Can Social Media Combat Political Apathy and Win Elections?

I could have easily chosen an organisation to profile this week, paired it with a fancy ad, listed some impressive sales figures and typed it up in no time at all. But I've chosen to go down a slightly different route and examine how social media is changing the way political parties and politicians engage with members of the community. This comes down to more than sales and more than profit. It is of importance to everyone, not just a select few.  With political apathy a hot topic both in Australia and internationally, there has never been a greater need for engagement, resonance and promotion. And therein lies the role of social media.

Whilst many people wouldn't feel comfortable airing their political views at a dinner party, web-based forums and pages present an entirely different context for discussion, one in which almost complete anonymity allows users to express their true opinions. NSW ALP secretary Sam Dastyari claims: 

Political parties in Australia are effectively organised around this notion of meetings.  But that's not really a model of engagement for the 21st century.  It's actually a whole generation of ideas that you don't want to miss out on. Getting people involved in politics in the 21st century may not necessarily mean formal party membership in the mode that we view party membership.

 He raises some good points, but there are also points of contention. What is social media, if not a series of mini-meetings between respondents? Besides the setting, what exactly changes? Surely it won't be too long before political parties in Australia start measuring engagement by their followers or how many conversations they're generating, rather than the outdated and archaic 'political party membership.' I don't know any of my friends that are members of a political party, nor do they wish to be. But I know many that follow a party or politician on Twitter, or read their blogs and discuss them in online forums. Does that suggest apathy? I'll let you be the judge.

Looking at it from an international context, the 2008 US election was the first to occur in the social media age, and many attributed Obama's win to his ability to engage and garner support through social media. 

The video below, whilst a bit dry, offers a fantastic insight into the Obama team's approach - the fact that they saw social media as a critical component of their campaign, not an afterthought, is something which I personally took out as a key point of difference, especially at that point in time when social media strategies hadn't developed to the level they're at today. 

In November 2008, Obama had approximately 2.5 million Facebook likes, 115,000 Twitter followers and 50,000,000 YouTube views. At the time, these figures were considered huge. As a comparison, John McCain had around 600,000 Facebook likes. 

Fast forward to the present day: Obama has approximately 27,880,000 Facebook likes, 18,754,000 Twitter followers and 215,050,000 YouTube views. Does this massive growth say more about Obama's popularity or social media's popularity? Why has one social media platform spiked in popularity more so than others?

Firstly, I think it says a lot about the phenomenal growth of Twitter as a means of conversation and engagement. I'd also argue that in 2008, YouTube was probably the most established of the three platforms, yet it still had some way to go. I think ultimately this proves the reach and effectiveness of social media, and it has changed future political campaigns forever, especially when it comes to engaging with the 'apathetic' youths of today. But I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Does present-day politics engage  you? What could political figures and parties be doing, especially digitally, to improve their brand and resonance amongst members of the community?

The Social Media Olympics - A gold medal performance? (2/2)

I'm currently in a post-Olympics lull and I've taken to filling my late night TV schedule with American talk show hosts - an odd and discerning habit. For those short few weeks, the Olympics managed to capture our attention whilst our hands captured whatever technological device was within reach. My last post was negatively skewed but an important angle to show I felt, and for the next few paragraphs I hope to present the other side to the social media story.

This mashable.com infographic beautifully represents the impact the Games had worldwide. There's a load of statistics to chew through but I personally found the following facts most interesting:

• The most talked about athletes were (in order): Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps and Tom Daley.
• The most mentioned sports were those that aren't archetypal Olympic sports - soccer and basketball.
• McDonalds had more than 3 times as many mentions as its nearest brand competitor - Coca Cola.

From these stats its clear that the athletes and brands that cut through were those that possessed star power or at least a point of difference. Bolt is the fastest man in the world, Phelps the greatest Olympian ever and Tom Daley is the national pin-up boy, as well as being a bronze medallist and someone who publicly outed a Twitter bully.

Sponsorship money is the main way to refinance the costs of staging an Olympics. Unlike many other sporting events around the world, the Olympics feature a 'clean venue' policy, which means as a viewer you'll see no advertising on any stadiums - so you're free to focus on the sport. Or at least that's the theory. As such, Olympic sponsors drive much of their value through online methods and this is where McDonalds has prospered. 

They latch on to popular events and teams, e.g. USA Basketball, and link that with a competition in their stores. They capitalise on public goodwill and Olympic spirit in order to drive Maccas-themed conversation and sales. Clever.

