Originally posted on November 3, 2011

Do recent changes to Google and Facebook affect political and marketing communicators? Potentially a lot, so let’s take the sites in turn. First Google, which announced today that it’s making major changes to its search algorithms to update its main search index more frequently. Also, results pages for many queries will feature more recent content (including breaking news) over information that might have grown stale.

Overall, this change in emphasis is potentially really useful for users, particularly if Google can follow through on the idea of separating searches for evergreen content (“learning from Obama online campaign PDF“) from those for ephemeral content and recent news (“Herman Cain harassment suit“). One implication for political communicators: this emphasis on the new and the now gives us even more reason to jump on news stories quickly, since Google’s main search function should have a better chance of highlighting relevant recent content. Crank up those blogs and rapid response machines, kids: catch a news wave, and your words might spread far and wide.

Next Facebook, which revamped itself yet again back in September. As Farhad Manjoo points out in Slate today, Facebook’s latest changes emphasize recent content in users’ news feeds over posts from people you might actually like (i.e., friends with whom you’ve interacted with regularly). I’d also argue that the “improvements” appear to be featuring visual content over written, because my feed is now cluttered with photos posted by people I barely know. Manjoo’s article focuses on how the new feed emphasis is leading certain LOLCats-style word/picture combos to go viral, which may be useful for some advocacy and electoral campaigns to know, but it also suggests that our substantive content is LESS likely to get noticed now than before. Great!

Facebook’s solution is to have you “subscribe” to feeds and to set the amount of information you receive from them. Next up for political communicators: begging followers to “subscribe” and to become bosum buddies rather than distant acquaintances. Once again, it’s time to wonder how much it’s worth paying for advertising to get new supporters to “like” your page, potential email list members though they may be. Perhaps the company’s new marketing bootcamps will bring us around to their way of thinking — or else.

Last year, Wired Magazine proclaimed that “The Web is Dead.” The authors of the article argued that although the Internet is alive and well, its users are increasingly turning to simple and semi-closed applications.  Demand for accessing the wide-open Web through browsers is fading.  Instead, we now prefer the type of mobile, streamlined computing available through smart phones and iPads.

One recent marketing trend shows how right the Wired article may be.  More and more, companies are moving away from listing their Web addresses in print and TV advertisements.  Instead, many top brands are pushing their target audiences to a Facebook fan page.

In Volkswagen’s “Meet the Volkswagens” commercial, the company lists its Facebook address on the final shot of the ad: facebook.com/vw.  Procter & Gamble, one of the biggest companies in the world, is now regularly listing Facebook addresses in print and TV advertisements for many of its top products.  According to AdAge, P&G now has more than 15 brands with Facebook followings in the six figures.  Two of its brands — Pringles and Old Spice — had 9 million and 1.3 million, respectively, as of April 2011.

This shift away from using traditional Web addresses as the tagline for advertisements in favor of Facebook URLs is fascinating from a business perspective.  For marketing professionals, every decision boils down to how to best maximize a company’s return on investment (ROI).  Some companies have clearly decided that increasing traffic to their Facebook pages offers a better ROI than driving traffic to their Web sites.  A company as large as P&G would not make this move unless its marketing executives were confident that sending consumers to Facebook is more likely to increase sales.

Part of this ROI calculation likely stems from the type of long-term consumer engagement that Facebook offers for companies.  A potential customer who “likes” a brand on Facebook has effectively integrated the brand into their everyday lives.  Fans will see the brand’s status updates in their News Feeds and may even join a conversation alongside of other brand aficionados.  The potential for this type of long-term engagement may well be what is motivating companies to drive traffic to Facebook, even though a web site offers consumers the chance to actually research and even purchase products.

What does this mean for advocacy organizations?  Every organization should be thinking about whether it would get a better ROI by driving people to its Facebook presence as opposed to its Web site.  We should be thinking about the value of a “like” for our organization on Facebook.  We should be thinking about the return we might get if a member or potential member receives status updates about the organization in their News Feeds.

