Social networks, politics and class
Undoubtedly, by now you’ve heard of the “Obamagirl” video, and there’s been quite a bit of media hype surrounding it.
In case you haven’t, check it out, but then keep reading as it ties into a few points I’ve been wanting to make about social networks, politics and now an interesting essay on the emergence of socio-economic class within these networks.
While much of the media has been writing amusing stories talking about the model’s sensual figure and playing up the quite literal sexiness of the story dealing with the so-called “rockstar” candidate, I think they’ve been missing the bigger picture that the Obamagirl video illustrates. What we’re beginning to see is the start of a new era of political campaigns that will be waged online, and I don’t mean this in the often reported way of “oh, they’re using the Internet now to do video and raise money.”
No, that’s not what I’m talking about. Of course they’ll have campaign Web sites and e-mail alerts. We saw that in 2004 at the grassroots level. It’s been done. What I’m interested in discussing revolves around how political campaigns will not just ramp up operations online, but how they’ll integrate social networks to target constituentcies and have to wage two different types of campaigns: traditional and online.
While the Internet is almost commonplace, it’s still not the dominate form of communication. It’s still a competitor with TV, radio and even newspapers and regular old snail mail. For political campaigns, these traditional paid media tools are still used to great effect in localized elections. The Internet might be a part of these operations, but there’s no reason to see it overtaking these in the near future, at least on small-scale races and, more importantly, in rural areas.
When it comes to the Internet, there’s still a great divide between those with access to broadband technologies and those who are still stuck on dial-up modems. While cable companies have built out substantially, buildout isn’t compete in a many rural areas. The technology to use high-speed connections simply isn’t available everywhere. In these places, the Internet will have minimal effect on campaigns. Here, direct and traditional media will still have dominant role. To reach these voters, campaigns will have to still employ traditional tactics to gain support.
To bridge this gap, many wireless technologies are being explored. As cell phone networks continue to expand and increase bandwidth over their mobile networks, it’s possible that we’ll see cell phones become a new market to watch political campaigns target for their message. This means campaigns will have to begin developing strategies to a mobile consumer marketplace. And the fortunate thing about this type of campaign means that each person reached via these networks can grouped together by demographics via location and area code.
Here’s a million-dollar idea: begin building cross-referenced cell phone number databases with voter registration records and sell access to this data. Even better, integrate and partner with social networks like Facebook to get an even better idea of what potential voters like and dislike. And later, I’ll explain why partnering and paying attention to Facebook specifically, not MySpace, will be more valuable to political campaigns.
What we see developing in areas with wide-reaching broadband access is a new type of political monster. Right now it’s being realized on a national scale because of broad popularity of candidates in the national media spotlight. Analyzing these races now will probably serve as a template for races on a smaller scale in the future and also gives some insight as to how we can expect campaigns to adapt to the potential the Internet offers.
What many realize is the ability of the Internet to be used as a tool for elections. It can be used to distribute information and message without the filter of the traditional mainstream media. It can be used to anonymously attack opponents. It can be used to generate grassroots support. It can be used to connect like-minded individuals and influence public opinion of those who are undecided via social networks. And, best of all, it’s fast.
But the greatest variable for the Internet campaign is the unavoidable and chaotic factor of what I’m dubbing the user-generated politician. The more popular a candidate becomes, the more likely he or she will become represented by the users. The Internet provides the ability for fans or voters to become unconnected activists in the name of their superstar. This cannot be controlled, nor can it be stopped.
With the rise of Obama’s popularity came the inevitable Obamagirl video. It was bound to happen, and as Obama himself said, “More stuff like this will be popping up all the time.” This means that users will be generating the image of the politician more and more, hence my previously mentioned term. Who a candidate is to the voter will be defined not just by a media strategy team, but also those who support the candidate.
Once political campaigns realize this, they’ll have to find a way to compensate in an attempt to moderate the discussion and focus a message they want to get through. Pushing an agenda through traditional paid media could be undercut by the user-generated politician’s own popularity. Just like TV changed political campaigns forever, the Internet users are going to be altering how the game is played.
This problem, however, does have potential advantages. As I mentioned before, the rise of social networks presents unique advantages for political campaigns to take advantage of. But what social network should be used and sought after to gain the most ground?
