'Memes' the Word for Today's Political Donors

Donors to political campaigns and causes are being drawn to a new strategy for political influence: viral digital. In addition to funding TV ads and PACs, The New York Times reports that deep-pocket donors are now bankrolling partisan organizations that specialize in creating catchy, shareable memes, messages and videos, especially on social media platforms. Outfits ranging from Occupy Democrats to the alt-right Milo Inc. are gathering donors who hope that their streams of aggregated links, captioned images and short videos will garner funds, votes and real-world action. While operatives across the political spectrum are being attracted now, the bandwagon got rolling with the Trump campaign's success with Twitter and other social platforms, to the point where a study found that nearly two-thirds of the most popular election tweets were either anti-Clinton or pro-Trump. The Times story cites many new participants from the left/progressive side of the aisle today, including David Brock, a well-known Democratic operative, who started an effort last year to raise $40 million to support Shareblue, a left-wing viral news outfit to rival alt-right publisher Breitbart. And there's John Sellers, a left-wing organizer and former Greenpeace activist, who started a Facebook page called The Other 98% to promote environmentalism and other progressive causes, which now boasts 5 million followers and funding of its nonprofit affiliate by donors such as billionaire George Soros-backed Open Society Foundations. The low cost for potentially high impact is especially attractive to causes and donors. Per the Times, Stand Up America, a progressive group run by Sean Eldridge, husband of Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, reaches, on average, 10 million people weekly by only spending "in the low six figures" to produce a Facebook page of shareable graphics and news. For more detail, read the full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/06/business/media/political-donors-put-their-money-where-the-memes-are.html

Political Campaigns Face Social Media Changes

Social media strategy is essential for the success of political campaigns and causes today. As the Pew Research Center reports, a majority of Americans now say they get news via social media, and half of the public turned to social media sites to learn about the 2016 presidential election. Social success in 2016 doesn't mean campaigns can rest on their laurels, however. A Digital Information World post by Anthony Bergs--including a handy infographic from CJG Marketing--cites a list of social media changes and trends that political marketers should include in 2017 strategies. For example, improved social targeting got a lot of buzz in 2016, with campaigns embracing the effectiveness of Facebook's “Lookalike” audiences. But in 2017, machine learning, artificial intelligence and access to increasing amounts of data--from demographics and behavior all the way to forecasting of intent-- will support even more precise ad targeting, provided campaigns make the investment in audience data and analytics. The response-getting power of digital video is well-proven, so it's no shock that 48% of marketers are planning to add YouTube videos in 2017.  Campaigns and causes would be wise to also invest in an internal or external video content development team and live streaming,  now available on social platforms such as Facebook, Twitter's Periscope, YouTube and Snapchat. Next to video at the top of social marketing agendas this year is "influencer marketing," with 84% of marketers planning at least one social media influencer campaign to find and leverage sources of followers and engagement. One reason for the influencer search is that the ability to generate free organic traffic via social media is waning thanks to social platform algorithms favoring paid ads and squeezing out organic content. With Facebook and Twitter offering just 2% to 4% organic reach for posts in 2016 (and falling), most political budgets need to include paid social ads. But here's good news: Chatbot technology is on the horizon and promises to handle a mass volume of user conversations one-on-one with customized content; Facebook's current Messenger bot is a harbinger of more to come. For more social media trends, check out the article and infographic at http://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2017/01/infographic-social-media-marketing-trends.html

