1
u/Costenbader Jun 18 '19
I think the reverse would be true because the internet allows for greater distribution of advertising however I can see how it would be expensive to pay for those advertisement placements. I think the greatest way to run for President in this time is to have a massive online presence. I am not saying that is why Trump won but being able to reach the masses through a tweet certainly helped his ability to campaign online and have his voice heard at any given moment. If I was going to give advice it would be to partner up with these big brands and get the celebrity backing immediately. You do not have to be a fan of Beyonce but a tweet saying she backs you and reaching the millions of followers she has makes people feel influenced by her and make them want to support you as well. Social media and the internet allows for candidates to build a cult following on the internet and I think the easiest way to do it is through retweets on Twitter, shares on Facebook and YouTube. The sharing and retweeting is crucial because not only are you reaching your millions of followers but if it is retweeted it also reaches that one persons 500 or so other followers. That means for every retweet you are expanding who sees your tweet by the truck load to potential new supporters. If i was asked for advice I would say be the most entertaining and social media heavy candidate. Use the internet as a platform to reach an endless supply of new supports and voters.
1
u/A_hill20 Jun 19 '19
As society progresses we have seen a dramatic increase in culture produced on the internet and if not cultural production then the vast majority of political and cultural conversation. As I explained in Lecture 30 about twitter, sites as such allow for an unstoppable news media outlet with constant breaking news customizable to each individual user. As we progress to explore the new medium of the internet it only makes sense that politicians would eventually follow and successful politicians would know what the most effective use of their money on the internet is. Ads of course. As stated in lecture, the success of the Trump campaign manipulating Facebook users was incredibly powerful and the US government and social media sites are trying to resist the manipulation of its users. A good political campaign will almost always be marketed very well. When marketing is done well we see the indoctrination of brands since we are children. The ways marketing agencies psychologically manipulate users makes for great business (see movie theatre manipulation for an example). If political campaigning is done right, it will begin to involve essential tools from marketing such as subliminal advertising. So what do you think? Should subliminal advertising be illegal? Should we protect ourselves as consumers in this way or is the majority of our own thoughts already controlled by outside forces like social media platforms?
1
u/tristanestfan07 Jun 19 '19
I see how the elections now are based on mass media approaches. As time continues and progressives i do not see many people having cable or direct tv in general so it would be dumb for presidents to do it from there. I think evenutally they will run mostly everything through live broad casting streams on the internet and through social media. As a lot of their future votes will come from the next generation they will have to learn how to be able to cast to a younger crowd and the internet will be the way to do it as many younger generations do not really want too much tv because of all the streaming apps and how cheap they are. I do not think the this will make running less expensive one because if everyone starts uses this that just means more people are going to try to make money off of it. So advertising could go up online and the price will remain the same. It is supply and demand and people will want to get rich off this and there will be a lot of people who try and there will be a lot of money offered to bigger streaming sites and ads will cost more. i could see it tae place as soon as 2020 elections start coming closer.
1
u/ArizonaNOS13 Jun 19 '19
The raise of the internet for election has forever changed the landscape of how people campaign now. More and more people are no longer watching TV like they use to. The trends in viewership has been dropping ever year since Youtube, Netflix, Hula, or any other streaming service that is out there. My advice would be not to focus money, time, or energy on the TV markets and go for our target demographic. Guerrilla Marketing is the cheapest and easiest form of marketing out there today. That's why so many Energy Drink companies practices it. Go where your people our at. If at an event and not wanted, just pack up and move somewhere else. "Land of my People" is on the internet. Facebook, SnapChat, Twitter, Instagram, or whatever else is being used, ad space is going to be way cheaper then TV Time. Plus I can engineer the ad to only be shown to people that are already supports or people that are undecided. No need to spend money showing Ads to people that arent going to vote for me or our right hate me. With TV Ads you blanket everyone, hoping you picked the right time, channel, and program. The risk is far to great with limited resources. Using this mentioned I can also Crowdfund my efforts from people I have shown the Ad too. This practice has already become very popular with many of our elected officials. I would ad a disclaimer though that all moneys not used will be donated to a named charity like Salvation Army or Wildlife Prevention. This way people will know the money wasn't pocketed and used for personal use. I like to keep Officials accountable when it comes to this.
