大象传媒

Surely the difference between Twitter and Facebook is that Twitter is more about up-to-date instant information which gets passed on between users. Facebook is more relevant right now because it's the beginning of the campaign and there is very little going on. A Facebook group or page can be setup with very little to no information just to get some visibility. That's exactly what is happening here. Once the campaign kicks off and there is some regular campaign based news I'm sure Twitter will come into it's own. It's all about using the correct tool for the job. Pretty obvious really.

Twitter does feel like more of a savannah for debate or quarrel rather than a place that enables anyone to arrive at a settled opinion. The stream of information makes it very hard to place a position in any sort of stable context. Facebook, on the other hand, has a "stillness" that makes it easier to mull opinions of others and possibly form a more stable view. It also has the advantage of combining various media (video, audio, still pictures and words) on the same page. Little wonder, then, that the Obama campaign is choosing Facebook.

Simply put, Facebook is wired into people's lives in a way that Twitter is not. It is now firmly establish in the lives of 30 and 40 year olds. Though twitter is far more common place and established in the mainstream than in 2008, you can do a simple test of it's importance. Which service do you check first when you get back from holiday. It's no surprise that the "mainstream" digital tool Facebook, will be at the heart of the mainstream candidate's campaign. Of my friends who are all around 30, 95% use Facebook at least once a week. Probably 20% use Twitter.

Added to that, Facebook's fan pages have come on leaps and bounds since 2008. Back then, most campaigns could only exist as a Friend or a group. Now, you can setup an event on your fan page and have people "check-in" via Facebook places - useful function for a rally for example. And people are liking services and products more and more, particularly if they strike an emotional core/demonstrate a value.

Twitter became popular with UK politicians in 2010 for many reasons but a few that strike me as important are 1.It makes tracking of "success" simple - easy to show what impact you're having when considered against conventional comms 2. It was quite easy for staffers to get candidates to update via text message - not to be underestimated when older MPs and candidates only had basic Nokias 3. The media fell in love with it so it entered every conversation in press/tv/radio.

It'll be fascinating to see how things develop during the race for 2012. As we've seen with commercial products, I'd expect to see Facebook as the primary call to action on most candidate literature.

There are thousands of bloggers worth a read on this area - suggest a google for Mark Pack if you don't already read his blog.

P.S. The Obama team always said that email was way more important than social media in 2008 (for donations at least). Even though email usage is declining amongst younger users, be interesting to see what happens in 2012. If Facebook allow messages to be targetted based on a the profile information of a fan e.g. age, gender, an extrapolation of income based on job title, frequency of post interaction, perhaps email will be downgraded to equal partner status.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Genuinely as a 20something politics student, I'm avidly following the Obama (but more interested in the Republican Campaign) with a high vigour. But I have to agree with the other posters on this one. Twitter at the moment would serve no purpose yet. But the President to have Twitter on one level would put the President right in touch with the Public. Senators, Congressman (and the UK Politicians) have all jumped on the bandwagon, but my belief is that for a President (and I'm pretty sure I'm gonna be very wrong here) should avoid the use of twitter. Take Tim Pawlenty's exploratory committee announcement, a video done via his Facebook page.

Agreed with the poster above, email vs Facebook vs Twitter. Should set out to be a very exciting and interesting use of communication to deliver campaign messages!

Obama Zealots will be out in force again. But if you think Obama got into power because he utilizes technology better than any other candidate, he'd be wrong. When you have $1 billion in campaign funds, there's very little other candidates can do to compete with that kind of propa..*cough* I mean advertising revenue.

Obama promised change, we the world watched and were happy to see somebody with a higher than above intelligence get the position. But unfortunately we have been betrayed. Two faced would be an apt description of the incumbent. He said one thing in his campaign and did another. He said he'd bring the troops back from Iraq immediately when in office, and constantly delayed plans and has left thousands of troops to maintain the "peace". He then sends 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and then commits to another war in Libya with out a vote in Congress. Similarly we in UK, committed our forces to action before a vote was called. But at least we had a vote on the subject.

Obama scares me more than Bush, why? Because Bush joked "It would be a hell of a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, as long as I was the dictator". Obama actually acts like a dictator and if you can't see it.. I'm sorry for your blindness to the truth.

any politican who can summarise his position in a twitter line is not worth voting for.
both twitter and facebook are for rallying the faithful but at least you can make an attempt at outreach, and conversion on facebook.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Facebook is definitely the largest member social site. However as a member and I deleted my memebrship as there are hundreds of millions of fake prpfieles using celebrity photos and no profile picture photos. Thereby President Obama's try will be in vain as millions of fakes will say yes. Facebook now known as Fakebook for this reason and vote assesment will be futile.

Twitter is for kiddy politicians. Youtube is the way forward and attracts potential voters and people will see what you are like away from the TV screens - more like at home

Facebook will also play an big part in the debate and election happening here next month.

I am using Facebook to explain to my Friends why voting No to AV is so important and it is easy to share links and images to explain the point.

Twitter is great for sharing little bits of info quickely but you can't rely on people clicking your links or twitpics.

Foursquare is just a game.

The actual sites or apps being used don't matter much: some will still be around in the future, some won't. What is important though, is the use of the internet in the political battle for hearts and minds. We're only a step away from voting online, and once we've taken that step, we're only one more step from dispensing with politicians altogether, and all of us simply voting with a click on the issues that matter. A true democracy at last! I just hope I live to see it:)

None of this will make any difference at all.

The internet will not make any difference at all.

The screaming political bloggers and their screaming fans are the same people that moaned on continuously before - just on the internet instead.

If voting suddenly hit the levels of 19th century (up to 80%), then you could claim that the internet had made the difference. The last leap in voting was in reaction to GW Bush but still did not go outside of the average of the last 60 years.

Other than that the numbers have sat bouncing happily around the 50 to 60% mark since WW2

I know all the commentators are desperate to think that the internet has turned the world on its head - but quite honestly, it has done nothing of the sort.

It has made the chattering louder and more invasive, that is all. Television had already made the big changes - the internet has just made the changes "on demand," nothing more.

But the same numbers vote, the same political parties are in power, politics attracts the same people and the pundits are the same boring, arrogant lot that they ever were.

Most people who go on Facebook do so to chat "over the fence" as it were, exactly as they have done for thousands of years; it hasn't made them suddenly more political. It hasn't changed society. it has just made finding a fence a lot easier.

"Obsessive media claim Facebook obsession" - this should be your next story.

Start with: 96% of users sign in less than daily
End with: Only 8% of the world's population have an account.

Maybe you could rephrase it as: 100% (rounded up) of the world's population do not sign into Facebook daily

Or maybe this story would be as irrelevant as every other "Facebook is great" story.