Right now, there are two clear leaders in the area of social networks: Facebook and MySpace. First, a look at the statistics says that MySpace boasts around 106 million users and Facebook has 25 million (numbers taken from Wikipedia). While one might be tempted to think that MySpace is the superior network and should be given the most attention, I’d argue that Facebook should be the targeted audience for a multitude of reasons.
My main evidence for my hypothesis comes from a recent essay by danah boyd. In her essay, she makes the case for the formation of two social classes within and between these two social networks. The first, hegemonic, tends to use Facebook. The second, subaltern, prefers using MySpace.
The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes, or other “good” kids are now going to Facebook. These kids tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college. They are part of what we’d call hegemonic society. They are primarily white, but not exclusively. They are in honors classes, looking forward to the prom, and live in a world dictated by after school activities.
MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, “burnouts,” “alternative kids,” “art fags,” punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids, and other kids who didn’t play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm. These are kids whose parents didn’t go to college, who are expected to get a job when they finish high school. These are the teens who plan to go into the military immediately after schools. Teens who are really into music or in a band are also on MySpace. MySpace has most of the kids who are socially ostracized at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers.
You will have to read her essay to get a better appreciation for how these classes are defined, but the important thing to take away for the purposes of political campaigns is that Facebook better represent those more likely to vote. It’s been shown those who are better educated and from higher socio-economic status are more likely to punch cards in November.
So, this means if you’re using Facebook, you’d be more likely to be politically aware and campaigns should take notice of that important constituency. And it’s only a matter of time before they do really begin using Facebook to build up their support networks, fundraise and spread media.
But as boyd notes in her essay, there’s the troubling development of two classes on the Internet. Notice, this comes at a time where anyone can sign up for either network, yet one has become the elite network and we’re seeing a separation based along similar real-life lines. Wasn’t the point of the Internet to bring down these barriers between those of different classes and have true diversity be represented? Shouldn’t the democratic nature of the Internet lead to equality in all places?
Apparently, the social attitude we carry in the real world carry over to the online one to a certain degree. And for political campaigns, this means that a targeted audience can be identified through an already popular site that continues to grow with educated potential voters each year. This means Facebook is developing a base of users that will be highly desired in upcoming campaigns.
And Facebook is a better platform for political campaigns as well. Unlike MySpace, Facebook has a focus on community building and social interaction. The extent of MySpace is posting on someone’s wall and becoming “friends.” Facebook has both, but now they’ve expanded greatly. Other users can be tagged in blog posts and photos. There’s the ability to form groups, upload videos and even develop third-party applications. The innovative spirit of Facebook allows its users to play and interact in a much more meaningful way. This means more ideas are being shared among friends and therefore a campaign message has better ability to reach others. Rather than spamming, a message can get a referal from a friend’s news feed.
I think that once politicians notice the opportunities that Facebook has for really developing a strong network online, they’ll flock to it and Facebook will become one of the strongest political networks of young voters. Meanwhile, the cumbersomness of MySpace will leave those users in the dark. What we’re likely to see is network discrimination: politicians will play to Facebook, not MySpace, users and their temperments.
Unless MySpace dramatically changes its abilities and really innovates to become a “more social” social network, I suspect its users will not be a big part of the online democracy movement. Do I think they’ll never vote or be not involved politically? No, but I don’t think they’ll be a force to be reckoned with.
I have other thoughts about the possible implications of the user-generated candidate, but I’ll save those for later. Mainly, they revolve around campaign finance regulations and how we could see corporations, unions and PACs playing a larger role in social network political advertising. Doesn’t that sound like fun?
Edit: It’s been pointed out in the comments that Danah Boyd’s name is actually legally lowercase, ie: danah boyd. I’ll grant that 1.) I was not aware of this and 2.) that many Web sites don’t capitalize her name. However, I will point out that the esteemed New York Times did capitalize her name. This presents the interesting question of whether a copy editor, writer or journalist goes with the person’s desired punctuation for his or her name, or rather their own stylebook of choice. Tough call. As someone who really likes capitalization of such words as “Internet” and “Web site,” I’m tempted to go that route as it visually brings attention to the fact a person is being presented in the story. However, there’s a need to acknowledge an individual’s interpretation of his or her name. Therefore, I’ve decided to change it to lowercase.
Technorati Tags: politics, video, social+networks, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, new+media, blogs, elections, user-generated, Danah+Boyd, socio-economics, class
1 Comment