Many experts and non-experts alike are asking themselves the same question – how did U.S. president Barack Obama get reelected? No other president in the U.S. history has managed to get reelected with the country in such a bad economic state and with such high unemployment rates. So how did he do it? How did he beat a specialist in economy, who many believe has what it takes to get the country out of this situation?
There’s no question about it – social media was at the heart of both the candidates’ campaigns. And, by looking at Obama and Romney’s numbers on social media, it seems quite clear who the winner is, by far. So we have to ask ourselves, could social media be the reason why Obama got reelected? And if so, how did he do it?
Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager hinted at the campaigns’ social media plans in an interview with Newsweek, ever since January 2012: “Our efforts on the ground and on technology will make 2008 look prehistoric”, he said. And so they did, we say.
Source: Socialnomics; available at: http://www.socialnomics.net/2012/11/06/politics-gets-social-160-jaw-dropping-facts-about-the-2012-presidential-election/
As you can see, there is no doubt about it – Obama is the clear social media king. The differences between the numbers of likes, followers and views of the two candidates are staggering. But it isn’t just about the numbers; it is also about the engagement of the followers with the candidates. This translates perfectly to businesses, as well. Even if your business has thousands of followers on Twitter, it won’t do your business any good if they aren’t interested in you and your product and they don’t engage with you.
In Obama’s case, he showed that it is possible to have a large number of followers, and to engage with a large proportion of them at the same time. Of course, he is the president of the U.S., which gives him a bit of an advantage. But this doesn’t mean that businesses can’t learn a lot from his social media campaign.
Both candidates focused on the three biggest social media platforms as part of their campaigns: Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Obama, however, also took to Reddit, a very popular social news website, on two occasions: once for an AMA (ask-me-anything), where any of the website’s users could ask him any question and he would answer in real time and again on election day, to urge people to vote.
The two candidates also took to social media to urge people to go out and vote. Obama, however, was more convincing than Romney. The Republican candidate sent out only one tweet to his followers telling them to go vote: “With your help, we will turn our country around and get America back on the path to prosperity. Please vote today”. Obama, on the other hand, sent tweets during the entire election day, even as some polls were starting to shut down in different states and also asked the people that were staying in very long lines (some were four hours long) not to give up. He also went on Reddit again and told the “reddit-ers”, “I’m checking in because polls will start closing in this election in just a few hours, and I need you to vote.”
The two candidates had very different styles of communicating with their audience on social media. For example, Obama preferred to communicate more by text, either with links or just text, while Romney communicated using more photos and videos to communicate with his followers. Many of Romney’s posts were Obama-centered, while only 14% of Obama’s posts were focused on Romney. So how does this relate to businesses? For example, posting a lot more photos than text could give the impression of being more impersonal than taking the time to write a message for your audience. Also, focusing a lot on “slamming” your competition rather than on the qualities that make you unique could make you seem unsure of your own capabilities, and even spiteful.
This does not mean that Romney’s campaign was a complete failure. Rather, his engagement did not relate as well with his online supporters, compared to Obama and he was also not as personal and direct. He also made good use of Facebook marketing, making inspired Sponsored Results, that led to him gaining Facebook likes at twice the rate of Obama.
Social media helps us see more sides of the two candidates, which makes the election seem fairer for the public, and more democratic. In theory, the communication between common voters and the candidates is facilitated with the use of social media. The relationship between the two seems closer than ever. But is it always the case in practice? Not necessarily – social media could be used to get votes for the wrong reasons (like a cool president that knows what a meme is).
The 2012 election has become the most tweeted event in the U.S. political history, even before Obama’s reelection was announced. And, once the victory was clear, Twitter saw an average of 327,453 election-related tweets a minute. This makes it even clearer – social media is an essential part of any marketing campaign, no matter if you are a small business, a Hollywood star or a presidential candidate. Businesses have a lot to learn from the two candidates’ campaigns, both do’s and don’ts.
