Political thinking will help companies better participate in social media
Time 15:00
Put a taste of the Iowa caucus into your corporate communications. This will be an ongoing theme on the Marketing Edge during this election year. My premise is that social media is like oxygen to the embers of ideas. The networks and groups formed using social media resembles grassroots organizations and therefore companies need to take a page from political campaigns.
In this podcast we chat with David Almacy, VP of Digital Strategies for North America for Waggener Edstrom.
He also was at the White House for President Bush in 2005 – 2007 as the director of internet and e-communications. David was also recently recognized by PR Week in their 40 Under 40 issue.
We share some views on the Iowa Caucus about social media and mainstream media. There is also more on my perspective on this issue from Minn Post reporter Christine Capecchi in an article entitled Caucuses 2.0: Online efforts become instant political laboratories in Iowa
Having spent a decade in political communications, and a few years covering politics as a reporter, social media has the potential to help change society, because of the speed with which it can spreading ideas, and the ability to galvanize more people around an issue/brand faster.
Look, the civil rights movement didn’t need social media; but the same fundamental tactics for grassroots organization and communication skills are now necessary for companies who wish to participate in, not market with, social media. There is more of a movement in social media than a marketplace.
If I was to crystallize the general difference of perspective between political communications and corporate communications pre-social media into a bumper sticker, it would be this:
Don’t just buy it, be a part of it.
Brand champions may say this is the same as Lovemarks. I agree, and in the world of politics and on the battle field of ideas that shape a society, people have died for the brand they love.
In this discussion David and I touch on the use of social media, the fragmentation of information sources, and the mysterious mix of mainstream media quantity with social media passion.
Another interesting take on measuring social media in this presidential campaign is the Spartan Political Performance Index. Stay tuned as this election year, creative minds will tweek, shape, and test all forms of social media. The winners will be those observers in corporate marketers who can see applications for their brands.
Another Marketing Edge Book Drawing
We are holding a drawing for the book The New Influencers by Paul Gillin, he’s another thought provoking guy at the Society for New Communications Research. So if you want in on the drawing send me an email to marketingedge@providentpartners.net with the words New Influencers in the subject line.
Tags: Iowa Caucus, Marketing Edge, Maruggi, New Hampshire Primary, presidential candidates, presidential debate, YouTube
This entry was posted on Saturday, January 5th, 2008 at 3:01 pm and is filed under brand management, corporate marketing, marketing, new media, social media.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
RSS feed
Subscribe via e-mail
January 6th, 2008 at 7:32 am
I agree with your comments on social media, but I’m worried that it will become “controlled” or manipulated just like the regular media. Savvy politicians can just hire 100 people to comb the net and make sure their politician looks good via comments, social networking sites, etc. Good for them, bad for us.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Dear Concerned Citizen, thanks for commenting, not only will it lead to us donating a food item to a local food shelf, but I’m going to comment back which means two food items will be donated. Ok so here goes.
I see your concern. Unfortunately, whether it’s the potential for some boiler room that a company sets up in India to produce phony product comments, click fraud operations, or politicians paying for people to blog about them, there are ways to game a system that well be exploited.
You and I have both a responsibility and now a means to counter such unethical behavior. I hope and wonder, if what you describe as a “controlled” effort on the part of a politician will be able to be detected by the general population. You know, long before social media special interest groups regularly ask their members to sign a letter written by the group to send to their respective members of congress or to newspapers as a letter to the editor. Is that controlled or it is a way for everyone to be on the same page that supports that group? Whether it be the Sierra Club or the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and everyone in between they all have a right to make their case.
Having said that and having been inside political campaigns, the best campaigns have a solid volunteer workforce. I believe it is a good thing to educate your supporters about the issues, and the candidate’s positions on those issues. I also think it wise to encourage those supporters to blog about issues of primary concern to them. And to my point in the original post, smart leaders of communication teams that are tuned into the electorate will use social media as a dialogue, not a monologue. In fact, I believe one of the qualities of social media is that it gives equal footing to all sides of an issue.
What I’m hoping to see is the dialogues created in the election cycle grow in such a way that the general tone of the conversation is, “What are they saying and where do we agree?” as opposed to “This is what I think and you should see it that way.” Some may call this idealistic, to them I say, you’re right and what’s wrong with that?
Thanks again for commenting. To keep the dialogue going, you can submit it to Digg or Stumble Upon or just pass it along.
All the best,
Albert Maruggi