Targeted Digital, TV Ads Mark Political Milestones

In 2016, major political campaigns that don't embrace targeted, programmatic digital and media advertising are simply on the wrong side of history, implies a recent Adweek article. The article presents an evolution of political advertising compiled by Videology, a digital video ad platform that works with political campaigns on both sides of the aisle. There's a handy infographic that starts back before the Founding Fathers promoted revolution and shows how technology is speeding up and raising the stakes. You can see that the first meetings of Massachusetts town halls in 1633 have been replaced by Facebook town halls with national reach. James Polk unveiled a durable political tool, the first campaign slogan, back in 1844, but 2016 campaigns that want to leverage a rallying cry turn it into a hash tag for millions of Twitter followers. And since presidential contenders George W. Bush and John Kerry invited voters to their dueling websites in 2004 nomination speeches, and President Barack Obama inaugurated a social media strategy to woo younger voters in 2008, political digital advertising has exploded. In fact, spending on political digital advertising is expected to top $1 billion for the first time in 2016. More than half the digital ad budget will be used to target social media sites this year, the infographic reveals. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower launched the first TV political ads, and now, per Borrell Associates, the bulk of the projected $11.7 billion spent for political ads in the 2016 election cycle will go to local broadcast television at $5.9 billion. That's a spending record, but the increased use of TV ad targeting technology is what Videology spots as the significant shift; Hillary Clinton's campaign especially now uses addressable TV advertising to target TV ads to specific households based on demographics and set-top boxes. Adweek quotes Videology's Mark McKee, SVP of North America: "This idea of more addressable ways of which to connect consumers is something that, hands down, everyone is talking to us about. It's not about these mass market pushes that they're thinking about and strategizing most of their time. It's much more about 'Where are the places that we need to make the biggest difference with a very targeted message?'" For the article and infographic, go to http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/infographic-town-halls-targeting-political-advertising-has-come-long-way-172283

How Presidential Hopefuls Score on Social Media

Social media has been making political news in 2016, from Donald Trump's controversial tweets to Bernie Sanders' millennial "like"-ability. So how do all the presidential hopefuls compare in terms of their social media ground game? In a recent Fortune magazine article, the analytics team of Hootsuite social media management rated the candidates on five key categories of social performance: impact, engagement, reach. sentiment, and authenticity. It should be no surprise that GOP front-runner Donald Trump comes out on top, using social media as part of a three-pronged strategy of interdependent, mutually reinforcing use of rallies, media coverage and social buzz. On the theory that any type of attention is better than no attention, Trump wins with impact, reach and authenticity, even though he is weaker than other candidates on engagement and sentiment (more negative social mentions). Close on Trump's heels is Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders, who succeeds with strong engagement, impact and authenticity, despite lack of a planned strategy. Bernie's young followers have created a collective social energy for him that his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton can envy. Nevertheless, Democratic leader Clinton comes in third overall thanks to her huge reach (second only to Trump); she has 3.1 million Twitter followers, 3.1 million Facebook likes, successful use of Instagram and early embrace of Snapchat. She also scores higher on positive sentiment. Meanwhile, Republican Ted Cruz trails in fourth place with weak reach and tepid sentiment inspiration; Cruz counts just 3.2 million followers on Twitter and Facebook compared with Trump’s 14.5 million, for example. And John Kasich is dead last, in delegates and social power, with just 292,000 followers on Twitter and 286,000 likes on Facebook. For the detailed analysis, read http://fortune.com/2016/04/18/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-social-media/

Political Digital: Why Google, Facebook, Twitter Rule

Political campaigns are forecast to spend over $1 billion on digital advertising this election cycle, and they have more online, social and mobile options than ever before. But so far, just three platforms are set to claim most of the political digital ad spend--Google, Facebook and Twitter--reports AdExchanger, a digital marketing trade publication. Political campaigns tend to end up with Google or Facebook even if they buy via a political ad network or independent media/technology seller, the report notes. One reason is that political ad buying involves long-term planning and reserved buys of short duration, which is very different from the iterative testing and optimization that independent agencies are used to handling for brand advertisers. The leading digital platforms also have benefited this election from the disruptive impact of "earned media," the free coverage that GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump used in trouncing the Rubio and Bush campaigns despite their big paid-media spends. Paid-media effectiveness doubts have sent political operatives looking for safe bets--and that benefits proven digital media incumbents. The Digital Big 3 have further honed their edge by aggressively hiring political insiders with Democratic or Republican connections in building their account teams. The AdExchanger article cites recent VP of policy hires such as a GOP congresswoman for Google, a George W. Bush aide for Facebook, and a senior Democratic aide for Twitter. Plus, Facebook and Google have developed new tools specifically tailored to politicos. Facebook offers targeting of "political influencers" who actively consume and share political news on the platform, and, new for 2016, voter file matching. Meanwhile, Google has introduced a beta tool just for presidential candidates, Posts, which gives them some control over which content is displayed in a search of their name. For more, read http://adexchanger.com/politics/three-big-web-companies-are-dominating-political-ad-budgets/

