Candidates are increasingly using social media and many have a significant presence on several different social networks such as MySpace and Facebook. Fred Stutzman (TechPresident) has a great post on Senator Dodd’s use of the new social network aggregator tool, MyLifeBrand, which attempts to solve the problem of connecting supporters across multiple networks.

But as Stutzman rightly asks, is the attempt to connect these communities worth it?

It is only natural to watch the activities of various communities from a distance and want to **organize** those communities in ways that would be beneficial. For candidates, it would be especially useful to connect multiple communities across social networks and get them to coordinate/divvy up the work that needs to be done to elect the candidate. The problem is, organizing organic, Web 2.0 communities is a bit like herding cats. What is best for the campaign, what is best for the candidate, is not what generated the emergence of these communities in the first place. People connect for various reasons and unfortunately, those reasons usually have little to do with the goals of outsiders (candidates or companies).

Communities become communities based on specific shared interests, norms, values, etc. Multiple communities may share an interest in the candidate, but not connect in other ways – their communication norms, how status is awarded, hot button issues, etc. may vary significantly across communities. In other words, just because multiple communities share a common interest in a candidate doesn’t mean they will connect and coordinate with each other in ways that help the campaign.

Failure to fully understand how communities work in general, and the specific community one is attempting to communicate with, is a key reason that social media marketing often fails, both for nonprofit and commercial brands. ( Unfortunately, it takes a significant amount of time to understand a single community –and there are a lot of communities out there.) Rather than attempting to use the community for one’s own purpose, marketers are better served by figuring out what the community wants and helping them get it. That sort of engagement opens doors, builds relationships and paves the way for future initiatives.

Final Thought: Perhaps one of the reasons the audience centric approach Fred talks about (i.e., candidates going out to communities that already exist versus building their own and driving people in to “join”) has worked well for some candidates is that the interaction between the campaign and the community is taking place on the community members’ turf, which, in itself, may encourage less institutional, more personalized, and more respectful communications. When I visit someone else’s home, I look around, take note and interact in a way that is acceptable to my host. In other words, the environment in which the communication takes place shapes the communication. True, there are plenty of examples of companies and perhaps candidates who haven’t approached social media communications in this way – and equally as many examples of failed initiatives, or worse, swift consequences from the community.

If you haven’t had a chance to visit TechPresident, take a moment to poke around. There is some great stuff here. I love the the charts on supporters of each candidate across various SN’s and the tracking of increases and decreases, by candidate on each network.

Filed under: Social Marketing on Thursday, July 12th, 2007 by Nan Dawkins |
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.