The following is the basis for a plan for a new social media presence for President Obama. It is not a comprehensive plan but rather what I think is most important for him to do. It is essentially an attitude shift, from seeing the role of the President as dispensing facts and generic official opinions to wading deeply into the national debate and inviting citizens to engage the President.
The President has been praised for his use of social media but criticized for his ability to communicate, which - to me - affirms my preconceived notion that those who praise his use of social media are simply enamored by the fact that a President is using social media; if nothing changes, the praise will wear off but the criticism will not. On SocialMention, as you can see in the graph below (rehashed from my second project report), passion about the President can be inversely related to his strength and reach, which says to me that when the President makes the news, people tend not to talk about him; the President must correct this by creating more reason and incentive to talk about him when he is central to the news.
In addition, many have argued that Obama has abandoned social media since he won the election. After some dreamed about an extensive presence, much of the President's usage feels like "just another platform for press releases, rather than a way for followers (and potential voters) to gain direct access." This is inherently top-down and antithetical to the appeal of social media. In a general sense, customers feel engaged when they are not simply spoken to.
The goal of the President's new presence will be to improve the President's approval rating and the target audience will be Americans. The theory is that, in a world increasingly saturated by opinions and decreasingly dependent on officials for news, the President will become decreasingly relevant in the national debate until he invites Americans to engage with him. As I opined in my first tracking project report, the eye-to-eye factor is important in persuading others to your opinions, where you engage those individuals as an equal rather than aloof superior. An equal superior who works for you, if that's possible.
The problem is that most of the President's statements are generally one-way and top-down. He seems detached. This is antithetical to the social media ideal of consumer-driven conversation. It is time to move from inspirational marketing to conversational marketing. Below are the best ways to change this:
 |
| It's only inspiring for so long |
I @mentioned Obama's and the White House's Twitter handles with a question/suggestion of how to deal with the budget crisis and still have received no reply. In fact, there is no indication on either Twitter feed that anyone receives any reply when @mentioning either entity. To engage individuals involved in the Groundswell, it is imperative to make them feel listened to and no one feels listened to when no one gets any response.
The Press Secretary's office already has a Twitter handle and Robert Gibbs did a commendable job of using it but I think it is important for people to get responses from @BarackObama and @WhiteHouse. While most people know that the Press Secretary's job is to speak on behalf of the President and that zero or near zero responses will ever come from the President himself, I think that getting responses from @PressSec does feel less genuine.
An extensive article on how the President should use Twitter can be found here. The takeaway for this post is that when Gordon Brown was British Prime Minister, he responded to others very often. Don't let people hit a brick wall when they try to communicate with you over one of the most informal lines of communication. Respond and ye will be heard. Also, it might help for the President to use hashtags to popularize tweets.
YouTube
Right now, Obama's YouTube channel has infrequent updates, although some very good videos. The President should engage his team in crafting and creating more videos.
Most importantly, the President has an opportunity to explain himself before taking the podium and offering the well-rehearsed and debated official opinion. With most major events in which the President has a hand, he should record a brief five-minute, informal (in a very relative sense) talk. His team can infuse maps, polls, whatever they deem necessary, so that the typical YouTube viewer will not lose interest in what would otherwise be an essentially static scene (the President in a suit at a desk or podium with a flag).
An example of a well-visualized explanation
For example, when the President started authorizing military action in Libya, he let the debate rage and develop without him for days before taking the podium to explain what he hoped to accomplish and why. What he could have done was record a quick video statement, hopefully with helpful graphics, and post it to YouTube. Meanwhile, he could have answered questions on Twitter and Facebook, before presenting his long-form official statement. He could be continuing this with YouTube statements when the debate waxes again and if the debate is unfavorable to him.
In addition, a member of the Press Secretary's team should respond to online questions on YouTube. Perhaps the person could do this weekly.
Obviously, President Obama would want to solicit (moderated) feedback on Facebook. Another thing he could do is invite people to post videos of their feedback to his wall. I'm not sure if you can moderate this on Facebook and if you can't, he shouldn't, but it would definitely add a thick layer of engagement. His Facebook page could also have links to oft-searched-for information, like how to get a White House tour when you are going to be in DC.
The three major risks
I see three major risks.
1. After the infatuation stage, where people are pleasantly shocked that the President is so democratic, Mr. Obama will find himself under tremendous pressure to reflect feedback in policy decisions. If the feedback is generally terrible, he will too often find himself balancing a terrible policy decision with a sensible political decision. To avoid this, he will probably have to blend subtlety cherry-picking trends and explaining to people why their policy suggestions are terrible.
New Live Poll Allows Pundits To Pander To Viewers In Real Time
2. The Groundswell is so immersive and so time-consuming that it would be easy for a team to consider it all-important because the members are not exposed to any other form of communication. The President must not mistake Groundswell popularity with actual popularity or think of it as a predictor of future popularity. The Groundswell is not populated with all Americans and may not even be populated by a majority. While a lot of Americans can be influenced with it, a lot also cannot and never will be.
3. The President will obviously leave most responding and tracking to a team. He is too busy to do otherwise and it would only hurt the US to have a President constantly checking and updating his Twitter. He must, however, spend time talking with his team to understand the trends and if he cannot, he should never consider this plan.
Conclusion
There is little need for modesty or restraint in the web's infinite jungle but there is great need to keep yourself on the mind of those who you want to support you. In a world where a video can move from funny to annoying in 24 hours and a topic can become overplayed in 12, the President risks having the debate about his job performance defined and resolved without him. The President cannot wait days to explain his actions and cannot expect people to pay attention when he speaks. He must use social media to engage in the debate so that he can influence it, even if he could never define it.
Sources (both linked and unlinked) can be found at http://www.delicious.com/dafyddbryn
And don't forget my other blog and my Twitter handle. The tweet linking to this post can be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment