I think many campaigns jumped into the social networking thing because they thought they needed to be there. To many, it was a fad, or a gimmick, or a box to check-off on the web plan. For the most part, campaigns want to raise money on the web, the rest is bells and whistles.
On the other hand, and unlike many newspapers' comment sections, Rich is committed to the concept. It isn't a gimmick, and he's worked pretty hard to make it a place where good information is exchanged as well as a healthy, civil debate of issues his community cares deeply about.
I guess the short answer is that it's hard work. Those willing to put the effort in will get something useful out of it. Those that don't will get a lot of headaches and probably shouldn't have tried in the first place.
Hack
· 2 months ago
Unfortunately, what I've found is that much of my time working on campaigns and monitoring blogs/Facebook is dealing with these serial posters more than anything else. A close second is online polls that allow someone to erase their cookies and continue voting. Especially when the host site is absolutely clueless and keeps a poll open for several days.
These posters generally ruin any legitimate discussion and value of such, and it just eats up time of any campaigns dedicated enough to continuously monitor everything.
Because your site is policed so closely, it becomes one of - if not - THE most useful sites to keep up with what's going on.
Anonymous
· 2 months ago
========== A close second is online polls that allow someone to erase their cookies and continue voting. ==========
My all-time "pet peeve". I did some basic research on the "Ron Paul" phenomenon. No offense to his supporters, but did you see what his electronics polls looked liked? It was as if someone set stacking up numbers as their primary objective during the last push. Oy!
Brooke
· 2 months ago
To have a prayer of utilizing social media effectively means you need to be open for discussion, which sometimes means you must let go of the message. Candidates that get the most posts & interest usually say something that evokes a response-or asks for one-- which in turn can allow all the people who are connected to that candidate on FB to have a small stake in the campaign. (When a person takes time to comment, it means they care!)
Obviously, releasing message control has risks, as people can post negative comments like Rich notes, but what is worse is having a page that is not connecting with people at all or simply "talking at" people-- that defeats the entire purpose of social media!
Ghost
· 2 months ago
TO me it looks ready to backfire no matter what you do. If you police posts as a politician, people will claim you are trying to silence the truth and are unable to address the truth etc etc. If you do not police it you create a a negativtivty war between supporters and detractors. None of that in the end would bode well.
I might consider starting smaller, provide a private forum for posting/bloggin with contributors. it will still have probelms, but has a higher chance of success
Marie Carnes
· 2 months ago
Rich, I think one of the reasons you have such a great community here is that, besides just banning the horrendous, you actually get in here and interact with them in the comments. It makes for intelligent conversation and exchange of ideas.
As an avid reader of blogs, and especially blogs about politics, I've developed an appreciation for the rare political candidate who does allow comments. It gets even better when the candidate replies to the comments. What I don't like is when a blog post piles up with inane and useless comments. To me, it looks like the pol (or in his absence, his web person) thought he could just throw something on the blog and walk away. This looks bad and doesn't bear well on the pol and how he thinks about his constituents and their issues.
Shore
· 2 months ago
The next big job in political campaign strategy is how to rule the web with blogs like this, TeamAmerica's-which has broken more news about the Lake County political scene than the msm the last 2 years, facebook, twitter ect.
You almost need to have a social media warroom now monitoring other campaigns tweets, blog stories that emerge, facebook posts and be able to respond and know when something is gaining traction and not. This is talk radio and CNN in the early 90's and whoever does well with it is going to have a major advantage-Pat Brady an early project perhaps.
You are smart to have a daily tweets/social media since people follow that and a lot of times it's people noting meetings they've been in or gatherings that might not make a paper but are important nonetheless.
Anonymous
· 2 months ago
======= ...Pat Brady an early project perhaps. =======
Interesting point. Does anyone know generally how political party and org websites do with hits? That'd be interesting to research, if someone hasn't done so already.
