Matt Glazer, editor of the liberal blog Burnt Orange Report, said he can tell more about how well candidates are doing by the number of their followers on social network sites than by looking at a poll. But it's still difficult to know how social media might affect voter turnout, he said.
Glazer said social media tools serve the purpose of evangelizing people who are already supporters of the campaign.
"It can turn casual supporters into informed supporters, and an informed supporter is evangelized: They go to events, they get more involved," Glazer said.
First off isn't Glazer being paid by Bill White? Shouldn't that have been mentioned.
Second the number of followers might be somewhat true but Facebook can get out of whack... Bill White has spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on Facebook advertisements to get his fan base up... Rick hasn't grown his with ads that I know of...
Twitter on the other hand makes it harder to buy your supporters... so Rick's lead there is substantial and more meaningful...
I think looking at numbers of followers is stupid for the most part unless you are talking about millions versus thousands... but if you look at some of the California candidates for example such as Tom Campbell... he had hundreds of thousands of twitter followers and his opponents had small numbers but he got trounced by Fiorina... this has played out a lot. It is not just numbers, it is the relentless use of the tools... it is fighting those flame battles and winning... it is influencing important people who then go out and spread the word...
1.) Compare the campaign finance reports for Perry and White for Facebook spending. I bet it's similar (i've seen ads for both but no real metrics can be determined based on the number of times one person see's the ads, because they could be in the targeted universe).
ReplyDelete2.) Rick Perry uses twitter more often, so more people follow him. Bill White uses facebook more often, so more people follow him. It also should be noted that it appears Perry doesn't actually update his Facebook, where it's pretty clear Bill does (Rick's is pretty boring). I believe they both do their own twitter (but Perry has been doing it for longer and appears to do it more often). Personalizing these mediums is what draws people. That's certainly not the only reason there is a disparity.
3.) It doesn't take a genius to figure out that facebook is better for sharing to large groups of people, so it's much easier to grow a Facebook group. This doesn't discount the fact that White has over twice as many people on there, it's just the fact of the medium.
4.) The number of people who use twitter everyday and the number of people who use facebook everyday isn't even close-- facebook crushes. Facebook is better for organizing people. Also, on facebook you can write long explanations, and it's much easier to acquire emails and contact information from people via the apps. You can also target advertising on facebook, whereas on twitter, you can't do advertising (or maybe those promoted tweets, but I don't understand how that works).
5.) I think this blog is good, because that article is crap, but you are doing a disservice to Republicans by spinning the way Bill White uses Facebook (and the benefits of facebook). He is doing it the way that works, and more of our candidates would be smart to emulate his authenticity. There is a reason he has more people following him on there (outside of the supposed advertising), and facebook is a more effective medium for getting messages to people on a daily basis. The only people on twitter are wierdos (ie people with 15,000 updates), politicos, hookers, and marketers. Facebook is for students, grandparents and people who are dipping their toes into social networking.
It makes me laugh that people think Bill White will get far on Facebook "fans"
ReplyDeletemakes me laugh because his lackies can make plenty of fake accounts to boost his numbers.
Also makes me laugh when they call him the "popular" mayor of Houston, that he got 91% of the vote... what they don't say (or just hope hope no one finds out) that while he was mayor of the 4th LARGEST city in America... yet he couldn't get over 200,000 people to vote for him!!! LESS THAN 200,000 people voted for him. Perry has gotten more votes than Bill White's whole career in one election!
Plus Rick got more people that voted for him in the primary than ALL people in the Democrat primary alone!
Long story short, good news for Perry, bad news for White, good news for Texas, bad news for DC!
I have now looked at the finance reports, and Bill White is spending inordinate amounts on getting his Facebook fans.
ReplyDeleteI have now looked at Bill White's Facebook posts, and they do not seem authentic. They seem like campaign staff posting attacks against Rick for the most part. Stupid attacks...
ReplyDeleteI think both the author of the blog and the first commenter are wrong.
ReplyDeleteFacebook does not help do anything except make the grassroots of each party who aren't die-hard workers lazy. Clicking "like" is not issue advocacy or candidate support. Glazer is right that facebook can inform your folks, but the "like" function is about as far as people will go en masse.
Facebook "like" is so diluted and commonplace, people simply do not pay attention to it anymore. The only thing it's good for is pushing an item to the top of someone's newsfeed. Sure, candidates would rather have it than not, but a campaign that relies on a facebook army they know nothing about to put them over the top is most likely doomed.
And to take the cursory research to another level, do a sample of White's folks. A lot of out-of-state liberals who probably stumbled upon a Huffington Post article--these folks will never take action. They will click "like" and move about their business.
eh... signs ain't votes. neither are fans and followers.
ReplyDelete