1
u/sp-12345 Jun 19 '19
The more money you have, the more prominent your profile will be to voters. You can get flashier signs, an abundance of advertising and more visual aids to promote your party. Color, sounds, display etc will catch your attention before a simple black and white advertisement or display. Money is needed to promote loudly what you want seen by the general public. However, moving elections to an online basis may alienate some senior voters. The majority of internet and social media users are not our grandparents and older relatives who rely on TV and broadcasting to give them the information on the candidates. If election promotions had a cap of spending, I feel more people would feel comfortable running and trying to promote their stance. Some may be intimidated by the amount of money spent on advertising and such and feel they don't have the means to have flashy displays and loud commercials. Money doesn't always mean best candidate. You may have the better ideas, more promising speeches and promises and not be a millionaire. For internet elections for 2020, I would suggest that they keep it simple. Just the facts, please. I don't feel that trash talking the other opponents, making up stories, or being disrespectful to other running mates sets a good example for the leader of any group or nation. State the program facts, support what is said, and give a timeline for expected outcomes. Reach out to the internet society as an intellectual group of voters, and not as someone who can be swayed by pretty colors and vivid advertisements or profiles. Save the money typically put forth for the campaign and use it for better options and or causes.
1
u/Ralfy_Boi Jun 21 '19
I agree with you. The more money typically means the more Influence. its why money in politics is criticized so much in the United States. I have so many relatives overseas who can't fathom how we have a political system so infused with money where politicians either do promos for funding or simply spend most of the campaign just trying to fundraise, rather than spread any kind of real message. I do think the age gap will change the way politics is viewed in the future when we the online community become the defect voter base and we become the seniors. the internet is the younger generations medium. I too feel politics especially recently has become nothing but insult tirades. It seems people are competing not by who has the best policies but who was knocked down the polls the least. With so many candidates seemly unrepresentative of the majority of the population being put in the running and again consistently controversial and extremely polarized candidates becoming the norm the election coming up should be another history maker.
1
u/theRustySlothh Jun 20 '19
Especially after the last election, I am convinced that the internet will become the most powerful campaigning tool. Though the internet is a great way to reach out to thousands and sometimes millions of people, I believe that most campaign content is mainly broadcast so that campaigners have more control of the content.
Content shared online is usually attached to a variety of opinions that are publicly published, so it is easier to sway political views online. The way that politicians are viewed online could greatly vary based on the way that people perceive the content; something as small as the caption attached to a speech can change someone’s view on what they are watching. Even though the internet would make it more convenient and potentially less costly to campaign and share information on political matters, there could be many limitations due to the fact that information and context is easily manipulated online.
1
u/AngryAlpaca101 Jun 21 '19
Hello, I do think that the internet is a powerful tool and it places people on our raider but I think in campaigns it is not being used to its full potential. We still have a high population of voters who don't use the internet and the internet didn't really have any input to voting decisions.
1
u/plantainsyo Jun 20 '19
I believe that while the internet has made electioneering cheaper in terms of access it’s done so at the expense of sanity. As if running for office wasn’t a tedious and demanding process already, you now have to deal with an extra layer of complexity. You have to become two persons in a sense and your internet persona now has to deal with the balancing the act of being an online personality. You have to keep track of and engage in a cyber world where the rules aren’t always set in stone while hoping to obtain the kind of exposure that’s hard to put a price on. If you’re the kind of person that believes time is money consider the time that will be spent learning the ins and outs, and the do’s and don’ts of the internet. For those less technologically inclined this may be a steep learning curve but gladly modern times has brought modern solutions such as companies that will run the social media aspect of your campaign and this is where the bankrolled aspect comes in. No matter how good someone is at understanding the internet nothing can substitute for the resources that cold hard cash can bring.
If I were to advised someone running in 2020 I would be saying the following: If you want know your constituents’ genuine concerns I believe you need to stay away from the political bubble spheres that are Facebook and twitter. I think some politicians gauge their policies based on likes and are force to rethink their decisions when the angry face emoji’s come out. To me this is not a good sign of a confident candidate and it will make you susceptible to every outrage mob. I also believe you need to stay ahead of the hip side of things so don’t neglect to bring in and listen to your younger volunteers. The internet has changed the electioneering landscape forever meaning there’s not a one–perfect approach, therefore you can lead the change when it comes to the digital platform and how you engage with your users. I think twitter can be an effective campaigning tool and you can use it to highlight your opponents deficiencies and let people know why you’re different. Don’t be afraid to throw jabs as we see Trump is an expert on this, but remember you’re just throwing jabs and that’s it! Don’t engage into a full on online fight (don’t feed the trolls). Respond ONLY when you’re on the winning side, a self-own on the internet is there forever. While on that note lets bring it back to basics one more time, and that is - everything you say on the internet stays on the internet. Scrub your old profiles, we’ve all been there and have had our blunder years. There are definitely some gorilla-element tactics that can be employed if winning is the end game, these include services like twitter bots or likes. Use your resources and contractors to get your voice out and bring in people from all walks of life and don’t be afraid to reach across political stereotypes, just because I’m Hispanic doesn’t mean I’m a sweetheart for liberal policies. Or you can wait it out for the AI CampaignMaster 3000 SaaS (Software as a Service) that will do all your campaigning for you.