Marketing Pro Ranks GOP Hopefuls' Social Efforts

Social media branding is a must-have for today's presidential hopefuls, so how are the leading GOP contenders doing from a purely marketing standpoint? A recent MarketingProfs article by Jeremy Page, a network marketing blogger, provides one political outsider's ranking of the top six Republican presidential candidates based just on social media marketing performance. You may not agree with the rankings, but there are lessons worth gleaning. For example, Page puts Jeb Bush at the tail end of GOP contenders based on a lackluster social media presence (just 363,000 Twitter followers) and policy-oriented posts that create a persona without emotional resonance. Social media, especially Twitter, "isn't the place to be overly sensible and pragmatic," warns Page. Marco Rubio comes in fifth place with his strategy of keeping an uncontentious, low profile while building a social following (over 1 million Twitter followers). Page urges Rubio to do more to reinforce his brand as a "candidate of the people" with retweets and posts that leverage "your community for your social media content." Fourth place is awarded to long-shot Carly Fiorina for using social media to push a persona of openness, showcasing her willingness to answer questions via Q&As on niche, real-time streaming platforms like Periscope, for example. Ted Cruz gets a No. 3 position for an innovative digital strategy that stresses crowdfunding and gamification. Via Cruz Crowd, followers can recruit friends to join a personal Cruz Crowd donation page and then monitor money raised via Facebook and Twitter, plus earn game badges. With the competitive Cruz Crew app, players earn points based on actions to spread the word. Ben Carson is No. 2 thanks to his use of Facebook to leverage 4.6 million fans (compared with Hillary Clinton's 1.5 million and Trump's 3.8 million Facebook followers) via heartfelt long-form letters, plus polls and petitions to collect e-mail addresses. At the top of the heap is (no surprise) Donald Trump, who presents his tax plan on Periscope, hosts #AskTrump Q&As, and rallies fans on Facebook and Twitter with unfiltered "real" posts that keep him constantly in the media spotlight (for free). Page's takeaway: "Use social media to be controversial and troll the media." For more, see http://www.marketingprofs.com/articles/2015/29033/ranking-gop-presidential-candidates-according-to-digital-strategy

'Mobile' Electorate Is 2016 Game-Changer

The growth of mobile phone ownership is a definite game-changer for 2016 election campaigns, advises a recent Politico blog post by Dylan Byers. With 64% of Americans owning a smartphone and 68% of smartphone users following breaking news events, campaigns have both unprecedented messaging opportunities and tougher challenges. How different this election will be from 2012 is clear when Byers points out that only four years ago, during the 2012 election primaries, just 35% of Americans owned a smartphone! Per a quote from Chris Lehane, Democratic strategist and Clinton White House alum: "Mobile is going to be the big thing in 2016. It is what any sophisticated campaign will be trying to figure out and then maximize in 2016--and all the campaigns from both parties will be in a race to see who can figure out the tools to best lever the power of mobile." However, mobile clearly will be a double-edged sword in 2016 politics. On the one hand, big data targeting will be even more powerful when applied to mobile ads, donations and campaign organizing. Campaigns can use mobile to deliver quick, direct, highly targeted messages and videos to voters. On the other hand, campaigns and causes also face the risk of live streaming video gaffes, uncontrolled access by "citizen reporters," and more fast and furious partisan attacks. To that point, Byers first cites remarks by former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer that mobile will create greater engagement opportunities with millennials. He then quotes Henry Blodget, editor and CEO of Business Insider, as he warns: "Gaffes will blow up even faster. Partisan rooting will be even quicker and more intense. Anonymous trolls will swarm Twitter and brand any news story that is not highly flattering to their team as 'bias.'" For good or ill, political observers agreed, mobile has fundamentally changed 2016 political strategy. See the complete post: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/the-mobile-election-how-smartphones-will-change-the-204855.html