But moving away from the corporate side of things, the real joy is found in capturing athlete's emotions, both before and after events. Bolt - half man, half brand, dominated the social media landscape and epitomised its value to global viewers and followers. Up to the minute information, exclusive opinions and photos, it was what we all wanted in athlete engagement - convenient, authentic and unfiltered. Just as he leads the way on the track, he leads off it, and for a man that generates the vast majority of his revenue from endorsements, this is absolutely crucial. 

So, what are your thoughts? Were you as captivated by the Games just as I was? Did you find it easier and more appealing to follow because of the growth of social media savvy athletes and brands? I'd be interested to know your thoughts!

The Social Media Olympics - A gold medal performance? (1/2)

Being an avid sports fan, the Olympics always manage to capture my attention, but the huge growth in social media platforms has ensured accessing information, video, results and scores is now easier and more convenient than ever before. From a viewer's perspective, the two go hand in hand. I can sit down and watch my favourite event whilst simultaneously engaging and communicating with people all over the world. Yet from an athlete's perspective, the focus on them has never been greater, and whilst that's fantastic if they win a gold medal, it means the ramifications of an erroneous tweet have also never been greater.

Already, two athletes have been sent home from the Games after making disparaging and racist remarks on Twitter. It seems to me that the IOC is treading a fine line, aiming to both encourage Twitter and promote the Games whilst also ensuring it remains scandal free. Is that even possible? IOC spokesperson Mark Adams gave a glimpse as to what the IOC's opinion was:

"To be frank, it would be a little bit [pointless] if we said, 'No, these aren't the social media games,'" He acknowledged. "Because everyone has decided they are, anyway."

 So, he's effectively established the IOC is lacking control in this area, which isn't a surprise. The power of social media, as I eluded to in my previous post, is its lack of formal hierarchy. It is driven by the people, for the people, and the IOC in the coming weeks will probably find itself powerless to stop it again.

If an idiot wants to maliciously target British diver Tom Daley over Twitter, they can, just as they could to his face. Unless the IOC bans Twitter altogether, they have as much chance of stopping it on the streets as they do on the web. It's a sad state of affairs, but we have to start separating the method from the man. And so does the IOC.

This brings me to the issue of sponsorship and marketing - another area of the Olympics the IOC is desperately trying to restrain from 21st century realities. Under Rule 40 of the Olympic charter, athletes can't associate themselves with organisations who aren't official sponsors of the London Games. Our own Libby Trickett has been one of the first to breach the rule, with a relatively harmless re-tweet. You have to ask yourself: is the IOC's hard line stance on an issue such as this really in their best interests? It offsides athletes and reinforces its stereotype of an archaic institution clinging to outdated rules in the face of considerable social and technological change. It's also amusing that Trickett's "promotion" of small Australian company Inner Nutrition demanded action yet Usain Bolt's tweet (see below) did not, despite the fact it featured a picture of Coca-Cola's main rival, Gatorade. Is this preferential treating? In my opinion, the system is an outdated calamity and helping to pit athletes against the IOC on the path to commercial and marketing warfare. Hopefully the situation can be rectified without further embarrassment to athletes and companies alike.

Stay tuned for Part 2 coming shortly and in the meantime join in the discussion with me by commenting below.

Is social media society's great leveller?

A key feature of my first class in eMarketing was that it helped to fill in a sizable hole that represented my understanding of the technological world and how it came to be. For example, the world wide web (www) was created by Tim Berners-Lee, a man later knighted for inventing a system which could “organise, link and browse net pages.”

The concept of the web centres on linkages and interconnectedness, in a similar vein to that of social media. It’s reinvented the way we communicate, not just with each other but with whole organisations and even products. Old Spice’s campaign, in which seemingly ordinary people can interact and communicate with ‘The Old Spice Guy’, was hugely successful for several reasons, but it is this current engagement phenomenon, spurred on by social media, that is most fascinating.

At its essence, anyone can ask anyone anything and this is perhaps social media and indeed the web’s greatest appeal. By its definition, a web is a series of connections, weavings and interweavings. These facets are what defines social media - the establishment of connections with no genuine hierarchy or order. If you possess the equipment, you’re an equal. You prescribe to the same 140 character limit, or image size, or formatting options. In my opinion, the fact that everyone exists on the same digital level is one of social media’s foremost attractions. But what are your thoughts? Do hierarchies exist in the digital world just as they do in the ‘real’ world?