Barack the Vote: Social Media and the Internet in the 2008 Presidential Election

Last Saturday, my colleague Alex and I had the opportunity to attend the Election 2008 conference at the University of Southern California. The two panels we sat in on were entitled “Challenges for the New Administration and the Two Parties: POLITICO Editors and Reporters Look to the Future” and “Technology in Politics: How Campaigns Use the Internet to Talk to Voters.” Though the first was extremely interesting from a political perspective, the latter (and its focus on digital media) is what interested me most.

Over the past year, it was evident that online technology and social media played an integral role in the 2008 Presidential election, with some even claiming that the Internet won Barack Obama the election. Though I don’t personally agree with that bold claim, Obama’s use of the Internet and social media to mobilize and directly connect with supporters certainly helped.

What Obama Did Right

During the 2008 Election, Obama used social media in ways no other candidate ever has. Obama had a Facebook fan page with more than 3.2 million fans (Michelle also has her very own fan page), and a Facebook application with 164,551 subscribers. He had a MySpace page with more than 1 million friends. He even created his own social network, MyBarackObama.com. Some 3.2 million supporters donated to the Obama campaign through an excellent, well-maintained Web site. He had a Twitter account and tweeted frequently, ultimately becoming the single most followed entity on Twitter. His campaign launched an iPhone application (something that panelist Becki Donatelli admitted the McCain campaign was quite jealous of). He even announced his pick of Vice President via text message. Yes, now President-elect Barack Obama has made social media part of his everyday life (even post-election, when he took his weekly address online.)

It is clearly evident that times are changing - not only in Presidential campaigning, but in our overall media consumption habits as well. I credit Obama for thinking a few steps ahead of the rest, being the first Presidential candidate to launch a truly integrated campaign (and get it right). As one of the panelists on the above mentioned Election 2008 technology panel stated - Obama didn’t invent the technology; he simply perfected it.

What McCain Missed

Though some attribute McCain’s loss to his lack of engagement with technology, personally I don’t think it was his lack of using the technology (he did, after all, have a Facebook fan page, a MySpace page, and a Twitter account, to name a few); it was more a matter of his objective (which, unlike Obama seemed to be a means to an end instead an end itself). We heard it in nearly every public speech and interview made - “McCain has the experience” - and along with his experience in office, he also has more experience campaigning, even being directly involved in the 2000 race for the Republican Presidential nomination against George W. Bush. Though he lost the race, he did learn a lot about campaigning in the process, taking those lessons and applying them to the race in 2008. However, McCain seemed to have taken the wrong lesson out of 2000, focusing more on the end result (ie, media relations and generating positive press coverage) and not enough on connecting directly with supporters.

Obama, on the other hand, brought excitement to the grassroots approach. To him, it was important to go straight to the people, not the media, and the Internet served as a key player in helping him do so.

Will TV ads (and traditional media) become obsolete?

The recent hype around Obama’s use of online and social technologies makes this question seem more real then ever - will TV ads become obsolete in future elections, being replaced solely by online initiatives? While some think yes, a few of the panelists surfaced an interesting perspective - offline ads help drive people online.

Take a look at the sheer numbers - TV ads are not becoming irrelevant anytime soon, and candidates are still focusing heavily on paid advertising (in addition to his online initiatives, Obama also bought half-hour primetime segments on CBS and NBC less than a week before the general election, for example). TV ads may be diminishing in importance, but it will be a long time before they completely go away. However, the panelists pointed out that now, we are seeing more of an online/offline plan. Online and social technology and traditional media serve completely different purposes - the Internet is used to activate the base and raise funds, then the money raised is being used to get people sitting at home on their couches to go online. It is now vital to synchronize both and integrate into one solid campaign.

Looking ahead to 2012/16

During the conference, one panelist made the bold claim that by 2016, campaigns will no longer exist in brick and mortar buildings; instead, they will exist solely online. Though traditional advertising will still play a dire role in campaigns, social media will become increasingly important to candidates seeking election as it becomes more mainstream. Due to both advances in technology and a growing number of media outlets for people to choose from, it will become vital for candidates to have a short, buttoned-up message.

Moving forward, Presidential candidates won’t be the only ones to use social media in campaigns; candidates at the local level will begin to jump on board as well. Campaigning via social media is cheaper, more effective, and easier to mobilize a core group of constituents to act.

Last, technological advances like TiVo and XM Radio have empowered consumers to choose what information they want to receive. Often, the casual constituent (or as Joel Benenson calls them, the “Up-for-Grabs” voter) doesn’t hear political messages via TV and radio ads; they hear about them through YouTube videos or e-mails and SMS videos forwarded by their friends. It is now important for candidates to broadcast their message across as many different channels, in as many different ways as possible to reach that casual constituent.