In Targeted Donor Race, E-mail Still Beats Social

With political campaigns and causes expected to spend up to $1 billion on digital efforts for the 2016 races, npr.org's James Doubek recently discussed the impact on the political marketing landscape. Thanks to social networks, campaigns are now able to enhance static data--voter lists and consumer behavior--with personal "engagement" data. To explain the advantage, Doubek quotes Will Conway, lead organizer at NationalBuilder, a political digital platform provider: "If this person subscribes to Field & Stream and he drives a Ford F-150, there's a high percentage chance that he's a veteran. Well, if in his Twitter bio he says he's a veteran, you know he's a veteran." So it's no wonder 2016 campaigns are spending on hyper-targeted Facebook and Twitter promotion (plus Snapchat, YouTube and more) to influence voters. But when it comes to raising money, e-mail is still the "king." "Nothing comes close" to an e-mail list, Michael Beach, co-founder of Targeted Victory, a Republican digital campaign firm, explains to Doubek, adding, "Our campaigns will do 70%-plus of their fundraising through e-mail." Back in 2012, Obama gathered 90% of his online donations from e-mails. And this time around, the e-mail list targeting is likely to be more refined and efficient. For example, Hillary Clinton's team has a 5 million-person e-mail list, but the average e-mail blast only goes to 780,000, because e-mail messages are tailored by factors such as interests and likelihood of donating. Read the complete news story: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/28/426022093/as-political-campaigns-go-digital-and-social-email-is-still-king

For Media Clout, Rand Twitter Ads Target Reporters

Twitter may not be the political heavyweight in social media, with 300 million users compared to Facebook's 1.4 billion, but Republican Sen. Rand Paul, one of the crowd of GOP 2016 presidential hopefuls, is hoping to enlarge his media footprint with the Twitter ad platform. How? He's directly targeting messages to certain journalists, using a list "uploaded into Twitter's ad platform of journalists," according to a story in The Hill, an influential Washington-based political website. Reporter David McCabe quotes Paul's Chief Digital Strategist Vincent Harris: "We have even created lists of journalists in early primary states, working with the communications team. And it's a really good cheap, effective, targeted way to get a piece of content out there in front of people that you want to see it--journalists who are going to help with their megaphone push a piece of content out further." Rand Paul is following in the footsteps of President Obama's reelection campaign in this respect; Obama digital strategists also used Twitter to try to influence political junkies and journalists. For more, read http://thehill.com/policy/technology/247839-rand-pauls-campaign-directly-targets-reporters-with-ads-on-twitter

Want to Tap Millennial Politics? Go to Facebook

If they want to get on the Millennial generation's political radar, campaigns need to go to Facebook. A recent Mashable article cites the evidence of social media's grip on Millennial politics with the latest Pew Research Center study, which found that 61% of Millennials, those born between 1981 to 1996, said they get political news from Facebook at least once a week. That social media preference easily outpaced the 37% of political input from local TV, the preferred medium of Baby Boomers, those born between 1946 to 1964. In fact, Millennials and Baby Boomers are mirror opposites in terms of preferred political news sources, with Boomers getting 60% of their political news from local TV and only 39% from Facebook. The study, in which Pew surveyed 3,000 people, also found that the Millennial age cohort tends to recognize fewer news outlets, with less awareness of half of the 36 sources that Pew asked about when compared to the Boomers and Generation X group (those born between 1965 and 1980). The report also polled Millennials on how much they trust different news outlets. Among the most recognized and trusted, CNN led (trusted by 60%, distrusted by 16%, with 19% in the middle). Next in trust were the news divisions of ABC, NBC, and CBS. Lowest trust went to digital sources like BuzzFeed and conservative media like the Rush Limbaugh Show. Among the top social media players, Facebook outdistanced Twitter, with just 14% of Millennials saying they got political news via tweets. For more, read http://mashable.com/2015/06/01/millennials-facebook-politics-pew/

Will Meerkat Be a 2016 Campaign Game-Changer?