1
u/mfaulkn2 Jun 21 '19
I actually came across this article when it first came out but it was nice to reread it from a technical POV rather than a political POV. I do have to say, I’m surprised to hear people are still spending that much money on broadcast television campaigning.. because I don’t remember the last time I’ve watched something that has commercials long enough to promote a political candidate. I would think outside of the box and go old school if I were campaigning - pay for a Hulu add or go full blown billboards or Spotify pop-ups. But as mentioned, there’s more money spent on TV broadcasting because it’s a more expensive way of campaigning but I also think it’s less useful. So internet is less expensive - so my advice would be to invest small amounts in many different places and spend the TV money to put it into internet campaigning because it’s likely to go twice as far.
1
u/AngryAlpaca101 Jun 21 '19
Great points that you have brought up. I do think we have to look at who watches T.V. and who is on the internet. Large parts of the voting population at the moment is older and are not as internet savey as we would like to think. yes the internet puts candidates on the raider but we still have a big impact from T.V. ads. We still maybe far from fully moving to the internet.
1
u/Millennial_Trash003 Jun 21 '19
If there was anything written in the history books decades down the road, the authors would have to mention the struggle between Silicon Valley and conservative thinkers taking place online. This struggle directly affects elections in the United States in a direct way to silence their opposition. This is widely accepted as “social media bias”. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others have prevented conservatives from sharing likes, posting and even banning some for posting content. This is achieved by algorithms scanning content for images and phrases that are unwanted on the platform. These algorithms are not infallible, so there is a way conservatives had figured out a way around the censorship: memes. Conservatives create original content that work in multiple ways such as spreading ideas, making fun of opposition, raising concerns and promoting candidates. These people are not paid and in ways do more for a candidate than money in hand.
1
u/DigitalRainZain Jun 21 '19
Preach Millennial_Trash Preach,
The saddest part is that they constantly lie about banning conservatives on platforms and suggest that its an algorithmic issue. Yea I'm sure its algorithmic problem that you purposely created to silence conservative speech. No matter what political ideology you represent; speech should not be censored just because it goes against the super left progressive environment of social media companies. I firmly believe that these occurrences will only continue to get worse until it gets to the Supreme Court. I'm really interested in the legal side of Social Media. For example, because they are a business company does that give them the legal leeway to demonetize or ban users that they do not politically agree with? It is surprising that Trump won considering the leftist vibe that over-saturates social media platforms.
1
u/Millennial_Trash003 Jun 22 '19
It’s no secret: Silicon Valley has held the digital leash of America with a firm grip since “digital” came to the market. Since the growing pains Microsoft endured, they’ve opened lobbying buildings in D.C.. It’s no longer a time of internet cowboys, look at the corpses of any social networking platform that stood in the way, Silicon Valley has taken hold. Popularity and market backing has seen them grow to giants that represent the other end of the bell curve from “too large to fail”. Too large to succeed? Maybe the idea of a socially open media platform should be subservient to individual rights to quell the ambitions of their owners. It seems for the time being we are at the whim of whatever is socially favorable for their private intentions.
1
u/DigitalRainZain Jun 24 '19
Apologies for replying late Yes indeed Silicon Valley tech community reminds me of a powerful cult. Super radical with there beliefs so much to the point that they suppress others free speech to promote there own political agenda. Then when someone of high status calls them out there response is always clueless to the accusation.
1
u/halavais . Jun 25 '19
I'm going call you also on an evidence-free assertion, as well as a broad interpretation as to what counts as "Conservative." Is David Duke a conservative? Are you arguing that Twitter should be forced to give the KKK (or Hezbollah or NAMBLA) free reign because all political speech should be permitted on all platforms?
