Strategic Public Relations

5 Examples of How Social Media is Changing the 2012 Elections

There are plenty of ways you can use social media to follow the long march from the Iowa Caucus to the November Elections. Several sites, including Instagram and Tumblr, are being used by candidates for the first time to engage and inform citizens.

From behind the scenes access from the media and each candidate's content to larger sites tracking how the candidates are doing overall, here are just a few sites to check out.

1) 2012 Elections Site | Google: By far, Google does the best job of a non-news organization tapping its products to bring you a complete destination for bipartisan election content. It's using search, YouTube, Google+ and even Google Calendar to fuel its efforts. And in addition to covering the elections, it has a toolkit to get voters engaged in the process.

2) Media Mentions | Washington Post: Media Mentions tracks how candidates are doing in news coverage as well as on Twitter. And The New York Times, with the help of Big Data, will tell you that candidates who do better than expected will get more media coverage as a result.

3) Tapping Klout to Rank Candidates? | CNN: CNN using Klout is a big win for the polarizing ranking site. I'm hoping someone also comes back to note how well ALL of the platforms did as a predictor of candidate success. As we've already seen, unexpected outcomes are standard fare. And we're already seeing folks use a single social platform to make assertions about which candidate might/could win. UPDATE: Mashable asserts Twitter can predict who's winning the GOP presidential race.

This is uninformed and it's already being seen that the correlation between quantity of Twitter followers, Facebook likes and YouTube views does not necessarily correlate to the number of votes. In fact, this gets back to the discussion of influence. If someone has all the social buzz, but not the votes....

4) See the Elections Unfold | Instagram: The "niche photo site" points out three major news organizations using the platform to augment their coverage. And it gives me a wicked idea (evil laugh).

5) Politics & Election News | New York Times: Book-ending our examples is the New York Times who is devoting significant resources above and beyond curating their own news to cover the election. In addition to a mobile app, its bloggers and interactive team are going deep to deliver some interesting insights and examples of social's impact in the 2012 elections.

Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn

A scan on my part shows nothing of permanent of note from Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn just yet. Twitter is showing folks how to live tweet for a better election experience, noting how Twitter and live TV go together like peas and carrots. But based on its White House Town Square effort, I'm sure they're capable of a more substantive offering.

Facebook is being tapped for live chats as well. It's good to see an engagement platform being used more for, uh, engaging with voters.

Instant Social Traction
It's wild to see how quickly and thoroughly single moments in an election, or other nationally broadcast events, can unfold through social media. From Santorum's unfortunate shared meaning of his last name (no link, just trust me) to his fashion choices.

Social spoofs will be an interesting sideline to distract from the carpet bombing of political ads we'll see online and offline increasingly over the following year. In a year that election spending is touted as helping to save big media, you know we're in for some serious political noise this year.

But based on the above alone, I'll note social is helping bring a new experience to the the 2012 elections -- online, offline and on TV. It's early and we'll surely see more interesting examples of how it's used to inform and engage voters.

Journalism, Curation and Changing Face of News Sources

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
McChrystal's Balls - Honorable Discharge
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Two seemingly unrelated pieces of news help me make a point. The first is above from The Daily Show. Jon Stewart rails on mainstream media for dismissing Rolling Stone for landing the McChrystal interview. 

"The American news media finally realized they kind of suck."

Well the General had an agenda and Rolling Stone got the story. But I enjoy Ricky Van Veen's observation:

Here’s a journalist covering a comedian covering TV new personalities’ coverage of a journalist covering a subject.

The second story is more of a research factoid. Half of American adults surveyed trust Google more than they trust traditional media. And they trust Twitter and Facebook as much as they trust traditional media.

The research on trust in sources speaks to social media's impact, but I think the point it makes is the power of curation more than anything else. Twitter and Facebook is saturated with links to other sources. My assumption is that adults trust traditional media, they just get their news first from links pushed over Twitter and Facebook. 

This long post to make a short point is that conventional sources are changing. Are you changing your approach to determining which sources you pitch?! I've been hearing a lot about social media experiments. It may sound like semantics, but we should be focused on more strategic test and learn opportunities instead of shiny new experiments. And while this change has impacted traditional media relations, I'm not hearing about media relations experiments, much less test and learn opportunities. Our industry still seems focused on an end game that is increasingly becoming less of an option and more impossible to achieve. /rant