Don't let only the VIRAL make your choice in 2012

      Recently I was given an assignment to gauge Twitter's impact as well as my understanding of the election and I must admit...I never really thought about how it affected the election process. Everyone knows it was President Obama's grass roots campaign on the social networks that skyrocketed him to the platform in which he sits on now, but how it changed the entire system I never even considered. Aside from the attack ads, the name calling, the whistle stops, what are the real factors the voter uses to choose his/her candidate? Trade, the economy, social policy, international policy, taxes, debt, immigration, etc. But in one of the most critical forums of the election, Twitter, most tweets are about what every is really trending, in hopes of being re-tweeted or attract followers, instead of real issues or using the forum to ask real questions.
       The media has always molded elections and the process has evolved alongside it. There are some articles that suggest that a major factor in Roosevelt defeating the incumbent, President Hoover, was the assertive nature and tone of his voice over the radio. Many didn't know  that the broad voice was coming from a virtually paralyzed man in a wheelchair. In the 1960's during the election debates between Tricky Dick Nixon and John F. Kennedy, a poll was taken between two separate audiences (mixed evenly with Republicans & Democrats); those who listened on radio and those who watched on television. Both audiences were asked very simply, "who did better?" Would you be surprised to know that those who heard the debate on the radio chose Nixon but those who watched on television chose Kennedy? Nixon, with the more authoritative voice, wins on radio however Kennedy, obviously the more attractive, wins on television. Both forums broadcasting the same debate, the same questions with the same answers, so what was the major discrepancy?
        Now fast forward to 2012, the Democratic incumbent Barrack Obama versus the Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Campaigns are smarter now thanks to the "Change" campagn of 2008, and they realize the power that Twitter and other social networks have, but with this understanding comes the knowledge of how to wield it. The true power of these social networks is the virility of the subject.  A perfect example in this past week is Romney's #47% video posted originally by one of my favorite online news sources, "@Mother Jones". @Polltracker  indicated the very next day that due to the damaging content and the virility of the video Romney took a 7+ point hit over night. If you want to be president of the United States Mr. Romney, take another lesson on the power of social media.

         Another site that I am very in tuned with is @theOnion, a little more centered than the previously mentioned lefty mag @MotherJones, they both still give a fair take on all the issues, IF your reading their site. But like the campaigns they understand the power of virility and in the end, the goal is to promote readership and tweets plus re-tweets plus followers are the formula. which is where my argument of the power of virility over the power of the issues will be the deciding factor in the 2012 election. Like the candidates, most of the tweets they put out will be typical and bland until they get a chance to utilize a viral event like the #47% video. So don't expect to see many tweets about complicated issues, like Somalia or the Libyan Attacks or even the French publication of yet another satire cartoon of Mohamed in an obvious attempt to antagonize the Muslim world, both camps are a little preoccupied at the moment. You can decide why this is for yourself. Trending topics on Twitter when it comes to the political theater should be real issues that affect Americans, but we are just so much better at following the bouncing ball and flashing lights. Perhaps it's a result of the viewership being too dependent on the content, we're left hanging by a thread of every post. They don't want to lose voters just as much as they want to win new ones, so it's safer to respond than to initiate. But if they are smart they will say you can't accurately argue your position in 140 characters.  My opinion? Its a combination of the two, the campaigns know where their powers lie, if you give the public too much information they will drown in it. Give them a little less and it will keep them wanting more and that's a problem. We in the Twitter-sphere are like a fish on a hook because we put so much faith in the forum.
         There needs to be a better, more efficient way for the public to know and understand the issues and where the candidates stand.So many people either get lost or just lose interest with all of the information and misinformation out there. You would be surprised to see how many people have any knowledge as to what each candidate is for, or against. Avoid being one of these people and test yourself with this short quiz removing the candidates and the parties, asking you about the issues that truly matter and see which candidate shares your views.Your greatest fear may be realized and you just might find yourself, drum roll please... A LIBERTARIAN!

