The Facebook Election? Don't count on it

Take a look at the number of fans on the Conservatives' Facebook page, Nick Clegg's Twitter messages or the comments on Labour's YouTube channel and you might conclude that 2010 will be the UK's first social media general election.

Indeed, January began with a rush of such speculation about the electoral role of the internet and social media. It's an easy line to take - but the reality isn't so clear.

Social media has the potential to affect the election in two very different ways.

First, it could offer bloggers, citizen journalists, or even an eavesdropper in a lift, the opportunity to turn an unguarded comment into a viral sensation - and, in the process, to give mainstream news organisations a chance to reflect the campaign in new ways by involving the audience in telling the story.

Secondly - which I will look at in more detail here - social media could give political parties themselves new ways to campaign.

A recent study sponsored by Hansard reported on the use of technology by individual MPs. It showed that 92% of MPs use email, 83% have a personal website, 23% use social networking and 11% blog. The report concluded that, while MPs are increasingly using technology, overwhelmingly, they are using these tools to keep constituents informed, rather than to engage them in a two-way dialogue.

As for the three main Westminster parties, each has a central website which prominently includes a menu of grassroots campaigning options (click to donate, volunteer, see events near you, sign up for email alerts etc), as well as offering ways for people to express their support for the party. In addition, each party has a presence on the main social networking sites:

(Numbers from 17 to 18 January 2010)

The fact that these sites exist suggests social media could make a significant difference to how the parties operate in the election, but I don't believe they are on course to realise the potential.

When you look more closely, there are already some big problems:

• There is confusion in terms of reputation management for David Cameron and Gordon Brown - with multiple false or hoax accounts. Nick Clegg appears to be more aware of this issue (see his Card.ly page below).

• Many of the more innovative ideas are not cross-linked, so the videos of people explaining 'why they support the Conservatives' stay hidden on the Conservative site. Likewise, Labour has an initiative called Labourspace.com where people are encouraged to suggest campaigning topics but it is hidden deep on its main site.

• The parties' Twitter feeds vary in quality and quantity, but all feel very much like another form of broadcast rather than a conversation.

Mark Pack, previous Head of Innovations for the Liberal Democrats, talks openly of the eagerness of the British political party establishments to look to the Obama campaign as a blueprint. 

That's not surprising considering the scale and sophistication with which Obama's team used technology as a campaigning device. But the US experience also shows how much time it takes to cultivate a community, the resources required and the fact that technology needs to be fully integrated and cannot simply be an add-on - as the following post-election analysis showed:

• Obama had profiles on 15 social networks including BlackPlanet.com, MiGente.com, AsianAve.com and Glee.com - all very influential in different demographics.

• Seven thousand different Obama emails were designed, with the campaign undertaking detailed research on each mailing to decipher which aspects of the email were most clicked, and changing designs accordingly.

• Three million people signed up for text alerts and received between seven and 20 targeted messages per month.

• The campaign used search engine optimisation (SEO) to make sure people found campaign messages whenever they searched - even tagging Obama's rebuttals with the same tags as his attackers. For example, a search for Obama's controversial pastor Reverend Wright took people to videos of Obama's key speech on race.

• Four hundred thousand blog posts were written on the Barackobama.com site by non-campaign staff - a massive amount of user generated content. Visitors to the site could find widgets to embed in their own sites and content which could be taken to create new content.

• Barackobama.com (below) was a catalyst for grassroots campaigning - with users taking information from a central database and then updating it when they had finished particular campaign tasks. So supporters were encouraged to register voters, fund-raise, and turn out the vote on election day. Three million personal calls were placed by non-campaign staff in the last four days of the campaign alone.

It was a formidable organisational achievement which the main Westminster parties hope to emulate. But there are fundamental differences in campaign culture, the political system and fundraising regulations between the two countries. What's more Obama himself was a once-in-a-generation candidate, for reasons we all know.

Tools can only do so much, but Obama's team had time to hone its use of technology and social media over two years. He had a core team of 11 - rising to over 30 near election day - working solely on his online campaigning.

So what are the lessons for the UK General Election? Well, first, social media requires significant time and energy to build up a credible presence and to encourage participation and engagement. Online community management, as any successful brand or news organisation will tell you, requires focus and resources.

But the most important lesson from Obama's campaign is how he empowered his supporters to campaign for him. He reached out to people who weren't necessarily his core supporters, to turn supporters into doers, and doers into activists. He treated them as citizens rather than consumers.

In Britain, for the most part, the main Westminster parties' political websites and social media sites are still preaching to the party faithful. It feels as if boxes have been ticked from an imaginary 'Obama's Guide to Winning Elections', but the parties are still only scratching the surface of what is possible.

The technology exists to bring together an enthusiastic, passionate community. Encouraging peer-to-peer conversations has limitless potential for engaging new voters. To date, those tools have not been fully used. Instead of trying to reach floating voters or the apathetic and disenchanted in places where they are spending their time, the main campaigning sites appear to be working on the old broadcast model - providing information for supporters. And that's what political websites have been doing for the past two general elections.

Treating supporters as passive consumers of scripted one-way campaign messages will have limited impact. When technology exists which allows a completely different type of campaign, it would be a wasted opportunity - and give us a General Election whose novelty is purely superficial.

In a future blog, I will look at the other potential impact of social media in the Election - to provide established media with an important new source of content.