Strictly based on gut, I'd say that the Chicago Young Republican website is pretty popular. Extremely active group that's growing quickly; lots of pictures, great website with an events calendar, etc. etc.
Other sites, wow! to a lesser degree with some getting close to even a bit predictable re: message and other content.
Shore
· 2 months ago
I think you ignore media technology at your own peril. If Republicans didn't have talk radio, we'd have a very different country right now.
OriginalBill
· 2 months ago
Yeah, it would be much more civil.
VanillaMan
· 2 months ago
FLAG! FLAG! FLAG!
Rich Miller
· 2 months ago
Bill's on fire today. lol
wordslinger
· 2 months ago
More Republican, no doubt.
Abe Froman
· 2 months ago
First, visitors who are already decided about a candidate (which is most visitors) will not be swayed by comments, just as few of us a persuaded by our opposite numbers here.
Second, when truly independent voters, looking for information about a candidate see the vitriol, (if poll numbers about independent voters are accurate) many will be turned off by the venom.
Third, it's all relatively academic since web sites as of now are not close to being the primary place voters get their info. (not to say they won't be some day soon)
Levois
· 2 months ago
I would rather be able to connect with political candidates via social networking than just having to check their website every so often. I never thought about the dimensions regarding commenting. Surely the last thing any aspiring politician wants are some negative comments directed at them.
YDD
· 2 months ago
I think John Fritchey probably does one of the best jobs of any elected official/candidate when it comes to utilizing social media for communications.
I would say: Don't be on FB, Twitter, or anywhere else unless you need to be there -- to raise money, reach voters, or influence the message.
Not every candidate and every campaign NEEDS to reach those voters. But if your election depends on younger voters, less frequent voters, and voters who are more libertarian, you probably should think about it.
editor in chief
· 2 months ago
This is not meant to be snarky in any way, Rich. But the AP Stylebook has an entry for "Facebook," not FaceBook. Being in the editing business, seeing it with two capital letters always trips me up. Just wanted to let you know!
Rich Miller
· 2 months ago
Meh. I care not. lol
grammar monger
· 2 months ago
The StyleBook, I mean, Stylebook also reminds use to "Web site" instead of "website," but I dare you to go to the mat on that one and come back feeling any better.
muon2
· 2 months ago
There is another option for candidates who want to engage an online audience but understand to police/don't police problem. That option is to frequent a third party website that is reasonably well policed. If the pol posts regularly, readers will come to find the politician there.
Anonymous
· 2 months ago
Absolutely, but don't forget that with the number of political blogs that are up, videos that are posted by just about everyone with a camera, newspaper sites with comments sections, etc., Campaigns need to consider the time it takes to scan everything--and where required, respond. You obviously need to ID priorities based on hits the sites receive, audiences, etc.
And, you have to figure out how to handle the message you want to send in response--fairly quickly. Don't forget that the sites are making the calls on topics more often than not today--on blogs, especially--because they're not necessarily working from the Campaign's press releases. Newspapers are a bit easier from that perspective.
What a change in less than 10 years!
Anonymous
· 2 months ago
==== “Don’t do it unless you can police those comments 24/7.” ====
At first, I was going to say that I agree, but then thought about it and decided "no" was probably best overall from a campaign website perspective.
I remember a consulting firm that experimented with using a blog for someone's campaign a few years ago. Not that I know for sure, but I think one of the objectives might have been to get "on top of rumors" earlier v. later.
It seemed to start out as open blog that got filled up with drive-bys very quickly--and everyone began complaining about the "unfairness" of the deletions (which occurred infrequently because of the time commitment required).
They then switched to more of an issues-based forum to try to keep folks focused. That failed, too, for pretty much the same reason as the open blog--and it really got old quickly because the discussion eventually boils down to nothing more than "our/your Candidate is right/wrong" on that issue. Every once in a while, you'd get a reason why. And, how can one even respond to "right, wrong, right, wrong" after a while?
