The Obama movement has a claimed collection of 13 million e-mail addresses. Some suggest these will be more used for pressuring Congress. I think not. They will be used to maintain the movement's internal cohesion, which depends on there being a movement. That again raises the social proof specter. The claimed numbers are very likely enthusiastically inflated, and they provide “proof” that friends and neighbors are on board with the Obama movement – and you’ll be left off if you don’t hop on.
One may scoff at some of the Obama trappings, its staging, and faux opulence. The assumption is that folks see through it. Well, they don't. They see proud “we made it” symbols. Obama established the use of over-the-top podium seals and “The Office of the President-Elect” and many protested it was all pretend. That as a government office, it was a fraud. To the movement it was challenging, if not parodying, the "Imperial Presidency" trappings, and planting the flag to create a new legitimacy supplanting the “illegitimate” Bush administration.
This is important to understand because a “social network movement” like Obama's doesn’t shave followers into little market segments – certainly not obviously. The movement invites all comers to enlist on their own terms – what appears as a loose, viral organization that transcends politics for the betterment of all is actually a machine of participative production. It invites and rewards participation by social means, and provides ample “social proof” that it's right to join in.
Communication within any social network allows people to share its identity communally and individually. Simply put, if you join the network, you’ll have friends! In a society where bowling alone is a frequent occurrence, having friends is a powerful incentive to join and maintain membership however necessary.
A network appears to shape the message collaboratively to penetrate and activate its own circle of influence – as an Obama campaign component it did not. The Obama networks are much less viral than they appear, and highly disciplined. For example, the Obama campaign used its “MyBO” website to recruit, define and connect the nets. Campaign workers actively managed the nets’ activities, contacting net friends to canvass neighbors, for example, or to email area voters to encourage support of Obama for hope and change – a strong form of legitimizing “social proof” that runs throughout the campaign. Participation was furthered by using the net to report upwards, detailing contacts and other intelligence for rapid resource deployment decisions.
The net was also the engine that drove small contributions to the campaign’s half billion dollar “public funding” coffers. As a constant reminder of one’s success in supporting the movement, the site allowed members to pick a personal goal for fundraising, and used a “thermometer” on each personal page to reflect progress. Gentle reminders of how important these funds were to the ultimate success of the movement spurred the reticent, as did subtle, implicit messages that one could be excommunicated.
The Obama net operated as a support group, like Weight Watchers, offering kinship, emotional support, motivation and praise so long as you worked towards your goals. When you failed yourself, the group would step in to "encourage" a better result. Failure was not an option, but it could lead one out of the circle.
It also operated as a pyramid scheme, with members recruiting into the network support group, further building the effects of participative production, which provided huge output costing essentially nothing. All the while providing that "social proof" that one is doing the right thing, like so many others.
Another innovation was the use of children as campaign operatives. The so-called viral “yrmomma4obama.com” site targeted kids to essentially pester their parents on behalf of Obama.
Here's what the website said: “This election is about the future versus the past. We started Yrmomma4obama to encourage young people to take even more leadership in this election and to get them to influence the votes of their parents, friends, and families. Obama must perform well among older voters to win key large states. Young voters can influence their parents to vote for Obama in this historic election.”
The campaign, er, it's surrogate, maintained contact by use of texting, providing the kids more parent pestering ammunition and even advice as to how to effectively pester. Conservatives might be aghast at such parent abuse, but who complained? Such is now fair game, likely to expand through school and civic immersion.
The Yomama group also bought targeted Facebook ads. An example was entitled "Too Young to Vote?" ad flashed to Indiana 14-17 year olds. It reached more than 100,000 young pre-voters. It's not high tech – it's imagination to use tech to message effectively.
You can read the New York Time account of how it all worked: “Young Obama Backers Twist Parents’ Arms”.
Think about what that means...for the future...and ask how you're willing to adapt to respond to such electoral tactics.
This is fourth in a series. Please scroll down for earlier essays.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Brian, this post, and the three before it in the series, should be considered a seminal work on the topic. It needs to be read and re-read by as many as possible.
ReplyDeleteDuane Doutel