Do demographics even matter anymore?

    

         It used to be much easier planning your marketing budget. X goes to this demographic with this ad, Y goes to this demographic with that ad and we save up all this money for our million dollar superbowl ad! So much traction is acredited to all the different social media sites and the free exposure they can give you, now whats it all really worth? It's almost like the standard has gone from gold bouilion to whatever's trending on the commodities market today but i'm really not buying it.

         I decided to follow 3 of the most trending brands on facebook; Converse, Pepsi and Coca-Cola in an attempt to develop some kind of formula to make it all make sense. What's the attraction to following a brand and allowing it to post advertisements all over your personal page? Want to know what I found? Nothing! The only direct correlation I found is that people like football. No seriously they really do! I chose Converse, Pepsi and Coca-Cola because the level of popularity between the three brands to get an acurate sample and to see what content gets the the most engagement and resulted in the most likes and comments and it really didn''t come down to what you might think. Before even considering this sample I automatically assumed it would be multi-media that attracted the most eyes, I was wrong!

            Converse really stayed true to what one of my professors calls the i-Content Management Strategy, which is really just a bunch of words that begin with the letter "i" to get the user involved and ingaged ( just play along-yes I know the word engage starts with an E!) in your page and not completely overwhelm them with advertisements and/or constantly aggrandizing your own product. Converse posted about special concerts, free music downloads, as well as coupons for the sneakers and special store promotions as well but it was well balanced with cool news and interesting posts, not just one advertisement after another. Converse was interesting because the focus of theirs is more about what you do/ have done in the shoes with their "make your mark" campaign. Two of there most poplular posts were simply pictures of the original throwback hightops with 190,000 likes between them and almost a thousand comments all referencing how long this look has been popular, how long people have had the same pair (or even 2-3 of the same pair!). It was so very interesting how many people were so excited to share all of the miles they have traveled in those old shoes.

             Pepsi and Coca-Cola were very differant. 80% of the posts on both pages were one advertisement after another disguised as pictures and media but they didn't fool me! Whether is was a cooler of Pepsi or a Grate Dane with can of Coke hanging from its collar the intent is obvious. While Coke dwarfed Pepsi in its followers(50.6 million to just under 9 million), the content was so similar that it left me wondering why? Is it the product that makes the difference or is it the page that attracts the fellowship? On both pages the posts that attracted the most comments and likes were somehow in one way or another related to opening weekend of the NFL, either pictures of crazed fans holding their preferred beverage or a stocked cooler packed with the ice cold refreshments it was obvious the "likes" may have been on the facebook pages of Coca-cola or Pepsi, but what the user was really saying was "man I like football!" 





             So whats it all mean? Is all of the money you spend on advertising in the standard mediums wasted? No not at all, I believe the best adverting that comes from these posts are results of reinforcement rather than acquiring new customers. All of the people on your pages posting and sharing are your customers already all your doing now is keeping them involved! With well played content your message can be shared and re-shared and results in very good earn promotions but it all starts with that original consumer. That first "like" is the precipus of it all, but you can't get that if you don't get his or her attention first! 