Lilach
Latest posts by Lilach (see all)
- How to make your website traffic convert into sales - May 22, 2013
- 10 ways to get more engagement on #Pinterest - May 21, 2013
- Google+ new features: hit or miss? - May 17, 2013
5 crazy ways to get Buyers to your website
Subscribe and give yourself an unfair advantage!
10 Responses to How social media elected an unpopular President
Great article Lilach. The article shows exactly how important social media is to every campaign both on the internet and off of it. As you mentioned, every campaign must make sure that they understand their target audience and stay in constant touch with them. Social media is just like any other type of relationship and needs constant attention to flourish. If you can do that, people will identify with you and you will be very successful in growing your business. Social Media is here to stay and the faster you learn how to use it the better your business will grow.
Geek Magazine recently posted..US Scientists Develop Drone that can Avoid Obstacles
Twitter: geekmagazines
Lilach,
Excellent article, but this election was about how social media and the internet helped and hurt each candidate because of their ability to understand and use it. I feel you didn’t get into the weeds of how exactly it worked on both sides, nor other factors involving modern technology.
First, I’ve got to correct your history. You wrote:
“No other president in the U.S. history has managed to get reelected with the country in such a bad economic state and with such high unemployment rates. How did he beat a specialist in economy, who many believe has what it takes to get the country out of this situation?”
That isn’t true. Ronald Reagan was reelected with unemployment at about 7.8% during a recession, though not one like this one. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was reelected twice with a worse economy, and he was reelected a third time just prior to the end of World War II. That was a time of radio, telegraph, and postal mail. Telephones were fairly new, too. He was successful because he took actions that helped the people when they were in dire straights by keeping in touch with them. He spoke to the people through his radio fireside chats, and he listened to them through their letters, in person when he traveled, and through a very different news media than we have today, independent newspapers.
Belief isn’t necessarily based on facts or the truth. Those who believe Mr. Romney was skilled in economics weren’t paying attention to many mainstream economists who said the opposite. Businesses aren’t job creators, consumers are. When consumers buy more, there is a demand for more people to provide the things they buy, and businesses hire more workers. Supply-side economics has never really worked. Mr. Romney’s plan was tried before by President Hoover, whose tax cuts and austerity measures that were supposed to create jobs turned the recession of 1929 into the Great Depression by 1933, and it made him a one-term president.
Yes, Mr. Romney is a successful businessman, but government isn’t a business and can’t be run like one. He falsely believes business and government are pretty similar. He is totally wrong. Government is about listening, serving, and keeping our society moving and taking care of its problems, infrastructure, safety, and most of all, the well-being of its people (providing for the common welfare is in the Constitution). It’s a bottom up organization, not a top-down organization. We don’t have a CEO of the U.S., we have a president. He wasn’t viewed as a good governor of Massachusetts either, if you talk to the people there.
Mr. Romney, his campaign and voters seemed shocked that he lost. They all failed to realize the power of the internet, and it’s power to allow people to mislead themselves, to enter a continuous feedback loop or bubble telling them what they want to hear. They weren’t paying attention to factual information, specifically the 5-6 mainstream news websites that took national and state polls of registered and likely voters, and created running, weighted averages that allowed them to calculate the probability of the number of electoral votes each candidate would receive, and predict the popular vote with a high level of mathematical confidence. The consensus prediction was that President Obama would win the popular vote by a narrow 50.5%, but that he had an 85%+ probability of winning over 310 electoral votes. The popular vote count isn’t complete yet, but as of this writing, the statisticians are within 0.2% of their prediction.
President Obama has, and has had, a 50%+ favorability rating throughout his presidency, even with the bad economy, slow recovery, and Congressional obstruction. He spoke directly to the middle class and poor, and asked for our active help and support. He mobilized an unprecedented ground game of volunteers which he organized through social media, email and text message. He didn’t just ask for money, he asked for involvement. His campaign of $1 billion was 90% funded by individual donations averaging $35 each. That divides out to a lot of votes.
