WebRoots

Candidates Fail to Take Myspace Seriously

My previous article offered an overview of some choices by the candidates in selecting their Myspace “top-friends”. While I was researching this, I sent out a little note about improving some awful choices in this category. I sent messages to Obama, Clinton and Giuliani.

Here is what was sent to Clinton, with slight variations for the others:

A quick tip, with the utmost respect:

Choose Hillary's 'top friends' more strategically. it looks too official/conceited to have all her top friends be that strategically placed.

Think of bands, famous people, intellectuals - influencers that have trusted opinions. As a young person, I'm less apt to be convinced by sponsoring pages than a trusted/admired voice.

Keep up the good work.

It’s been a couple days, and only Obama’s people have replied. This is what they sent:

Hi,

Thanks for getting in touch and sharing your support! I help the Senator handle the very large volume of messages that he receives on his MySpace. The support and energy of people like you fuel this movement, so thank you for being integral to the amazing strength of this grassroots campaign--let's keep it up!

Please visit my.barackobama.com to find other supporters and events near you.

Thanks,
Francesca @ Obama HQ

While I understand Obama, like the other candidates, are receiving large amounts of messages from users, sending back template messages is a faulty strategy. I would have appreciated even a sentence about the suggestion, rather than an automated response. Still, the other two candidates have yet to respond, automated or not.

Much critique is given to platforms such as Myspace and Facebook on their effectiveness from more traditional campaigners. The argument goes, in short, that these digital communications aren't serious enough to garner real support,  that "friends" don’t matter, and will not translate into votes.

But how are users expected to take the candidates seriously if they themselves ignore communication?

Hype about reconnecting the disenchanted through these platforms is also rampant – that a dialog can be rekindled and enthusiasm reinvigorated. But such a dialog, by definition, is participatory, and it becomes difficult to engage candidates that either ignore you or have a machine respond.

Candidates' "Top Friends"

While having a Myspace page has become standard practice in the ’08 presidential race, designing them correctly seems to be another hurtle altogether.

Rather than offer an inclusive comparison of all the features from the candidates’ Myspace pages, I will focus only on the “top friends” feature.

I understand that something like “top friends” may not seem crucial to the overall campaign, but it does speak to both the candidates’ understanding of the medium and their effort invested in connecting with young voters. 

The largest flub the candidates have committed is choosing only politically-sponsored  groups to be their top friends. The primary offenders of this are: Edwards, Giuliani, Obama and McCain.

There are also several candidates that appear to not have put much energy into their pages, especially the ‘top friends’ consideration. (Tancredo and Biden show exceptional laziness in this category)

Notables

• Mike Huckabee’s top friends include a little boy with a bible titled “Pray for Mike”, and an image of three large-breasted woman  with small tees titled “Fair Tax” – it seems not even the candidates can resist from adding a hot mama or two to their friends.

• Duncan Hunter's top friends include the small of a women’s tattooed back titled “Cash Baq” and Myspace founder "Tom", who automatically appears unless the effort is taken to remove him.

• Bill Richardson snagged John Stewart, who arguably holds more weight than any other endorser.

• Chriss Dodd boasts singer actress Christy Romano as one of his top friends.

• Denis Kucinich has Willie Nelson, Ani Difranco and Writers Guild of America as his top friends.

• Mike Gravel seems to have taken his top friends more seriously. His list includes independent news broadcast “Democracy Now!”, intellectual Noam Chomsky and a “Green Energy Now!”profile.

The ‘top friends’ area is a clear way to display the influencer's—politicians, intellectuals, singers, actors—who support your campaigns. The sad truth is that in the new American political scene, one can garner votes simply by having the appropriate celebrity endorsement. So why not play the game appropriately? Let the people know who has your vote, and you may get ours.

Myspace Campaigning

Well before Myspace announced its new political section, the Impact Channel, in March of this year, the candidates had set up profiles, uploaded pictures and began networking avidly.

Initially, entering Myspace politics was a safe bet: the site is free, and because it caters mostly to the 18-25 year old audience, it provides a good way to reach out to a historically apathetic demographic at no cost.

In the last few years however, things have gotten serious on Myspace. Well, relatively speaking. With the announcement of the Impact Channel, candidates now have a central hub from where to be found, linked to and networked through. Furthermore, and to the excitement of all candidates, Myspace now offers a one-click template for direct campaign donations!

The intrigue is viral

The hope is that when a user adds a candidate as a friends, hosts their banner or their donation-template, the user’s friends will see it, and follow suit. In this way, after the initial seed is planted, a given candidate’s message will spread throughout the digital world, with hopeful ramifications at the ballot box.

If anything, the platform offers the young, politically-disenchanted a new way to engage.

“MySpace has a method of reaching people who are historically not interested in voting” said Tom Anderson, a Myspace founder. “A MySpace profile could excite their interest in ways they are used to. In the same way they learn about their friends, they could learn about a candidate.”

Candidates Face Facebook

After hearing Obama’s announcement to form a presidential exploratory committee, Farouk Olu Aregbe jumped onto facebook, and created a group: “One Million Strong for Barack”.

In less than five days, the group had 10,000 members. By week three, it boasted 200,000 members. As of now, Dec 12, 2007, the group has 404,136 members. Clinton’s group has similar number.

But it’s not just in the numbers. Howard Dean learned this the hard way. He was an internet fundraising sensation, but all the online buzz and money didn’t materialize into actual votes.

Facebook groups may swell, but to what end?

I’m apt to join many groups, and add many facebook applications, but I physically rally behind few of them. 

Facebook offers an identity for the politically lazy.

We can “support” hundreds of causes by simply joining a group or adding an application. After this initial action however, little is generally done. And while I have participated in a multitude of events promoted through facebook, the desire to ignore any superfluous content seems to be the norm.

In order to utilize these groups to their full potential, the candidates need to reach beyond simply aggregating soft-supporter, and excite the politically lazy into taking some action beyond the constraints of facebook itself.

Facebook's Beacon Stirs up Concerns, Presents Opportunity

Nov 6, 2007, Facebook launched their novel marketing system Beacon. The system publishes purchasing information from exterior websites for your friends via the facebook news feeds.

Recently Beacon has received objection from thousands of users and Moveon.org, protesting that the system invades user privacy by publishing exterior site activities in the feeds.

Facebook responded by allowing users to opt-out of the system after making a purchase that would otherwise be published on exterior sites.  Many are still complaining however, saying that the opt-out option is unclear.

Coca Cola recently backed out of the system, stating they did not know users would be given opt-out option. But most participating companies are hoping controversy will cool, that users will learn the system, and that it will be highly effective. 

Within the campaign sphere, such a system could be tweaked to publish activity on political-based sites, including petitions signed and donations made.

Currently, there is an assortment of tools the facebook-savvy campaign can utilize to spread their word. If users learn to tolerate the Beacon system, it may hold great promise in drawing out the politically active from the constraints of facebook itself and into the real, online, world.