Featur e
Invaluable and real-time focus group Tweets emanated from an epicenter of the politically engaged - a combination of politicians, journalists, pun- dits and political junkies - who provided most of the fresh content and conversation. Most of those tweets were about issues that were easily explained in a finite amount of space. Their messages travelled through networks of Twitter followers into arenas that are otherwise not specifically political. With a single click, followers became rebroadcasters, creating an amplifier effect. The issues that were most “re-tweeted” represented issues that reso- nated most with Canadians. For researchers, analysts and campaign teams in the know, this activity repre- sented an invaluable and real-time focus
group. Forget digital communication and engagement (and my guess is many cam- paigns did), the information that could be mined from Twitter was like gold (and my guess is many campaigns didn’t). One such example is the Conservative campaign against the iPod Tax, launched on April 15. The par-
ty invested heavily in an attack ad which they shared on YouTube. They also built a Facebook Fan Page hoping to build a groundswell of support. Had they been following the online discourse leading up to April 15, they would have noticed tweets on the issue barely registered (roughly 1,200 over 17 days). That in itself was shocking given this was the audience arguably most likely to purchase affect- ed technology. That audience produced only 338 tweets on the issue the day the video was launched. Five days later, the video had been watched only 7,000 times and the Facebook Fan Page boasted only 405 fans. By con- trast, the Liberal Party made-for-web video attacking Ste- phen Harper for screening rally attendees using Facebook amassed 60,000 views the day it was released (April 6). While part of the difference in impact speaks to the
nature of the issues, I believe more of the impact speaks to the tone of the videos and how certain content resonates within the digital culture.
The Velocity Election Like many campaign issues, the iPod tax vanished as quickly as it appeared. The April 11 leak of the draft report on G8 spending resulted in about 4,000 tweets (roughly 24 per cent of Twitter traffic) that day. By the next day, G8- related tweets dropped below 1,500, lower than coalition- related tweets from the first day of the election (2,500). By April 13, the G8 issue was essentially forgotten. These, and many other examples, show how the news cycle has changed and become aligned with what many people call “Internet speed.” Very few issues during this campaign stuck for more than a few days, or a few days at a time. I re- ferred to this as the “velocity election” and more recently I half-jokingly called it the “ADD election.”
Perhaps more significantly, I didn’t see enough mean- ingful communication and community building by politi- cal candidates. In fact, most seemed to treat Twitter as an afterthought rather than part of a larger campaign effort. The real questions though are about the MPs of our 41st session of Parliament. Was Twitter used opportunistically as part of their campaign? Or, is Twitter part of a greater commitment to engage with constituents and stakeholders, building online community and credibility now for 2015?
Mark Blevis is the President of Full Duplex Ltd., an inte- grated digital communications, public affairs and research firm. His report Peace Order and Googleable Govern- ment can be found on
http://markblevis.com.
June 2011 | Campaigns & Elections 17 Perhaps the biggest Twitter story of the election was the
sharing of polling results during the election night media blackout (7pm-10pmET). Section 329 of the Canada Elec- tions Act stipulates that voting results can only be shared within the time zone of their origin until all final polling stations across the country are closed. This provision had its first real run-in with the Internet in 2008 when many Canadians shared results, perhaps without knowing of the law. This time, there was a specific online effort to chal- lenge the relevance of the law. A website was established to encourage Canadians to “Tweet the Results” arguing that the greater the number of participants, the less effective the law and the harder it would be to enforce. Ironically, the owners of that site replaced their commitment to rebroad- cast results during the blackout with a message saying they had decided to not risk coming up on charges.
So, was it the Twitter election? In short, no. Most tweeters were clearly decided voters.
They participated in a political discussion over a digital chan- nel the way friends gather in a pub to chat about the hockey game - nobody does so to pick a new favourite team.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62