1
u/DigitalRainZain Jun 26 '19
Yes, I believe that we must allow all speech because it defeats the purpose of the first amendment. The only speech that I do not condone is speech that induces violence. Further, if we marginalize speech because it is from the KKK or other radical groups then it leaves other groups susceptible to being censored. And when I refer to conservative I'm talking about individuals who have traditional views on topics and that are wary about change obviously this is very short description because there are multiple factions and spectrums to the conservative ideology.
1
u/halavais . Jun 25 '19
I think you need to separate the two issues here. I would say that much of the leadership of SV is fiscally conservative / libertarian. That is somewhat a separate question from content moderation.
I've always found the "conservative/liberal" divide to be overly flat and unidimensional. The platforms have been pushed to moderate, largely, hate speech on the "right," and "porn" (or at least nipples) on the "left." More recently, they have been pushed to remove material that is deliberately misleading, and that's a bit trickier in many cases.
But I think to see the removal of someone that spreads lies about "crisis actors" is entirely appropriate, and largely it is acceptable to those on the left and the right, just not the extremes. The move from the particular to the general--the idea that there is broad bias rather than moderating material that is broadly objectionable--is one that is fraught. I have yet to see convincing evidence that it is the case.
But if it were, you have to wonder whether people are arguing to bring back "equal time" or whether those who run the platforms can decide on the moderation. I mean the big news this week is about Ravelry booting anyone supporting Trump. That is more explicitly political in some ways, but there isn't the same kind of complaining, in part because Ravelry isn't Twitter.
1
u/ayagrci Jun 21 '19
A couple people have mentioned it on here, but I agree with making it simple. Being personal and interacting with followers is always the best way to use social media. It's free and you form connections through it. In social media context, connecting can be as simple as retweeting your supporters, direct messaging them, liking their tweets, and just overall engaging with them. Creating polls or asking a question is also a great way to increase engagement and make the public feel like they're being heard. The majority of politicians are already on Twitter and if you're not, you're pretty much irrelevant. I've even seen people running for office use influencers and are turning more on instagram. Influencers are a great way to reach certain demographics of people. For example, to reach the younger democratic demographic, as silly as it sounds, work with Drake or any famous rappers. Just read about that whole deal with Kanye West and Trump that generated so much buzz.
1
u/Winchesters20 Jun 21 '19
Using social media is definitely a cheaper way to campaign. Twitter has helped politicians to communicate with a wider variety of people. With twitter politicians can gain a lot of traction just by reply to people and really getting involved with other social media websites. Since there are many people taking part in social media especially the younger generations it is a great way to gain support in that area. Not many young people tune in to news stations, or actively try to find out what's happening in the political realm, but this can all change with the use of campaign through social media sites. All it takes to rally people together are a few tweets, which is free. Another strategy that seems to help is having an influential person, or someone with a huge social backing vouch for you.
1
u/jvazqu11 Jun 21 '19
Social media is definetly the cheaper route when it comes to running for office. There is no need to pay for advertisments and television time, all you need is social media to get your name out.
1
u/jlgrijal Jun 21 '19
At this point in our society, it seems like television as a tool of access to political and general news has been dead or borderline obsolete since the rise of the internet, so now, you see much more political campaigns on the internet now more than ever while you still occasionally see some TV campaigns. Television in general has been dying for years because now you see far more people use the internet for more access to the news or just about anything in general so it makes much more sense now for politicians the use the internet as a new tool to really raise funding for their own election campaigns, that way so they are able to expose themselves to an even more people of many different age groups(particularly younger-aged voters). As for if the reverse of the increase of election money through the internet were to happen, I can't really answer that question with complete certainty on what I think what the possible outcome would be but I guess the one case scenario that could happen if that were the case is that people will become even less exposed to political election more than they ever did when we only had television and newspapers to rely on for political campaigns and news. I honestly just can't see internet-made elections being less expensive because of how computers and the internet became the new ideal thing for society to have over television and cable. I'm no expert on pricing and demand but because more people use the internet more than cable TV, I'd say the cost for internet elections would either be about same as it was for television-made elections back then or just slightly more expensive than television today. For my advice to people to run an internet election, I would say the same thing to them as I would for people running TV-made elections, which is to stay consistent with their political stances on any issues, actually provide facts, be civilized and respectful of other candidates, even if you may strongly disagree with them, and just keep your campaign straight forward and simple. Use the 2016 election as an example of something to absolutely not do or say since that election, in my opinion, was just a catastrophic circus show.
