Clinton, Obama and Social Media: What We Can Learn
Considering how the media have lavished attention on the 2008 Presidential race, it's surprising that it does not show up more on this blog. For me, the reason for not writing on the topic is my personal interest in the race; I have made an effort *not* to write about the campaign here since I am so interested in the contest outside of the office.
But Fast Company, a publication I respect and read to provide guidance to my growing clients, crossed the chasm between tech and politics in this month's issue, and it has pushed me to write about the connection now. Fast Company is not the first to discover how tech can help politics. Many other blogs report on this topic regularly, including how political social media campaigns are eliminating the need for the politicos to advertise online.
A reporter and friend of mine at the Denver Post, Kimberly Johnson, wrote about Facebook and campaign fundraising last month. Interestingly enough, Kim called me and asked for my insight on the topic after notcing a Facebook post I made referencing a previous entry on this blog (a mini-example of the power of Facebook marketing).
A quick summary of my thoughts on the topic: Both Democratic Presidential rivals are using new media to reach important demographics; as it turns out, the audience influeced by social media is a more likely Obama voter, and for that reason, Obama's online efforts have been more extensive. In each case, proper use of social media tactics depends on the strategic target for the overall campaign brand.
The article in the April 2008 Fast Company discussed the Obama brand. I had not heard that the whiz behind Obama's online efforts was none other than Facebook founder Chris Hughes. What he has done to define and extend the Obama brand is a lesson to any company:
-- Giving the power to the supporters. Through a portion of the Obama campaign website, supporters can launch their own Obama blogs. They can also use their Obama websites to organize fundraisers. The key here is the Obama site powers the transactions, and automates receiving necessary contribution information to comply with federal laws. A supporter could set up a mini site and run a fundraiser with zero involvement from the campaign staff.
-- Bringing information directly to other online communities. The article talks about how a post on a Community Connect niche demographic website drove a lot of traffic to the Obama web presence. The Obama team noticed this and responding by reaching out to Communicy Connect and ultimately setting up a presence through the Community Connect online community.
-- Understanding that social marketing is about giving up some control. A lesson to all marketers: The days of having 100-percent control over your message are long gone. While this reality is not new, Obama is the first candidate to embrace this. His team understands that bringing constituents into the process is part of Obama's brand itself---that he is about letting people invest in the campaign in any way they can. Social media is a great platform to let voters exercise this, and at the same time accentuate the campaign's brand and image.
The now-infamous "Yes We Can" video, starring a singer from the Black Eyed Peas and several of his friends, is a perfect example noted in the Fast Company article. The video is extemporaneous and viral, and some have called it the best marketing vehicle for Obama to date, which is ironic given it was made free from Obama campaign involvement or investment.
An online video created by Clinton's campaign is in many ways the exact opposite. "Hillary's Leaving the Band" is a scripted story with hired actors and is described in Fast Company as being too slick to be accepted by the online demographic.
Obama's use of social media reflects his need to connect to one of his crucial demographics-- young and tech savvy voters-- so called "millennials" who want content brought to them in a method of their choosing. One cannot fault Hillary for not catering to this demographic. It's not really her target. For her voters, the scripted, slick actors work just fine.
While Obama is more flashy, new and connected, in reality his brand is just catering to the voters he must influence, while Hillary's brand is far different. In either case, the teams behind the brands are using social media wisely. How the overall brands will impact voters is a separate discussion.
Posted by Ross Levanto on April 1, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