Even if you think that your Web site offers more value to members and is a better clearinghouse of information, your organization would be well-served to consider using your Facebook URL in marketing materials and emails.  The ROI just might be worth it.

Ownership of TV Sets Falls in U.S. (NY Times)
As more consumers go online to fulfill their entertainment needs, television ownership drops for the first time in twenty years.

Cross-posted from Adfero.com

Facebook and Twitter are clearly two very different social media platforms.  For advocacy professionals in particular, building a community on Facebook is very different than building an engaged following on Twitter.  The Twitter-Facebook divide is best explained by an analogy to two Inside the Beltway publications that represent different but equally important audiences: Politico and National Journal.

Facebook is to Politico…

Although its coverage is focused exclusively on one topic, Politico maintains a broad and diverse audience.  It is read by Inside the Beltway professionals and political junkies everywhere, from D.C. to the South to the Midwest.  In 2009, Politico reportedly had a circulation of 32,000, with 6.7 million unique visitors to its web site per month.

Similarly, Facebook is used by a wide variety of the American public. Your neighbor, your co-worker, even your mother is increasingly likely to be a Facebook user. According to Facebook, the site now has more than 500 million active users.  Fifty percent of those users log in to Facebook on a daily basis.  The sheer volume of activity on the site makes it a no-brainer for advocacy professionals looking to build a large and active following.  Facebook’s mainstream appeal also makes it an easier sell to management: because executives are also likely to know friends and family members who use the website regularly, it is easier for them to recognize the value of building a presence on the site.

… As Twitter is to National Journal.

Twitter, on the other hand, has not gone quite so mainstream.  Although the site continues to grow and was projected to reach 200 million users by the end of 2010, a much smaller percentage of the American public use Twitter on a daily basis. One 2010 study estimated that just 21% of Twitter users are active, with a relatively small number of “power users” responsible for the vast majority of Tweets.

It is easy to see why these statistics might discourage advocacy professionals from dedicating scarce resources and budget to maintaining a Twitter account.  Yet, Twitter users should not be overlooked so quickly.  The key is understanding Twitter’s main advantage.  Unless you are Ashton Kutcher, using Twitter is not about reaching a broad audience like Facebook or Politico.  Instead, Twitter offers a way to engage with a small but influential user base, reflecting the approach taken by National Journal.

Like Politico, National Journal is narrowly focused on political issues.  However, the publication’s readership is much smaller than Politico’s, with its total circulation just under 12,000.  But, those 12,000 readers are primarily made up of the most influential Inside the Beltway figures, including Members of Congress and their staffs and Executive Branch officials.

Obviously, Twitter users are not quite so uniformly prominent.  In general, though, Twitter users do represent a more media-savvy, influential section of the population.  In essence, Twitter is a place to influence the influencers.  Advocacy professionals should not write off Twitter without understanding the opportunities it offers to influence journalists, bloggers, policy wonks, and lawmakers.  For organizations looking to engage meaningfully about policy issues online, Twitter is perhaps the place to start the conversation.

What do you think? Is this a helpful analogy? I would love to hear your thoughts on how public affairs professionals understand the unique value of both Facebook and Twitter.

By Michael Wm. Schick

For the most part, politicians like cameras (unless, of course, they are in trouble). But assuming they are not, they really do like to be in the spotlight. They come alive when the lights turn on and the cameras flash and roll.

As a former press spokesman for a US Senator, I repeatedly witnessed this phenomenon, especially on State of the Union night. One of my jobs was to escort my boss through the shining sea of network and cable camera crews set up in Statuary Hall right outside the House floor, making sure he took full advantage of the interview opportunities surrounding him.

There is something strangely stimulating about being in front of a camera. It’s like an injection of adrenaline.  But during a recent day on Capitol Hill, I witnessed the emergence of a new media stimulant: Twitter. I spent the day shepherding 10 of America’s top mom bloggers to meetings with Members of Congress and their staffs. During the meetings, the bloggers hardly looked at the guest speakers, not because they were rudely checking their emails or texting their friends, but because they were busy transmitting what they were hearing on their smartphones or iPads, tweeting at the speed of light. Some took Twitpics and posted them immediately; some used digital cameras, and then transferred the images from the camera’s memory card to their iPads.