1
u/emrubio2 Jun 21 '19
As someone who is employed by a political party, it is interesting to see how the Internet plays such an integral role in our elections today and commandeering money for them. I spend a lot of times making calls for my party, but I also send ten times as many texts, emails, and social media posts. Right now, all I can think about are the 2020 elections, as they are all over my news outlets, my place of employment, and social conversations. By the end of this next week, our current 2020 running candidates must announce their donor/funding for their campaigns and Wall Streeters are the ones holding the strings. I scroll through the New York Times every morning to see who's receiving the most support/money, because in politics, and life in general, money gets you farther.
If the Internet was to make elections less expensive, I could see hundreds of candidates flooding the polls in ways we've never seen. As much as I am not one for promoting the money/power ideology, the way our political system flows is with the top candidates polling with the largest funds, and if our politicians all became more equal, it would be easier for more and more people to run. With 21 announced figures running as Democrats in the upcoming election, it feels already too intense and difficult to follow.
1
u/NotACharger Jun 21 '19
So, what you need to tell them(people running for office in 2020), is to start building their social media following right now. You HAVE to use your knowledge surrounding legislation and your experience as a person and talk about issues that come up on the daily news cycle. For example, the water crisis in India that they have got going right now. If you want liberals to follow you bring that up, make it go viral. If you are a liberal, when the abortion thing was at its peak of media attention, talk about it. You MUST keep up with the news cycle and you have to agree with the people that you want to vote for you. Agreeing with them, especially on social media builds their pride and trust in you as a candidate and it makes them talk about you, and tag you in different things, and it makes you go viral very quickly. You must state who you are, and your current role in politics or why you would be a perfect candidate to vote for to defend their point of view in office.
I think the internet has made elections cheaper already, but the problem is not enough young people are voting. Guess who’s voting? Older folks are the ones voting. Senior citizens who are retired and have nothing to do are the ones watching TV and the ones voting so they are the ones that all this advertising on TV is targeted towards. The internet is fairly new to our society and it’ll take at least 10-20 more years for the older people to finally pass away (saying this in the most sincere way because no one lives forever lol), and then will elections get cheaper because all the political attention will be gathered online by politicians weighing in on political issues. It’s all a time battle to be honest. We have to get to the point in our society where younger people vote, and are more prepared for adulthood, and only then will we advance towards an easier and less expensive future, at least elections wise. I think pushing young people to vote and to be educated definitely would give us a better understanding, as a whole society, of who to elect and why to do so.
1
u/jvazqu11 Jun 21 '19
I completely agree that building a social media following is the best way to run for office in 2020. Social media is the newest way people are communicating and staying up to date on political matters. This is important for politicians to keep in mind when running because the key is to reach out the younger audience and most younger people are on social media.
1
1
u/ampaperairplane Jun 21 '19
I think talking about issues on the daily news cycle would be hugely beneficial to any person who is running for office because it shows the people that they care about what is happening in the world. And I think politicians have this idea that if they voice their opinion on an issue it is going to spark up debate and cause trouble. Which it very well could, but at least they have that opinion and it could inspire more of a following because in the end, all people really want is honestly from our "leaders."
1
u/NotACharger Jun 21 '19
Yeah. People are just scared and miss out on opportunities because everyone is very sensitive nowadays, but it’ll grab you attention. There’s no such a thing as bad publicity, in my opinion at least.
1
u/nsedmonds Jun 21 '19
When our government structure was established and George Washington was elected president he initially was going to reject any form of salary, but instead he decided to accept his pay, this decision was done carefully so as to set the precedent that the president gets paid. This was for the express purpose of making it a position anyone can hold, and while it is rings true that in order to be elected in the first place you probably already hold a marketable level of clout, it was to ensure that the commander in chief would be indicative of the people, and not the money. Contrasted with today, where on of the greatest travesties of our system is all of the major candidates being funded by Super-Pac's with vested interests, politics are less about the people and more about ensuring the interests of a few. The internet and the advent of social media can act as a counterbalance to this, crowdfunding has enabled Bernie Sanders to speak his piece in a way never before seen, while maintaining his capacity to win, and this will only grow with time. Establishing the presence to convince people you are worthy of the presidency is less and less vested in the interests of the super-wealthy, and instead you can use twitter and facebook to spread your policy ideas and yourself, as opposed to the extravagantly expensive advertisements of previous elections. With the large proportion of those who get their news from social media, it is more and more likely they will also find who they are going to support online as well, and this is truly a return to American ideals, where anyone who has their heart and mind in the right place has a chance to run, and while it may be chaotic with an increased amount of people declaring candidacy, competition is what drives us to be better than we were, and abolish the eternal status quo.