Mr. Romney’s favorability rating never went above 49% during the general election. He accepted very big, private donations from a much smaller group of people, and he raised about $1.2 billion. His average donation per individual isn’t known. It’s a secret because he and his PACs and SuperPACs didn’t disclose that information. In a world of instant information, he hid his donors and their contributions, but he couldn’t hide the fact he was hiding it. He didn’t ask his supporters for their volunteer support to get out the vote for him. He had a poor ground game.
I agree with the importance of social media and engaging your contacts, and it had a lot to do with President Obama’s reelection. But not just for the reasons you discussed. It gives us unprecedented access both ways and from one person to a large group. President Obama and his team understand how important it is to be accessible and responsive to a lot of people on a personal level. It feels entirely different and personal to get a text from the President or First Lady to your phone updating you or asking for your help than to see a commercial on TV.
I think social media harmed Mr. Romney more than it helped him because he didn’t actively engage with his supporters. He doesn’t seem to be a warm and engaging guy. He failed to pay attention to the reality of the country’s and the world’s problems, and respond with sensible solutions. He was stiff, stand-offish, and gave answers to questions that came from the guy who might have just fired you. He also didn’t admit his mistakes in public. President Obama does that and it makes him human and trustworthy. A majority of Mr. Romney’s supporters also don’t use social media. He was appealing to an older, far less tech-savvy or connected crowd. He seemed out of touch with most voters under 50, and he actually was out of touch with them.
I think social media had a lot to do with the outcome of this election. It is a superb case study, and the team that used it well won. The lesson isn’t just do you have a website, facebook page, twitter account, etc. The lesson is are you interested in what your supporters have to say and do you know how to use that information for your maximum benefit. Geek Magazine above summed it up very well.
Sherri Joubert recently posted..President Obama’s Accomplishments for the LGBTQ Community
Twitter: joubess
Great response! I totally agree… President Obama didn’t win because of social media. He utilized social media more effectively than any candidate in presidential history, but that is more about his strategic abilities. Romney lost because the majority of people couldn’t relate to him as a person and being able to fact check and investigate candidate online 24/7 didn’t help him either!
I think it’s worth noting that (at a quick glance) approximately four million of Romney’s video views were regarding the 47% remark. I’m not sure if those ought to be tallied for Romney or for Obama.
I also think it’s interesting to see the variance between Facebook posts for Biden versus Ryan. Immediately following the election, some Republicans started blaming Romney for the loss, saying that he didn’t know how to use Ryan effectively. The fact that Ryan has nearly half as many “likes” as Romney may indicate a fragmented brand, while Biden stayed relatively quiet and let the campaign–and the voters–focus on the President. I might argue that, had the Romney campaign better position the Romney-Ryan ticket as a TEAM or embraced Ryan’s philosophies in his communication more successfully, the election might have swayed the other way.
Finally, I think it’s important to not ignore the role of email marketing, and a particularly superb visual campaign from the Obama campaign that included fund-raising through merchandise and visual communication specifically targeting niche voter markets.
I would suggest that very few people would have decided to vote for Obama based on what they read or saw on social media websites. Younger people tend to vote for Obama and younger people tend to use social media websites, however, I think it’s correlation rather than causation.
Mark Walters recently posted..Off-Site Optimisation
I agree, Mark. Correlation is not necessarily causation. That’s true in any situation.
Sherri recently posted..Coming out is being known–Meredith Baxter’s story
Twitter: joubess
Those are some staggering figures which I can’t not imagine would at least have some impact on the results of the election. Obama dominated this last election to but what impressed my about these figures is Ryan’s numbers (besides videos) are not that far off Romney’s popularity.
Anderson Malone recently posted..An Incredible Value
I have no doubts about the fact that social media can influence on any aspect of our lives, and especially on elections. People try to use it as much as possible and this elections has only proved it once again
Julia Spencer’s recent post.. Email Marketing and Design: Tips for Total Success + Catchy Bonus!
Pingback: How social media elected an unpopular President
Remember Obama’s main talent was being a “community organizer”!