Social media is abuzz over Meerkat, a new service that allows users to stream live video directly from their smartphones to Twitter followers. Now Twitter has come up with  Periscope, its own rival, video streaming app.  So broadcasting an event doesn't require a satellite truck and expensive satellite time anymore; a mobile phone user can do it, as easily as texting, tweeting and Instagram posting. If the 2008 presidential election "was about Facebook, and 2012 was about Twitter, 2016 is going to be about Meerkat (or something like it)," declares Dan Pfeiffer, former senior adviser to President Obama, in a Backchannel post on medium.com. He foresees four potential impacts on 2016 political campaigns: 1) political coverage moves into the hands of Everyman, as any campaign moment at any time, such as Romney's "47%" faux pas, can be captured live and aired unfiltered for anyone to see, anywhere; 2) the line between TV and print coverage blurs further, as print reporters use Meerkat's live video to supplement their posts and tweets; 3) political engagement of millennials, who are inseparable from their mobile devices, increases as media and campaigns stream content directly to their mobile phones; and 4) the value of Twitter followers goes way up. If even 10% of Twitter users join Meerkat (or Periscope), Pfeiffer points out, that's a live video audience of almost 6 million for campaigns to reach without the filter of broadcast and cable. For the full post: https://twitter.com/medium/status/578526586674118656

Can Campaigns Tap Instagram's Growing Clout?

Social media's political strategy has been so dominated by Facebook and Twitter that campaign marketers may have missed the swift rise of another social platform: Instagram. Thanks to a post by Aaron Blake on The Fix blog of The Washington Post for pointing out the growing political potential of Instagram. While Facebook still corrals the most Internet users, Instagram's photo-sharing service has now surpassed Twitter in terms of total users, per the Pew Research Center's 2014 data. More significantly, Pew found that Instagram's demographics skew strongly toward younger voters (53% of 18- to 29-year old Internet users), minorities (38% of African-Americans and 34% of Latinos, compared with 21% of white Internet users) and women (more women use Instagram than men). Those are the groups that made up the supposed "Obama coalition," and both Democrats and Republicans are courting them for a 2016 win. So no one should be surprised that, in his recent State of the Union address, President Obama concluded his praise for astronaut Scott Kelly's yearlong stay in space to prep for a Mars mission by telling Kelly, "Make sure to Instagram it." Campaign marketers may want to take the hint and start planning how to reach Instagram's key voting blocs by sharing some persuasive images. For details of Pew's social media data, read http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/04/why-the-two-parties-need-to-figure-out-instagram-now/

How Campaigns Can Avoid Common Twitter Gaffes

Twitter is a quick and easy tool for political campaigns seeking to capture and engage followers. But caution is needed. Common Twitter mistakes can mute positive buzz, or even turn it into a stinging swarm of criticism! Thanks to onlinecandidate.com for alerting campaigners to five common Twitter mistakes. At the top of the list is tweeting from the wrong account. It seems obvious, but candidates, campaign managers and support groups may have multiple accounts -- personal, campaign-specific and even business-related. So make sure to log into the correct account before firing off a tweet. Another dangerous error is confusing a direct message with a general tweet. Anthony Weiner suffered the consequences of this gaffe when a scandalous photo posted to his general Twitter account. Indeed, it's best to assume that any tweet, even direct posts, may not remain private. Error No. 3: Overly emotional venting. It's good to inject personality into communications, but tread lightly. Whining, raging or just plain mean tweets do not win friends or influence positively. And be careful with humor; offensive stereotyping is an obvious no-no, but a joking tone also risks making a campaign seem flippant about issues followers take seriously. Obviously, avoid profanity! Next, if growing campaign followers is the goal, don't let numbers fool you. Having over a million followers doesn't translate into a million votes. Campaigns should pay attention to the metrics (you can measure traffic and re-tweet metrics with tools like Klout, Tweetreach and Twitalizer), but don't focus solely on ROI. Put quality ahead of quantity to reap the intangible benefits of awareness, engagement and relationship building. For the article and links to more Twitter tips, go to http://www.onlinecandidate.com/articles/5-common-twitter-mistakes