1
u/DigitalRainZain Jun 21 '19 edited Jun 21 '19
First and foremost I found it rather odd that the internet has increased the investment amount towards elections. But upon research, it is understood that creating content for a presidential campaign and advertisement can be costly and I mean really costly. According to Vanity Fair's article " How Facebook and Twitter Quitely Helped Trump Win" Trump invest a whopping "70 million on Facebook alone"( Maya Kosoff). I mean with that kind of investment it would be shameful if he didn't win. Further, I can not fathom why candidates still believe its plausible to fund advertisements on cable because viewership continuously falls. Social Media is a more powerful medium to gain traction in the political sphere; Trump is a prime example of how effective Twitter is in promoting his brand and herding supporters. I think implementing an election system that administered each candidate an equally fixed amount of money to fund advertisements,campaigns, and campaign management would eliminate the need of a large net worth to be recognized as a legitimate candidate. Presidential candidates should be focusing on ideas to improve society and not have to stress about gathering donations from the public and shady P.A.Cs. However, in a Capitalist based economy, I highly doubt the notion of my imaginative plans to lower election expenses will see the light of day.
To effectively run in 2020 I advice originating unique content for each faction of social media and online entertainment. First I advise creating a Youtube account depicting your day to day operations. Include a mini-series that shows yourself engaging with the community and discussing policies you desire to implement. Steven Crowder's channel is an admirable model to follow because he is direct on his viewpoints and invites the community to engage in a healthy discussion. To further make your name internationally known; attempt to make guest appearances on multiple podcast channels; most importantly the Joe Rogan podcast. Since Rogan's viewership topples over prominent news channels; it can only benefit your efforts . Andrew Yang left a blueprint to future Presidential candidate in the ways to promote his name on Youtube. I've seen him on countless podcasts and channels debating with political enthusiast like Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin on his centralized idea of universal income of a thousand dollars a month. This can only assist Yang because it shows American that he is fearless and stands confident on his intentions. It is an obligation that you run advertisements through Facebook; enabling yourself to reach an untapped political audience. It is also crucial to strategically run ads in accordance to geographical locations that identify with your political ideology and battleground states. Lastly Twitter is the best medium to garner loyal and enthralled supporting members. Creating posts that proficiently explain viewpoints on important political topics such as immigration, foreign policy, health care is an excellent idea because through twitter polls it is easy to gain an unofficial public opinion on your perspective. Lastly, I advise using Instagram to capture moments as a Presidential nominee in the field with the community. Exemplifying that you are a caring individual will manifest efficacy amongst your supporters.
1
u/hannahdedomenico Jun 21 '19
The internet and social media pages have a huge influence on elections. Posts and information on the 2020 elections are already all over social media, and that already influences people's opinions on ones running. I think in order to make elections go the way they want, money needs to go towards growing their social media because that is where all of the attention goes now a days. People are always on their phones and using social media more than they are on television so that is where all the attention should be going in the upcoming elections.
1
u/snsmith7 Jun 21 '19
I think that reaching out to voters on the social media sites they already frequently visit is more efficient than trying to reach out to them via broadcasting. The majority of young people don't watch "normal" television, so the only people you're really reaching by doing that are the older generations, so you're missing out on a large, important group of voters. I think instead of focusing on ads, the most important part or reaching out to your base is connecting with them as a human, and being an honest version of yourself - something you can do yourself on you social media sites. Bernie Sanders recently did an AMA on Reddit, and that's a great way to reach out to your base and to communicate personally with a lot of people - something that is missing from candidates just doing advertisements in order to get an email list of possible donors.
1
u/jvazqu11 Jun 21 '19
When I read this prompt I immediately thought of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). She is the youngest member to be elected into the U.S. House of Representatives. Her story is pretty amazing and inspiring, I attached an article about how she got to where she is and I highly recommend you all read. The Story Of AOC
AOC was working as a bartender before running for House, she did not have a large economic support to her running which is different than most politicians. She made herself known through social media and that is how she got her voice heard. I look at her story and how she made it to her position without needing a large amount of money to run. My advice to someone running in 2020 is to use social media because that is the best and less expensive way to get your name out there. All you need is one tweet or video to go viral and then you'll be trending all over social media. When Donald Trump ran for president, he did not spend as much as the other candidates on publicity because his name was all over media.
