Twitter to Hillary: You're Doing it Wrong!
If Twitter is anything, it's a platform for communication. Tweet and reply. Follow and be followed. As Robert Scoble recently pointed out, "the secret to Twitter is how many people you are listening to, not how many people are listening to you." If that's the case, then someone needs to tell Hillary, who is using Twitter as a platform for being heard and following 0 people. Meanwhile, her competitor, Obama, follows 25,588. And John McCain? He doesn't appear to be using Twitter at all.
The Candidates on Twitter
Even though we all know that the social media being wrangled by today's political candidates is really in the hands of staffers, we still appreciate it when it's done properly - giving us the illusion the candidates are listening and they really do care.
In Barak Obama's camp, whose tech-savvy we've pointed out in the past, seems to get Twitter. Besides just tweeting his news, it's clear he's using some sort of auto-follow script to follow those who follow him.
Getting Followed Feels Good
You're Doing it Wrong!
As Charles McKeever says on OpenSourceMarketer:
"Even though an automated script would not seem very sincere, there is a powerful psychological trigger going on here. By following you Obama’s campaign is trying to send the message that they understand how things work, they want to communicate, and they want to hear from you."
By not following any users on Twitter, Hillary's page seems stark and empty - no faces and icons filling up the sidebar. McKeever notes that her lack of participation also highlights the words at the bottom of the Twitter sidebar more clearly on her page: "block hillaryclinton." These words, thanks to the lack of icons, appear above the fold.
Image via OpenSourceMarketer
Meanwhile, Obama's camp has gotten into the spirit of Twitter. Maybe it's no more genuine than any other politician, but at least it's a good show. His page is brighter, branded with his logo, and filled with the faces of those he follows.
Comparing the Twitter pages of the candidates
John McCain, on the other hand, appears to be ignoring Twitter completely. A search of his site reveals no results for any mention of Twitter and a search on Twitter reveals no official John McCain user.
Where's the real McCain?
The Exploitation of Social Media
Unfortunately, after the campaigning ends, it often becomes apparent that the illusion that candidates were listening, really was an illusion after all. Take John Edwards's use of Twitter, for example. When his campaign ended, so did his tweets. No so long, no goodbye, no account deletion. Yet he still has 4,573 followers.
The abandoned page
For the citizens of the web, the feeling is that of having been exploited. On his blog, Stowe Boyd writes:
So, you opt to try to exploit the edglings by signing up to Twitter, and writing a blog, and all that newfangled web stuff, trying to mine the potential there with ersatz involvement and cheesy, inauthentic participation: cramming old one:many messaging into a conversationally rich environment. Then, you drop out. And proof [sic] that it is totally bogus, you just stop...Proof of old politics wolf in new politics sheep's clothing: they assume the ways of the new social web revolution as a means to come into contact with us, but when they lose (and maybe when they win, as well?) they drop the pretense of involvement, and go back to whatever they really believe in. Which is clearly not this new emerging whatever-the-hell-it-is on the web.
That's a bit dramatic, notes Craig Stoltz on Web 2.Oh...Really?, especially considering Edwards' wife illness, but nevertheless, it raises a good question - will the tweeting end when the campaign does? Win or lose?
Should Social Media Be Important to the Candidates?
Of course it should. The online crowd may be a niche audience when it comes to the nation as a whole, but it's a crowd that is easy to find, access, and connect with. We even provide the tools to do so. We're practically begging to be won over. Just show a little savvy in the ways of tech, and we're yours.
However, we would like to see candidates who didn't rely on faceless interns to update their various accounts so much. Why not have a social media community leader/evangelist in charge of the political brand instead? We know that it's not really Hillary at the keyboard anyway, so maybe it's time to drop the illusion.
But why would an evangelist be a good thing? As Mario Sundar notes on Marketing Nirvana,
"The same reasons it helps a company have a community evangelist. Two main reasons. 1. It humanizes the political brand - it helps having a turn-to person when you’d like to offer feedback 2. Crisis Management. Like in Edwards case, given all the brouhaha over his absence these days, it’d be nice to have someone from their campaign (it could be an intern) who actually responds authentically to social media mentions."
