I wish I had the time to uncover all of the links to all of the attempts of the presidential candidates to forge into social media, but I quite frankly don’t have the desire. I write this post after hearing in the background once again on “The O’Reilly Factor” a review of the various forays that both parties have made into the social media sphere in hopes of appearing hip and reaching out using this “new technology.” I have to stop and laugh at the concept and try to discern as to whether I should be happy that for the first time the candidates are making SOME real attempt at using the Internet, or cringing at the fact that again, they just don’t get it.
Those that follow me and my posts here and elsewhere on the web and in articles know how I feel about this, and I will say it again. You canNOT take your TV commercials, made as advertising campaigns, and pop them up on YouTube and call it “social media.” It’s the consistent mistake that marketers, agencies, companies big and small, and even the so called “experts” in this space make over and over. They miss the biggest part of the definiton: a TWO WAY conversation. And no, allowing comments that have been pre-screened to insure that they only speak to your expressed opinion do NOT count.
If candidates REALLY want to use social media and reach constituents they would open up a real dialaogue or offer up a frank Q&A discussion on their sites, or inside of their cute little Facebook/myspace accounts and allow ALL commentary to come through – and…now wait for it…ANSWER them in real format (not just some crafty answer contrived by writers that really aren’t as clever as those were on “The West Wing” such as even dare I say our staff to really not answer a question at all.
Personally, I think that debates and all content on a site for anyone running for office should operate like this. In a debate, you are asked to take a position – YES or NO – on things that pop up in those overpriced polls that change by the minute. If you don’t answer, or if you give some round about “answer” that doesn’t REALLY answer the question, then you are out. Game over. ”Are you pro-choice or pro-life?” There are two answers, period. Even if you scale your answer to have a “in this instance,” or “at some times…” then it’s still falls to one side of the fence. Your navigation toward the middle one way or the other we can all figure out on our own.
And in social media – answer the questions. Read the commentary. Respond to those taking the time to allow for TWO-WAY conversation. Don’t stick your dang overpriced, overproduced, contrived messages in my face on YouTube and call it social media. Call it what it is: more advertising placed in a different medium!
Oh, and lucky you that the medium is FREE…wouldn’t it be nice if YouTube could command the same rates to blatant advertising posts for people with ad budgets in the same viewer ratio? Wow…that would really mess with everyone. But that’s another post…for another day.