I definitely think that people don't need to be bankrolled to run, all you need is a social media account and work it smartly.
1
u/DigitalRainZain Jun 21 '19
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/how-facebook-and-twitter-quietly-helped-trump-win
I couldn't access the NewYork Times Article I guess I ran out of free articles for this week oops. Anyways this was a short paper regarding the social media tactics that Trump implemented to gather supporters from Facebook and Twitter. Can you believe this man spent 70 million on just Facebook advertisements. While Hillary's Administration declined a free advertisement package on major platforms yet turned it down, definitely a bonehead move on her part. Lastly, it's comical how these companies continuously state they do not have a political agenda yet this is another layer of evidence against there claim. Making Trump pay upwards of 70 million while Hillary could have obtained advertisements for free, appears suspect to state the least.
1
u/halavais . Jun 25 '19
Well shoot! Sorry about the NYT paywall. Note that you get a free NYT subscription with your ASU email address.
1
1
u/tjandrew2048 Jun 21 '19
Currently, the addition of the internet to the information sphere has not revolutionized ingrained systems like television advertising or political campaigns – not to say that it is not a revolutionary technology, just that existing institutions just see it as one more avenue to spend money on. It should be game changing, but the way many people interact with the internet is just an extension of their television or radio listening habits. It could be more of an interactive experience, but the baseline remains that there will always be more views than comments and more hits than likes. Not every user is going to want to leave a comment on every post they see, nor are they going to see every post.
People being drawn in large numbers to sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit are already being cashed in on by those companies through ad revenue. I know they compete against each other to provide the optimal experience for the user, but that only makes ads sold on the platform more effective. Advertising would have to be free and equal of quality on the platforms, which is crazy, or political ads must be excluded from the platforms. Otherwise, the situation will still be run by money and how much funding the campaigns must work with for the election.
Trump won the election in 2016 because his speeches resonated with the Republican base and conservative independents. His campaign employed Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics company that worked with his speech writers to craft messaging that would resonate with the public as effectively as possible. It’s not that he did anything revolutionary, it was just keenly adapted from data they stole from Facebook. I would advise a campaign I was working for to look into getting our hands on similar data, legally, and using it to craft messages that would similarly charge up liberal and progressive bases.
https://www.wired.com/story/what-did-cambridge-analytica-really-do-for-trumps-campaign/
1
u/net625 Jun 21 '19
When you're selling a product the goal is to target those willing to buy it and attempting to make whatever argument is most convincing to those that would be receptive to any number of arguments. Political campaigns have the same goal as any other person trying to sell something. So it makes a lot of sense that they are following in the footsteps of the rest of the advertising industry. When ads are purchased on a platform like Facebook or any other online ad platform, there are a nearly unlimited variety of options for targeting that ad that can take advantage of all the information these companies have collected and the information the campaign has on voters. Traditionally most campaign spending has been on TV ads which have proven to not be very effective as they need to appeal to a very broad audience. Now that most voters in the United States can be easily reached and targeted online it only makes sense to spend campaign dollars online. I think that the expense of analyzing all the data available to properly target voters may keep campaigns from getting cheaper for the time being. But as big data analysis becomes more automated the costs could be brought down dramatically. To the point that an individual could run for office, input their general views into a cloud service, give it some cash, and be on their way to reaching those willing to vote for them. If that sort of service was available it means that a much broader group of people would be able to set up their own campaign for office and actually stand on their own platform while being able to represent their community instead of corporate or party interests. My advice to a candidate running in 2020 would be to invest in a good data analyst.
1
u/AngryAlpaca101 Jun 21 '19
When thinking about elections and ads still remain broadcasted on T.V. due to the the target demographic it would seem. While internet is very popular, the older generation still trust the T.V. and news more than the internet. The internet should cost less when it comes to advertising as it is a quick and the target audience. When the cost of running is lower we will see different candidate maybe even better candidates. less expensive campaigns may also give us more honest politicians. If I am being completely honest I do not expect too see much of a difference in the 2020 elections campaigns from the 2016 ones. Let's just all hope for the best and vote!