The Digital/Human Connection

           Isn't it nice when a stranger smiles to you on a crowded street and for no discernible reason it just brightens you on the inside, you can't help but smile right back. And isn't it awesome how that same smile is so contagious that all the passersby that see that smile on your face get the same butterflies, sending infectious bliss rippling through the crowd. That's the human connection that you just can not define or explain. There is no compromise, there is no replacement or supplement for that human connection. Give me unlimited posts with unlimited characters and let me spill my heart to you a million different ways in text, but there is no emoticon for heartfelt emotion, not one for friendly sarcasm or to demonstrate real and true jest. Everyone says we should connect more, that we "need" to connect more. It makes us more efficient, it enables communication, it bridges gaps, allows us to network, evolve, etc. etc. etc... Honestly those sound more like the desperate cries of an addict pleading for another hit of connectivity from a digitally dependant population, rather than "real" people actually wanting to connect for altruistic reasons.
           To further yourself and your communities is what the true objective is when you connect in the "real world." School, church, extracurriculars, book clubs, beer pong tournaments all have one real thing in common, real people sharing real connections. Not one person has ever heard anyone ever say that all of this added connectivity makes us more human, if anything you hear the exact opposite but there is just too much money in the new mediums to ever go back. We have to be able to progress with the digital age without losing that human connection in the real world. You can build all of the online communities you want, create all the new and innovative applications and portals to keep in touch you want but you can never create a real community; a civilization with true human feeling, care, compassion and even forgiveness for your fellow man . The fact is in the digital medium- it just does not compute. You can have your one hundred million apps with 3 billion users and all the friends you can possibly fit into that handheld device of yours, I'd rather have a hug.
            Take the 2012 Summer Olympic Athletes Michel Morganella and Voula Papachristou as a perfect example of human emotion not transferring to the digital medium, these and all of the other Olympic athletes are performing on a such a global stage that they are icons, they are almost god like, so does that mean we hold them to a different standard? Absolutely we do, they are idols to us all but they are human like all of us and we all make mistakes. Both athletes were dishonorably dismissed from their respected teams for what was interpreted as racist messages posted on Twitter by each of them. You can't feel a persons true intent without reading their body language, your can't sense a friends displeasure without hearing the disappointment in their voice and you can't judge a persons core values in 180 characters. While I personally believe Morganella's comments to be at least slightly racist, I don't believe Papachristou's to be more than a bad joke, but regardless they both were judged and sentenced in the public eye. As a red blooded American it should sicken all of us, we all have our day to defend our actions, where was theirs? At this level of competition everyone of the athletes that are even considered have a level of heart that most can't even fathom. In the heat of competition sometimes you say things you will immediately regret, you can never take it back and it may not be forgotten but in the real world and on the field this level of excitement is understood, expected and even occasionally forgiven. Online there is no such empathy, it's typed into plastic keys but etched in stone. Those 180 characters now define them, their life long dreams-irrelevant, their dedication to their country- forgotten, themselves permanently branded as less than human because for one second their emotions got the better of them. What is this medium that it has such dominion over how the real global community judges one another?
         Often there are some things posted in one forum or another that does have the potential to add a next level of alliance between two or more users, a level that was impossible to generate in the digital world not too long ago. These events, whether they are posted videos, status updates blogs or tweets allow users to think that creating that real digital community is not only possible but inevitable, the thought is noble in its purest intent but frankly its just not feasible. There is just too many X factors in the human experience that can not be digitally replicated.  Recently, another Olympic reference, there was a video posted to youtube of the entire women's swim team singing and dancing to a popular song that gave a the viewer a more tenderhearted look into an Olympic team, adding a personal look at a group which are usually portrayed to be all work and no play. Because they were able to show that they can share a common interest in a popular song, and dance around like a couple of goofs (the way we all do when no one is looking), the result of the video gave the viewer a feeling of a next level of connectivity and made them feel involved and connected which added an even greater level of excitement and anticipation to the tournament. As nice as that is, it's incredibly rare to truly duplicate. It was dynamic and expressive as well as stimulating and full of emotion but so were the Tweets of Morganella and Papachrisou.  I'm not saying that the Olympic committee were right or wrong in their judgements, only saying that letting your emotions run free online will generally have the same result as drunk dialing, the next day most likely your gonna wish you could take back everything you said! My advice to everyone; including future athletes and anyone in the public spotlight that wants to stay there; as much as you want to share your success with those who have supported you, don't. Always be on your "A" game and be professional. As much as you want to share your emotions with your fans, friends and family, don't. People who don't know probably don't understand you and won't even if they met you, why give them an opportunity to judge you? Just a thought...