An evangelist would also be real. Unlike an intern pretending to be the candidate, the brand would be represented by an actual person. One who knew not to upload inflammatory videos to YouTube. One who knew what Twitter tools to use to send thank you notes to followers. One who knew the power of the blogs. And, maybe one who would continue to tweet, perhaps even for free, after the votes are counted and the campaign comes to an end.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
LOL - Hillary is doin' it wrong. Her staff will spam Twitter, but follow no one in return. Obama's staff gets it. I didn't expect born-in-1939 McCain to effectively use Twitter anyway.
Nice work Sarah, excellent post!
Let's be honest: Barack's doing it wrong, too. What's the point of following people in return if you've never written a single message @someone?
I'm not saying it's bad to "just push," but it's missing the point.
At the scale we're talking here (1'000s or 10,000s), following users is mostly a hollow gesture, because there's no way you can meaningfully follow the bulk of your users' updates anymore. That especially applies to 'busy' celebrities.
Of course, they'll still generate fuzzy, feel good emotions for many people, who feel validated when someone popular associates themselves back with them.
Fundamentally, people have to understand that relationships don't scale and work the same way for people in the public spot light as it does for every day friendships. Just because you're not in a politician's speed dial, doesn't mean they don't care about your plight.
Discarding exceptions like Paris Hilton, these people have gained widespread public reception because they've figured out how to scale relationships & communication beyond the one to one kind.
"will the tweeting end when the campaign does? Win or lose?"
Everything ends when the campaign is over, win or lose. The objective of any politician is to appeal to as many potential voters as they can, especially when it comes to presidential elections. If Hillary's overtures to blue collar workers adds up to magically stopping globalization, why should one expect less bs online?
Here is a query to see what people are saying about the candidates on twitter:
http://twitter.summize.com/search?q=clinton+OR+obama+OR+mccain
Most interestingly Obabma is twittered far more than the others.
Sorry fat fingered Obama, above.
Clay Shirky's recent book "Here Comes Everybody" may serve as a guide to why it's very difficult, if not impossible, for these folks to legitimately participate in these social environments. Given tilt of balance between the attention that is given to them versus the amount of attention they can give back, there's just no reasonable way for them to effectively deal w/the flow of information. Call it the curse of being a "celeb", as this problem manifests itself for most celebrities, but where some have to do more than just be popular, things can get tricky if they have other activities to deal with as well.
Hillary's use of Twitter might not be conversational, but it's honest; it's clearly a way to send messages to lots of people who have opted in, and it might not be a groundbreaking use of the medium, but it's honest. I've gotten multiple "Barack Obama is following you" emails. The first time I thought, "Yeah, sure he is." The next one felt like spam to remind me that I should go follow him. I'll take Hillary's approach, actually. (I don't follow either of them because frankly, I have more Hillary & Barack info than I can digest just by reading the paper.)
P-air is correct. There's no way for them to engage with people when there are two candidates and millions of voters.
Interesting, I have about 300 followers and following about 3,000. I am constantly erasing twitters that are following because I can't follow all of them and my Twitter box just becomes a big ass shoutbox...
Maybe I should not worry about it then...lol.
Btw, are you guys at Web2.0 Expo in San Fran?
If you are, I will do a video interview.
I noticed the same thing and had a post on 1st April with suggestions for how the candidates might improve their Twitter-fu:
http://www.metablog.us/social/the-twittering-of-the-president/
I think it's almost as silly to follow *everyone* as it is to follow *noone*
Interesting that this blog post follows almost precisely the conversation on the most recent This Week In Tech podcast with Leo Laporte. You mention all the same points that came up in that conversation: Obama follows, Clinton doesn't follow, McCain isn't on Twitter, Edwards stopped tweeting as soon as he dropped out.
When you get a good idea from someone else, it is customary to credit them. You have passed these observations off as your own.
ho mommy look! some more Obama propaganda on RWW...
We got enough on Fox already... no... really...