There were obviously rumblings when they took it down, but it was definitely a good call to do so. Even if you're totally committed to supporting open dialog, the quality of the comments seems to get so bad that it reflects poorly on the campaign overall--even if most are agreeing.
Anonymous
· 2 months ago
I'll add, too, that the right answer is grounded in objectives--just as all communications are. A blog like CapFax is there to promote great debate on current issues re: Illinois.
Campaign websites are comparable to the paper-based stuff with a bit more detail usually designed to push information out (and don't forget pictures, which are always popular with people--even opposition, drawing a crowd you'd never expect visit).
Constituent sites, I'd imagine, are a bit trickier (for me anyway). I'd imagine to do well, you'd have to not only push info out, but perhaps strive to open up dialog as well. That can probably be handled through well-thought out policies that explain why things will be deleted and perhaps even, when (e.g., you can monitor comments regularly per policy (which again is time-consumming); or you can choose to publish everything and decide to set a policy where all comments on topics will be deleted at designated frequencies, etc.))
But the important thing, of course, is to make sure that you set clear objectives, develop and publish the policies that support your objectives, make sure that you have a resources to support same, go for it, and then monitor accordingly.
CircularFiringSquad
· 2 months ago
I think all the yound GOPs should social network 24/7...meanwhile the real campaigns will continue....The Jim Ryan/Stu Levine/Proft/EddieV/ Tugboat Annie/Whinenberger ticket will blaze away...and the Ds will win That is unless Gags Brady sets up that show stopper rally with Keyes and CaribouBarbie...... P.S. Let's all burn out AP Stylebooks because the "profession" has tanked.
Anonymous
· 2 months ago
Wow. Was that sarcasm, CFS?
I'll take our young 'uns and the great things (many traditional, many innovative) they're doing for our Party and Candidates any day!
Same goes for Brady!
And, I personally like the way "real campaigns" are handled nowadays--but then I've been preparing for these changes (and 2010 and 2012) during the last six or seven years. And every second now, is a joy--and BTW, we're not going to lose.
MrJM
· 2 months ago
"You’re supposed to have a 'real' identity on FaceBook"
All Comments
On the other hand, and unlike many newspapers' comment sections, Rich is committed to the concept. It isn't a gimmick, and he's worked pretty hard to make it a place where good information is exchanged as well as a healthy, civil debate of issues his community cares deeply about.
I guess the short answer is that it's hard work. Those willing to put the effort in will get something useful out of it. Those that don't will get a lot of headaches and probably shouldn't have tried in the first place.
These posters generally ruin any legitimate discussion and value of such, and it just eats up time of any campaigns dedicated enough to continuously monitor everything.
Because your site is policed so closely, it becomes one of - if not - THE most useful sites to keep up with what's going on.
A close second is online polls that allow someone to erase their cookies and continue voting.
==========
My all-time "pet peeve". I did some basic research on the "Ron Paul" phenomenon. No offense to his supporters, but did you see what his electronics polls looked liked? It was as if someone set stacking up numbers as their primary objective during the last push. Oy!
Obviously, releasing message control has risks, as people can post negative comments like Rich notes, but what is worse is having a page that is not connecting with people at all or simply "talking at" people-- that defeats the entire purpose of social media!
I might consider starting smaller, provide a private forum for posting/bloggin with contributors. it will still have probelms, but has a higher chance of success
As an avid reader of blogs, and especially blogs about politics, I've developed an appreciation for the rare political candidate who does allow comments. It gets even better when the candidate replies to the comments. What I don't like is when a blog post piles up with inane and useless comments. To me, it looks like the pol (or in his absence, his web person) thought he could just throw something on the blog and walk away. This looks bad and doesn't bear well on the pol and how he thinks about his constituents and their issues.
You almost need to have a social media warroom now monitoring other campaigns tweets, blog stories that emerge, facebook posts and be able to respond and know when something is gaining traction and not. This is talk radio and CNN in the early 90's and whoever does well with it is going to have a major advantage-Pat Brady an early project perhaps.
