-
Why Doesn’t Obama Ban Iranian Press TV? by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Case of CH2M HILL: $2 Billion in Crony Stimulation by Rusty Weiss
The Truth about George Soros by AIM Staff
Lifting the Veil on WikiLeaks by AIM Staff
The Truth about Al-Jazeera English by Cliff Kincaid
Reaganomics and Obamanomics in the Media and in Reality by Malcolm A. Kline, Don Irvine and Spencer Irvine
How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets by Michael Tremoglie
Radical Muslims, Environmentalists and the Green Jihad by Mark Musser
Russian-Backed Propaganda Networks Claim Obama is a CIA Agent by Cliff Kincaid
Media Conceal True Nature of Flash Mob Racial Violence by John T. Bennett
NBC’s Mitchell Should Resign Over Telling Gaddafi’s Lies (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) by Cliff Kincaid
CASA de Maryland: The Illegals’ ACORN by James Simpson
Special Report
The Newswire
Take AIM Podcast
Scott Brown’s stunning vitcory in Massachusetts in Tuesday can partly be attributed to his widespread use of social media to create awareness and excitement.
On his way to an upset political victory in Massachusetts, Senator-elect Scott Brown skillfully used social media to give his candidacy legitimacy and to make his supporters feel personally connected to his campaign, several social media experts said today.
Government organizations at all levels can apply the lessons learned from Brown’s campaign when implementing social media programs, the experts said.
Brown, a Republican state senator, drew 52 percent of the total votes while his Democratic opponent, Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley, received 47 percent.
In the social media arena, Brown’s victory was even more decisive. Brown received 10.6 times more Facebook fan-page interactions and views of uploaded videos on YouTube than Coakley, according to a study performed by the Emerging Media Research Council and published by the Wall Street Journal.
Social media outreach increased Brown’s name recognition among likely voters, according to the study. In November 2009, 51 percent had heard of Brown; by January 2010 his name recognition was up to 95 percent.
Brown scored 578,271 YouTube video views to Coakley’s 51,173, according to the study. And, Brown had 70,800 Facebook fans compared to 13,529 for Coakley.
Brown’s dominance with social media was critical in generating enthusiasm among his supporters, according to Jeff Gulati, a social-media expert and associate professor of government at Bentley University in Massachusetts. Brown’s candidacy likely would not have been successful if he had relied solely on traditional media, Gulati said.
“Social media was a way for him to communicate with his supporters because you generally do not use this to persuade people,” Gulati said. “These are people that have opted in; they are predisposed to like him. So when you have this long-shot bid it helps demonstrate this is a serious and legitimate campaign.”
Federal government agencies can learn from Brown’s use of social media, Gulati said. Communicating regularly, and in a personal way, as Brown did, can help create an effective relationship with the public, he said.
Another lesson learned from Brown’s campaign is increasingly people use social media as their main source for news, according to Paul Levinson, a new media professor at Fordham University and author of the book New New Media.
More and more politicians are jumping onto the social media bandwagon but just setting up Facebook or Twitter accounts or posting videos on YouTube isn’t enough. They have to be used to be effective. Too many pols set up accounts and then let them just generate interest on their own without any further interaction. That is a major no-no.
Apparently that is one reason why Coakley failed so miserably this week. The numbers cited in the article are staggering. Brown had more than ten times the YouTube views of the more established and better funded Coakley. How does that happen?
Besides being historic for capturing a seat the Democrats had held since 1952 and one they thought they owned in perpetuity the election may also be historic for the effect that social media mobilized the masses and helped a severe underdog reorder politics in Massachusetts.
Post #2565
Share This
About the author
Don Irvine is Chairman of Accuracy in Media. He is active on Facebook and Twitter. You can follow him @donirvine to read his latest thoughts.
3 Comments for Brown Scores Big Win With Social Media
As a Massachusetts resident, I can confirm that electronic media (especially email) was a contributor to Brown’s campaign. The stories about the strength of Brown’s rallies and the weakness of Coakley’s were of course not featured in the liberal Boston Globe or the local TV news. This was truly a grass-roots, populist campaign.
Regarding “accuracy in media,” I hope no one is under the illusion that Brown’s victory owes any credit to the Republican Party. Brown was elected by Independents. Over half of registered voters in Massachusetts are independent. Republican National Committee support was little and late. Also, Coakley’s arrogance and some of her actions as state Attorney General alienated some Democrats. Coakley was seen by many as a Democratic machine candidate, who stated outright that she was the rightful heir to Ted Kennedy’s seat.
This election was a victory for independent thinkers and voters (as Brown said in his acceptance speech), as well as for independent communication media. Very few of the Republican Party’s platform hot-button issues were even discussed during this election, and were not the reason people voted for Brown. In fact, a few religious-right people withheld their support because Brown didn’t toe the line for their checklist of special-interest issues. I see Brown as a centrist fiscal and Constitutional conservative. His behavior in the next few weeks will confirm whether that is accurate.
Let’s see that correction to the public-media and RNC message.
jc
Awesome. I love seeing wins like this for the internet. Forget the campaign, what does this say about us as a society and technology?!
This is one of the amazing features of the time we live in. Those with a message can bypass the traditional media with their biases and expensive advertising. It the message has sufficient impact, it can take on a life of its own, with thousands and possibly millions of evangelists spreading the word. This is particularly useful when the majority of the people are moving in a different direction then the established leaders. Participation is voluntary and this is the peoples voice.