Even Social Sites Divide Along Party Lines

Social media is a must for political campaigning today, but it turns out that most social platforms are not unbiased forums, according to a recent survey by the Harvard Institute of Politics as reported in a New York Times post. According to the Harvard survey, Democrats prefer to share on Google Plus and Twitter, while Republicans are Pinterest fans. Facebook is both the most popular and most politically neutral social media environment, with 87% of Republicans and 87% of Democrats saying they use the site. Snapchat also appeals equally to smaller portions of both parties (24% Democrats and 23% of Republicans). But most of the rest of the social media world is dominated by Democrats, with Google Plus (52% of Dems; 36% of GOP), Twitter (46% of Dems; 38% of GOP), Instagram, WhatsApp and Tumblr all more popular with the left side of aisle. Only Pinterest garners more interest from Republicans (40%) than Democrats (32%), and social observers theorized that this may be because 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife often used it during their campaign. Bottom line: Candidates and causes seeking to corral supporters should consider the political bent of social media options when committing resources. See the full post at http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/the-political-preferences-of-social-media-sites/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Social Media Political Trends to Watch in 2014

It's a given that social media will play a role in 2014 politics, but new apps, new players and new trends are already changing the social game learned in 2012. A Social Media Today post by Jane Susskind, of IVN News, lays out some predictions to help guide campaigns' social media planning. While Facebook and Twitter dominated political campaigning in 2012, watch for Google Plus to take a bigger role this year, she predicts. Not only is Google Plus now the second largest social network in the world, it will be running Google Plus ads on the Google Display Network, which includes over 2 million sites, making it more appealing for political ads. Those chasing the youth vote turned to Facebook in 2012, but recent studies show that young adults are leaving Facebook for social networks such as Instagram and Vine, Susskind reports. No wonder trendsetters Sen. Cory Booker and Gov. Chris Christie have been showcasing their expertise on Instagram. Clearly, pictures will matter as much or more than words in 2014 social media. Posts that include photo albums receive 180% more engagement than the average post, and Barack Obama's most popular tweet was a photo of him with Michelle, notes Susskind. So campaign strategists should start coming up with visual impact as well as slogans. That includes videos, especially micro-videos. Twitter’s Vine and Facebook’s Instagram, both limiting videos to 15 seconds or under, are examples of networks that could be used by politicians for quick, real-time connections, as opposed to long-form TV ads. And some social media vehicles that worked well in 2012 will work even better in 2014, predicts Susskind. Take Twitter as an example. As of November 2013, one in 10 Americans got their news from Twitter, she points out, and Twitter continues to offer politicians a way to get the word out, react quickly to events and attacks, and generate real-time response from a growing crowd of followers. For the complete post, go to http://socialmediatoday.com/jane-susskind/2030916/5-ways-social-media-will-change-political-campaigns-2014

Campaign Message Control Tough in the Twitter Age

The days when a political campaign could control its message by catering to the journalist "boys on the bus," with handouts, press briefings and prepared sound bites, has vanished. Now every campaign must face a blogging, tweeting, sharing mass of professional and self-appointed reporters everywhere, all the time -- which makes it hard to sustain a controlled narrative. A recent New York Times article sums up: "Because of the relentlessness of the schedule, the limited access and the multi-platform demands, many of the boys and girls on the bus are in fact boys and girls. And the bus they ride is Twitter." The media has become "one giant, tweeting blob," in the words of Peter Hamby, a political reporter at CNN. "With Instagram and Twitter-primed iPhones, an ever more youthful press corps, and a journalistic reward structure in Washington that often prizes speed and scoops over context, campaigns are increasingly fearful of the reporters who cover them," Hamby wrote in a report quoted by the NYT story. Mitt Romney's campaign failed to handle this social media-driven journalism by trying to fence off the candidate and alienating the young, inexperienced reporter "embeds." The Obama campaign did better with a proactive social-media-attuned approach. It's an important lesson for campaign marketers looking to the next elections. For the rest of the story, see http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/business/media/campaign-journalism-in-the-age-of-twitter.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0