This “Meet ‘N Tweet” event was as real time a “press conference” or “satellite media tour” as any I’ve ever seen. And the Congressmen and staff were eating it up because they knew that somewhere, hundreds of thousands of other moms throughout America were reading their sound bites. Knowing they were being quoted on Twitter motivated them to say something profound and quotable.

I’m not saying Twitter, Facebook, or blogs will replace traditional reporters. But I am saying that the folks on Capitol Hill are taking these tools and the people who use them just as seriously. And that’s great news for participatory democracy. Hooray for the brave new digital world of citizen journalism!

Cross-posted from Adfero.com

On the U.S. Politics on Facebook page, they have a post which tallied the number of Republicans, Democrats and Independents that have voted. I presume this information is coming from their members who have self-identified themselves politically and have clicked on their “I Voted” button.

This got me thinking… could a social media widget like Facebook’s help create a larger wave of voter intensity, given that most people friend those they know and share common interests and values with? And what is the impact of one politically savvy friend on Facebook?

However, not everyone is on Facebook, so could voting tallies of Facebook members be akin to a ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ moment – or could it be more accurate then ever imagined?

I’m also curious to see how the number of likes on a politician’s Facebook page and the number of self-identified voters on Facebook who clicked on the “I Voted” button will translate in real turnout this election day.

There will be a lot of fun data to crunch and new social media campaign strategies that will come about as a result.

The Devolving Meaning of Social Media (Harvard Business Review)
A discussion of how the meaning of “social media” has changed.

Facebook, Amazon and Kleiner Perkins Start $250 Million Fund for Social Innovation (Mashable)
Investment partners recently announced the creation of the sFund, which will support social innovation.

Internet About to Hit 2 Billion Users (CNN)
The number of internet users has doubled in the past five years, according to an International Telecommunication Union report.

FTC enforcement of its new blogger guidelines has involved typically high-profile actions against Anne Taylor LOFT (FTC ultimately taking no action) and Reverb Communications (for allegedly deceptive postings of positive reviews on iTunes for games produced by Reverb clients).

While premature to draw any broad conclusions on the enforcement environment for the new rules, a philosophical problem with the FTC’s new blogger framework is its willful ignorance of the advertising underpinnings of traditional media.

So, for example, while established newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post depend for their credibility on perceived soundness of the journalistic “church-state” divide, readers are almost never proactively alerted to major advertising support from common story subjects in business and politics.  Disclosure more typically comes from investment or ownership relationships, in the form of “full disclosure” statements like that from Ezra Klein when reporting about Facebook (“Disclosure: Washington Post Co. Chairman Donald E. Graham is on Facebook’s board, and The Post markets itself on Facebook.”).  Not, though, from advertising relationships, even major advertisers.

At least not with newspapers.  PBS’ Newshour, NPR and other public news broadcasts commonly disclose underwriting relationships involving story subjects.  However, the same cannot be said of commercial television news broadcasts unless they involve investment or ownership relationships.

Since the underwriting structure of public broadcasting is substantively no different than the advertising relationships of newspapers, commercial television and most media websites, editorial disclosure of the financial support – of any kind – of such media outlets seems equally appropriate.

Citizen Media Law Project, in its coverage of Anne Taylor action, notes that the FTC guidelines limit disclosure to cases where the sponsorship relationship is not “reasonably expected by the audience”.

Put in the context of audience reasonable expectation, this seems rather generously written for the benefit of old-line media, which has relied for generations on the presumption of credibility by its readership much more so than disclosure.

Why then, shouldn’t bloggers be afforded the same benefit of the doubt that newspaper publishers have been given for generations?  Yes, there will always be egregious cases of paid-for “earned media” such as the Reverb case with iTunes.  But it used to be that time and dedicated readership was the ultimate arbiter of media influence.

This all begs the question of why the expectation of the relationship – rather than actual influence – is the measuring stick.