyayeman' who talks of Cameron's speech on penal reform and asks "Were you aware of these inaccuracies? If not why not? If you knew the truth, then why did you lie"; this gets a short answer that argues that half the points Cameron made were accurate, ignores the other half and attacks the Labour government: "Labour failed to invest in the necessary prison capacity. But the real point about our policy document launched yesterday - see www.conservatives.com for details"

The challenge posed by new technology is how to interact with an increasingly online society. If you choose an interactive strategy then you must be wholehearted in your interaction. This seems to be more of a case of appearing interactive, accessible and down-to-earth (looking at some of the style of answering), but there is no conversation here or on Facebook; is this really adapting or wanting to be perceived to be adapting?

A new type of campaign

David Cameron has launched a new recruitment campaign, mainly using the online tools of Youtube and a Conservatives.tv video exclusely on Facebook. The campaign is about people getting involved in the Conservative party to ensure there is a change in politics: hence the title 'You can get it if your really want' which has a soundtrack of course provided by the late Jimmy Cliff.

The use of social media is an interesting one, Facebook seems to be the fashionable network at the moment, it was even mentioned in Gordon Brown's speech to Labour's Spring Conference. But it may also tie in with Cameron's ongoing theme of 'power to the people' that have seen Stand Up Speak Out have success. But there is a danger, could this offer very hihg expectations of the Conservatives offering a responsive, voter-led, style of government? Why is this dangerous, the question is whether it is possible? As with Blair in 1994-7 the language was about listening and being in-touch, but the pressures of office soon hindered that being put into practice (if there was ever a commitment to this) and so public disappointment; is Cameron following the same path?

Co-production: the positives and negatives!

Social networking sites such as Facebook are not promotional tools, attempts to use social networking to promote products, brands or individuals that can use other media and are not part of the community can mean network users can reject them. Brands advertise via social media but seldom intrude using profiles etc; politicians are different, as individuals they can be members of a community but must also follow the communities rules and allow co-production of site or profile content. Friends can post words, pictures etc on each other's wall, interact with one another and maintain relationships via the site.

Politicians like to use the Internet as a promotional tool, and particularly at the party level want to communicate to voters but are worried of the consequences of allowing the ordinary people (which also includes opponents) to contribute whatever whenever they like. David Cameron seems to be willing to take that risk. The Webcameron YouTube page allows comments, unlike Labour, and his Facebook profile is asking supporters to upload pictures of them meeting him. The former gives the appearance of being open, the latter builds on this by providing the impression of accessibility.

But is this going to pay dividends or be a highly risky enterprise. At worst it could allow opponents to say what they like and give negative images and opinions wider circulation. But this may not be the problem it would seem. If Cameron and his communications team engage with critics it can diffuse the situation and provided images that could be damaging are greeted with humour rather than fear and censure, it could enhance the Cameron brand, it cannot replace substance but it may build positive perceptions and impressions.

The Media Mix Remains Key: but we may be on the cusp of the digital era

Some very interesting findings have emerged from a survey conducted by SS&K and Advertising Age of 1,997 New Hampshire voters reveals firstly that no media is dominant for voters seeking information on which to base their choice. 56% saw TV ads from the candidates, 51% watched TV debates and/or news analysis of the debates, 40% saw the candidates on talk shows or other TV appearances and 47% said they read articles or newspapers featuring a candidate. The researchers note that New Hampshire has the most involved voters who take the primaries seriously, but that there are indications that online communication is reaching a significant level of voters.

While most prominent among under 30s voters, 40% of adults visited a candidate's home page on the web (52% of under 30s), 26% of all respondents regardless of age visited a candidate's profile on a social-networking site (36% of those under 30 and 15% of those over 30), but interestingly out of those who visited a candidate's Facebook or MySpace profile significant numbers befriended them or became supporters. Obama gained 38%, Clinton 28%, McCain 41% and Romney 33%; so between 500 and 730 of those polled. If representative of the broader electorate this could explain the numbers of social network supporters. Similarly there seems to be a lot of traffic visiting the range of online presences candidates now offer (see table below).

The full details and commentary is available from Adage.com, but whatever happens it suggests that candidates and parties are increasingly likely to include social networking as much as websites and emails. While it will be as hard, if not harder, to prove any effect of social networking for a political campaign; no candidate will dare ignore it anymore than traditional media and due to it being free may well see it as a good way of focusing on the floating voter, possibly with lower interest in politics, but whose support could be crucial if mobilised.

The Myspace Constituency

I am currently reviewing the use of social networks by political parties and their leaders, on the whole it is nothing more than cyber squatting only by the party themselves as opposed to opponents or satirists. However there are signs that some MPs at least are choosing one network and using it as a communication tool with their constituents as well as others. One such is Adrian Sanders LibDem MP for .

On one of his many blog posts on his Myspace profile page he comments that one constituent only contacted her MP due to him being on Myspace and I guess actively using his site; so it is a way of being accessible. Another comment is congratulating Sanders on his responsiveness and exceeding one constituents' expectations; so it helps his representativeness and constituency service.

To many Myspace and other social networking sites seem to be a gimmick, to be on but not to really engage iwth the community. Hence they have few friends and their profile is less interesting than the first websites that appeared around ten years ago. Adrian Sanders has 1313 friends, blogs regularly and responds to both public and private messages. Perhaps this is a model of communication others could learn from.

A network of your own?

The BBC announce today that singer Kylie Minogue has launched her own social networking website for her fans to communicate with each other. The KylieKonnect website enables fans to create personal profiles and upload images, as well as "keep up to date with all the very latest on Kylie".

My friend and colleague Nigel Jackson wonders if this is a model that political parties should pursue? Firstly they have ownership of the network, so can set their own parameters for behaviour. Secondly they are able to build up an interest group that can discuss issues and interact with party members, leaders and each other. Thirdly they have a database of supporters or interested parties that can, maybe, be drawn towards other forms of activism. In theory it could have potential as an idea.

As Nigel points out the problem is that it would probably end up deliberately consisting of a lot of top down communication, rather than the horizontal communication that social networking and Web 2.0 offers due to politicians wanting to retain control over postings. However the Stand Up Speak Out model offers some glimpses into a less vertical and more horizontal model of interaction. Would anyone dare offer this? Would anyone visit? Would it be better than random appearances on MySpace or Facebook?