Mediaboss Marketing

This is part of an occasional series in Insight & Books on issues relating to the November elections. Find previous stories at statesman.com/s/opinion/insight.

The first presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney set the social networking world of Twitter on fire. The debate was the most tweeted political event in U.S. history, with Twitter users sending a record 10.3 million tweets during the 90-minute televised debate.

Once upon a time, in a far off land, officials and candidates did things the old-fashioned way you know: telephones, letters and fax machines. Then, along came the digital age, the Internet and social media. Its hard to argue with 10 million tweets, but do new technologies really make a difference when it comes to governing and running political campaigns? Is the digital age really a game changer or just a fairy tale?

Obviously, smart phones, email, websites and social media, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, have changed information delivery. Today, governments and officials at all levels federal, state and local communicate with constituents using new technologies. Government websites allow people to access documents, renew licenses and access data. Additionally, government websites provide important information on topics ranging from drivers education to childcare via YouTube videos. The digital divide is not dead, but the times really have changed.

Furthermore, many elected and appointed government officials are using the social media platforms of Facebook and Twitter to communicate with constituents and clients. Over the last year, I led a research study regarding use of social media by members of Congress. We found that 98 percent of Congress members used at least one of the social media platforms of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and 72 percent used all three platforms. Our research showed that Congress Members were posting on Twitter at twice the rate of posting on Facebook. Are we becoming a tweetocracy?

Additionally, our study found that members of Congress most commonly used Facebook and Twitter to stake out their positions using social media, rather than to tout their own media appearances. This tells us that social media usage by Congress members has matured as a method of communicating with their constituents. The next stage will be real dialogue, with U.S. lawmakers and their constituents having actual conversations via social media. One example of this engagement with constituents was a conversation between Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and several Twitter followers on Sept. 28, 2011, in which she had an ongoing dialogue about jobs and the unemployment rate and replied to her followers tweets 28 times.

Political campaigns run at lightening speed in the digital age. Facebook pages are a must, and Twitter is essential to the news cycle. However, some research shows that frequently people are more receptive to receiving political information via Twitter than Facebook. They see Twitter as a quick communication tool; whereas, they see Facebook as a tool for managing their social lives. On the other hand, a recent study led by James Fowler of the University of California, San Diego, showed that Facebook friends could influence others to go to the polls and vote. Of the 90.7 million Americans who voted in the 2010 midterm election, Facebooks get-out-the-vote message that showed pictures of a users Facebook friends who had voted led to an additional 340,000 votes nationwide, or 0.37 percent.

Similarly, a study by the Pew Research Centers Internet & American Life Project from the 2010 election showed that 40% of Republican voters and 38% of Democratic voters used these sites to get involved politically, compared with 29% of non-voters. While it is evident that those who are politically engaged use social media for political purposes, it is unclear whether these social networking sites more than marginally increase voter turnout and participation.

In a recent survey by the Pew Research Centers Internet & American Life Project, 36 percent of social networking users said that the sites are very important or somewhat important to them in keeping abreast of political news. Furthermore, 26 percent of social networking users said that the sites are very important or somewhat important in helping them recruit people to get involved in the political causes that they are promoting.

Also, YouTube allows campaigns to make and disseminate commercials at a fraction of the cost of television. Furthermore, those videos can go viral and be disseminated again and again. Of course, a cautionary tale is that anything that political candidates say or do can go viral.

Read more:
Campaigning and governing in the digital age