Like a blind man with a selective magnifying glass, the internet amplifies whatever we happen to upload, leading to things like the MySpace-driven suicide of Megan Meier or the long-term haunting of those college days. But when it’s your job to have the largest presence possible, where do you start?
Barack Obama, famously, began as a community organizer in Chicago, rallying people towards a common cause people s background as a community organizer seems to spill over into his increased reliance on social media. He created myBarackObama, his own social networking site; used techniques to excite people about little tasks like ‘enlist 5 friends!’; he used the hell out of YouTube. It’s an example of how the Long Tail, personified, can lead to a grassroots supported campaign raking in millions of dollars. By engaging his supporters in social media, they’re more likely to pass along the info, giving him free advertising each time the meme is repeated within someone’s social circle. He also used technology to microtarget and look at the best ways to connect with people: voters in Maryland got text messages to remind them to vote after his team concluded that that’s what would reach them. Chris Hughes, Obama’s online technology coordinator, is one of Facebook’s co-founders.
By contrast, Clinton’s website looks more like a news site with a little area for buying t-shirts. Many voters were confused when, during her Town Hall meeting, their online questions seemed to disappear into the ether. Though it was supposed to have created a feeling of transparency, it ran like any other Town Hall meeting with the opportunity to email questions.
People want transparency. Usually, being tech savvy doesn’t made a big dent in the voting booth. In fact, for a few presidential cycles, the candidate who created the most online buzz didn’t win the primary: McCain in 2000, Dean in 2004; even Ron Paul’s candidacy was short-lived despite a strong online presence. The difference during this election seems to be the critical mass: using this technology is no longer a niche phenomenon; instead of just middle schoolers, mothers are some of the fastest adopters of SNS, text messages, and mobile games.
So how exactly does technology influence voter behavior? Voter motivation is nearly impossible to quantify, we already have scads of evidence from communication and psychology about reinforcement and social circles. Because of the seemingly limitless amount of info that 20-somethings or people with desk jobs are exposed to, it’s impossible to tune the election out, especially when it’s being reinforced by friends tens of times a day. Having the meme repeated daily by your network—instead of a top-down advertisement—is much stronger advertising. The only one that really works today.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Nice piece. I’m from England and stumbled across this by accident. I would say your media has the biggest part to play. Check out Google Trends and ask it to track the candidates. There are still 4 well maybe not by tomorrow! Just put in there names seperated by comma’s, select US, searches in the last year and let it crunch it out. It will show you internet searches related to media coverage. They match exactly. Whoever gets coverage generates interest. All except Ron Paul who generates his own but that’s another story and the chart speaks for itself what happened there. Another factor is who has the talismanic words? Watch a lot of you tube and when people are asked or are stating their opinion on why to vote for their candidate they speak the unspoken and repeat the mantra. For Obama they say “black” and “change”(healthcare). For Clinton they say “woman” and “healthcare”. When asked specifics a blank look is drawn. It seems even the candidates don’t care for specifics. So to get elected, say things the lobbyists who own your media like, in turn they will repeat your slogan and the people will repeat it to their family and friends. Of course it shouldn’t be that simple. Your election is however stranger than fiction!