History in the Making

8.5 years ago, our country nearly encountered a global crisis.  In the face of Y2K, many people truly believed the end of the world was just a few weeks away.  I, on the other hand, wanted to do something great.  Yes; I wanted to be the very first person this century to do something.  After days of contemplating, I finally decided upon my infamous task: I decided that I would be the first person in America to flush a toilet.  

Looking back through history, our country is characterized by a fear of the unknown.  The unknown that, 'hey, maybe the world isn't flat,' to 'hm.. do you think consumers are finally sick of us shouting?'  

Tonight, another unknown event went down in history; the election of Barak Obama as President.  As much as I'd like to say, 'woo hoo! This cat-fight election is finally over!' I'll leave it at my take-aways from Y2K that seemed oh so long ago: Yes; change is scary.  But in times of change, one thing remains constant - change brings about a world of opportunity.  Americans found an opportunity to explore the world, from one end and right back home again.  Web 2.0 allowed companies the opportunity to personally connect with consumers, instead of shouting at them.  And Barak Obama?  He has the opportunity to turn this country around, if only we remain optimistic.  

And Y2K?  Well, that made me a legend ;)  Will you be the first to flush a toilet in this new age?

Paris is... Painting the White House 'Pink'?!

I'm sure you've all heard about McCain and Obama's new competitor. That's right, Paris Hilton takes the stand and is now in the running for President... or for "Fake President," that is.  Her fake campaign is not what I would call sincere, and obviously just her way of retailating McCain's recent commercials, but the PR side of me questions her motives in 'running' - to gain publicity for Obama, or for herself... or to bring more young people to the poles, if I dare ask?  



Despite my, well, less-than-love (if you will) for Paris, she does make some good fake points in her fake press interview - "Nowadays sound bytes, not sound policy, determine our country's course" she boasts.  Hm... I suppose there is some good truth to that statement, especially looking at how recent media coverage is affecting poll results and political chatter.   

On a broader note, there's been a slew of celebs jumping on the political bandwagon - Leo and camp, and P. Diddy for starters.  I'm interested to see how the combination of celebrities and their use of social media will affect this year's general election, especially amongst young voters.  Oh, and Paris? Can't wait to hear more about your "FoPo" plan; you've got my vote. 

Now, one last video to leave you with - "Does Celebrity Endorsements Matter in Politics" (Please don't fault me for bad grammar, it was contextual!) :)  What do you think?

PR and Politics

I just got back from a weekend of sightseeing in Washington DC, which I think merits some sort of political PR post, wouldn't you agree?

This was my first trip out to see the East Coast (well, unless you count the PRSSA National Conference in Miami or the 10 hours I spent on layover in the Phili airport) and I have to say, I was quite impressed!  Traveling Europe inspired me to want to see more of my own country, and what better place to start than DC?  It was nice to spend some time in our nation's capital, doing some sightseeing, etc. (although, I have to say, the White House was quite a bit smaller than I had originally anticipated).  But all in all, seeing the great monuments and learning a bit about the history helped me find a renewed faith in my country, and I was inspired to immerse myself in politics once again (it was, after all, my minor).  

As I mentioned in an earlier post, while in France I was surprised at how interested and engaged in politics everyone seemed to be.  Our dinner conversations centered around questions on my views toward certain American policy issues, or the political agenda of Nicolas Sarkozy.  Even most of the young people I met fired off political questions.  But of course, when I mentioned I was American many people would immediately bring up Barak Obama... the celebrity.

This election sure has been an interesting one, and more hyped than any I can ever remember (which, granted, account for maybe 2 past Presidential elections...)  Whatever happened to fair and balanced political news coverage? (um, take last night's VMA show for example?)  Now a days, while most people can ramble on about Hillary's 'incredible' fashion sense or the exact size of Palin's cinnamon-roll bun, if you ask someone about Obama's main platform points you're likely to hear something along the lines of, "um, change?"  The media is so drawn to the drama in elections that they fail to provide the American public with an accurate view of  the issues our potential leaders stand for and how they will use their time in office.  And as a consequence, the Paris vs. Nicole-esque media coverage is pulling, not only GOP and Dems, but also like parties apart instead of uniting us as a nation.  

But to a second degree, I don't completely fault the media.  This is what we want to see and hear about, right?

If the candidates want to really connect with the people in the upcoming election, they need to break through the media hype and show constituents what they're really about.  Meaning, their publicists need to work overtime.