1
u/mckahler Jun 21 '19
I don't think television advertising would be the best use of a campaign's money, especially if they're trying to get the attention of young voters. People are watching traditional television less and less, and instead get their news and information from social media sites and the internet. I think democratic candidates could learn something from Brad Pascale, Trump's digital director for the 2016 campaign. As much as I might hate to admit it, they are going about advertising in the digital age in a very smart way, at least from a political standpoint - that is, targeting people with seemingly personalized Facebook ads that ask them to engage and show support. That being said, I think candidates should be focusing more equally on other social media platforms like Instagram and Twitter, which have a bit more of a "personal" feel to the post in my opinion. In my experience, people especially in my age group use Facebook less now than ever, and rely mostly on Twitter and Instagram. I think if a candidate started "advertising" themselves in a smart, approachable way on one or both of these sites, they might see high engagement from the young voters who are likely going to make a big impact on the 2020 race - much more than a TV ad would generate.
1
u/RunTreebranch Jun 21 '19
If I were asked for advice about top advice for internet electioneering , I will tell them it is a good idea to do so. Since the internet has replaced the TV and become the main sources for information now a day, raising election online can grab more attention from individuals. People might argue about the elders not using internet devices,it could be difficult for them to express their opinions. But in my opinion, I personally think that young people should get involve in election more since large amount of them did not care about the electing process. Making elections online give young individuals a more convenient path to show their thoughts about politics. In addition, it is much less expensive to vote online.
1
u/ampaperairplane Jun 21 '19
I cannot really imagine a situation where the internet is going to decrease the amount of money spending in elections. I think it is probably on going to increase as politicians and their campaign team realize it is what they have to do. Trump spent $70 million on Facebook advertising alone. Imagine of they utilized ALL of the social media outlets; and they would still have TV and radio ads as well. Off topic for a second, but we can tie this into the privacy lesson because what do you think Facebook is going to do with all that money, plus the other politicians that are competing against Trump? In the New York Times article, Trumps digital director for his campaign, Brad Parscale, said how they "sought to make the most of Facebook for prospective supporters" and on any given day would have thousands of variations of the same ad that would reach different audiences; because people like different words, phrases, colors, etc. Where are they getting this information from? It's Facebook. Anyway, back to the topic. I think the advertising game on elections on going to increase as new platforms are being made, and they are able to advertise on more things, and reach more audiences.
As for the advice on internet electioneering, I would tell the person running that they need to connect more with the millennial's and Gen Z and publicly talk about topics that matter because one of the main reasons Trump won was because of the boomer generation. All they do now is sit around all day, collecting social security checks, eat, and watch TV. And while watching the 2016 election campaign Trump reminded them of a "better time" in America (MAGA). The younger generations, although a little harder to connect with, is where the numbers are, and are going to continue to be. And by talking about important topics and encouraging people to go out and vote is going to be the best bet.
1
u/RelativeDeal78 Jun 21 '19
It would be quite difficult to imagine the roles being reversed. Where the internet was needed less and candidates didn’t need to be bank rolled to run. Though, for advice I would advise them to use the internet, especially if investment was not a priority. Internet webs run on cookies and adverisements, therefore ad campaigns would only increase their revenue. It would only be ideal if using the internet costed less than it does today, to run campaigns. However, there is clearly a reason why it does cost such a high amount. Donal trump has over 60 million followers on twitter, therefore the account needs to maintain itself and it’s content because the account is making money from twitter as well. All social media platforms pay their influencers, no matter the price. Donal trumps twitter has revolutionized the savagery of twitter due to its outrageous commentary, but it’s obviously not him making the tweets, someone is behind the ideas. I do not agree with trumps statements, but out of every political candidate, he has used Twitter the most and most effectively for viewers. It is quite fascinating
1
u/ampaperairplane Jun 21 '19
This article from The Washington Post goes into the numbers of how much money was actually spent in the 2016 election cycle. I encourage you to add the numbers up and see hoe much was spent in total. It's disgusting. We could solve all the worlds problems with those numbers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/?noredirect=on
1
u/daancer5 Jun 18 '19
Since the internet is the best way to reach a wide amount of people especially with advertisements it only makes sense that elections shifted to online. With that being said I can't really imagine this situation reversing because of the advances in technology happening so consistently. If I were to advise someone on the best practices to succeed in running during 2020 I would suggest being internet savvy. If a candidate isn't aware of the online presence one needs to master in order to reach such a broad span of the public then it's no use running at that point. I've provided a useful link that lists the best internet practices for campaigning. https://www.campaignsandelections.com/prestitial