You are smart to have a daily tweets/social media since people follow that and a lot of times it's people noting meetings they've been in or gatherings that might not make a paper but are important nonetheless.
...Pat Brady an early project perhaps.
=======
Interesting point. Does anyone know generally how political party and org websites do with hits? That'd be interesting to research, if someone hasn't done so already.
Strictly based on gut, I'd say that the Chicago Young Republican website is pretty popular. Extremely active group that's growing quickly; lots of pictures, great website with an events calendar, etc. etc.
Other sites, wow! to a lesser degree with some getting close to even a bit predictable re: message and other content.
Second, when truly independent voters, looking for information about a candidate see the vitriol, (if poll numbers about independent voters are accurate) many will be turned off by the venom.
Third, it's all relatively academic since web sites as of now are not close to being the primary place voters get their info. (not to say they won't be some day soon)
I would say: Don't be on FB, Twitter, or anywhere else unless you need to be there -- to raise money, reach voters, or influence the message.
Not every candidate and every campaign NEEDS to reach those voters. But if your election depends on younger voters, less frequent voters, and voters who are more libertarian, you probably should think about it.
And, you have to figure out how to handle the message you want to send in response--fairly quickly. Don't forget that the sites are making the calls on topics more often than not today--on blogs, especially--because they're not necessarily working from the Campaign's press releases. Newspapers are a bit easier from that perspective.
What a change in less than 10 years!
“Don’t do it unless you can police those comments 24/7.”
====
At first, I was going to say that I agree, but then thought about it and decided "no" was probably best overall from a campaign website perspective.
I remember a consulting firm that experimented with using a blog for someone's campaign a few years ago. Not that I know for sure, but I think one of the objectives might have been to get "on top of rumors" earlier v. later.
It seemed to start out as open blog that got filled up with drive-bys very quickly--and everyone began complaining about the "unfairness" of the deletions (which occurred infrequently because of the time commitment required).
They then switched to more of an issues-based forum to try to keep folks focused. That failed, too, for pretty much the same reason as the open blog--and it really got old quickly because the discussion eventually boils down to nothing more than "our/your Candidate is right/wrong" on that issue. Every once in a while, you'd get a reason why. And, how can one even respond to "right, wrong, right, wrong" after a while?
There were obviously rumblings when they took it down, but it was definitely a good call to do so. Even if you're totally committed to supporting open dialog, the quality of the comments seems to get so bad that it reflects poorly on the campaign overall--even if most are agreeing.
Campaign websites are comparable to the paper-based stuff with a bit more detail usually designed to push information out (and don't forget pictures, which are always popular with people--even opposition, drawing a crowd you'd never expect visit).
Constituent sites, I'd imagine, are a bit trickier (for me anyway). I'd imagine to do well, you'd have to not only push info out, but perhaps strive to open up dialog as well. That can probably be handled through well-thought out policies that explain why things will be deleted and perhaps even, when (e.g., you can monitor comments regularly per policy (which again is time-consumming); or you can choose to publish everything and decide to set a policy where all comments on topics will be deleted at designated frequencies, etc.))
But the important thing, of course, is to make sure that you set clear objectives, develop and publish the policies that support your objectives, make sure that you have a resources to support same, go for it, and then monitor accordingly.
That is unless Gags Brady sets up that show stopper rally with Keyes and CaribouBarbie......
P.S. Let's all burn out AP Stylebooks because the "profession" has tanked.
I'll take our young 'uns and the great things (many traditional, many innovative) they're doing for our Party and Candidates any day!
Same goes for Brady!
And, I personally like the way "real campaigns" are handled nowadays--but then I've been preparing for these changes (and 2010 and 2012) during the last six or seven years. And every second now, is a joy--and BTW, we're not going to lose.
Ha!
-- MrJM