In one of the biggest and most meaningful elections in a while (although that presidential one where the US elected its first African American President was pretty big!) the winner Scott Brown strategically used internet marketing to win over voters. The old school ad man can say TV spots, traditional print advertisements, his (really annoying) robocalls and his adventures in his ever so famous truck won over the votes of the majority of Massachusetts voters however it was his internet marketing that captured the victory.
According to a social media poll published on the WordStream Internet Marketing Blog, Brown had significant advantages over Coakley in website traffic, YouTube viewers, Twitter followers and Facebook fans:
10:1 Website Traffic
10:1 YouTube Viewers
3:1 Twitter Followers
3:1 Facebook Fans
This data was collected on January 14 and increased throughout the election. Most of the other polls except for this one predicted a win for the Democrats. Now we see the importance of the internet for political candidates with Scott Brown's underdog win. Wait, was he really the underdog? This particular poll clearly sees him as the favorite.
Why is it so important for a politician to win the social media/web traffic race?
Social Media sites are a great way for candidates to gain trust, create a community of followers and advertise for free! Questions can easily be answered, and a candidate messages, beliefs, and positions can be swiftly communicated to the voting populace. Other forms of campaigning should still be done, however the world in how voters get there information is swiftly moving and it is the age of the internet. The careers of politicians, like Coakley (and her primary opponents) who don’t get it completely will suffer and perhaps should suffer for being so detached and out of touch with votes of all generations who spend more and more time on the web and look to the web for information before they look anywhere else. All of the original ways of campaigning (newspaper, signs, TV and radio and phoning) can lead people to your online campaign by showing including the web and twitter addresses. on signs, in tv spots and mentioning it in phone calls.
I also noticed that these both candidates were using pay per click advertising very heavily. It seemed that almost any website with a Massachusetts town in its content contained a PPC advertisement for one of the candidates, with the vast majority being Brown. They were also showing up in PPC ads on web searches pertaining to Massachusetts , the senate or the election itself. PPC advertisements can help the candidates to get the viewer thinking about the election, even if they don't click on the link and visit the website, the candidate’s name will be in the back of their heads similar to seeing a sign (yes, somewhat subliminal).
I think we will certainly see internet marketing become a bigger and bigger factor in political campaigns and its budget someday may even exceed TV, radio, and print budgets combined. If state and local politicians have not began to realize the importance of internet marketing to winning an election than maybe after Scott Brown's win it will finally become apparent: victory is won on the internet battlefield.
According to a social media poll published on the WordStream Internet Marketing Blog, Brown had significant advantages over Coakley in website traffic, YouTube viewers, Twitter followers and Facebook fans:
10:1 Website Traffic
10:1 YouTube Viewers
3:1 Twitter Followers
3:1 Facebook Fans
This data was collected on January 14 and increased throughout the election. Most of the other polls except for this one predicted a win for the Democrats. Now we see the importance of the internet for political candidates with Scott Brown's underdog win. Wait, was he really the underdog? This particular poll clearly sees him as the favorite.
Why is it so important for a politician to win the social media/web traffic race?
Social Media sites are a great way for candidates to gain trust, create a community of followers and advertise for free! Questions can easily be answered, and a candidate messages, beliefs, and positions can be swiftly communicated to the voting populace. Other forms of campaigning should still be done, however the world in how voters get there information is swiftly moving and it is the age of the internet. The careers of politicians, like Coakley (and her primary opponents) who don’t get it completely will suffer and perhaps should suffer for being so detached and out of touch with votes of all generations who spend more and more time on the web and look to the web for information before they look anywhere else. All of the original ways of campaigning (newspaper, signs, TV and radio and phoning) can lead people to your online campaign by showing including the web and twitter addresses. on signs, in tv spots and mentioning it in phone calls.
I also noticed that these both candidates were using pay per click advertising very heavily. It seemed that almost any website with a Massachusetts town in its content contained a PPC advertisement for one of the candidates, with the vast majority being Brown. They were also showing up in PPC ads on web searches pertaining to Massachusetts , the senate or the election itself. PPC advertisements can help the candidates to get the viewer thinking about the election, even if they don't click on the link and visit the website, the candidate’s name will be in the back of their heads similar to seeing a sign (yes, somewhat subliminal).
I think we will certainly see internet marketing become a bigger and bigger factor in political campaigns and its budget someday may even exceed TV, radio, and print budgets combined. If state and local politicians have not began to realize the importance of internet marketing to winning an election than maybe after Scott Brown's win it will finally become apparent: victory is won on the internet battlefield.