I must have said this 100 times, and I’m going to say it again. The total number of Twitter followers that you have isn’t the most important statistic. It’s who they are. Do they engage in conversation, reply to your tweets, and re-tweet your content.
Unfortunately, many people don’t understand this concept, Newt Gingrich included. According to some reports, a whopping 92 percent of Newt’s Twitter followers are fake (other reports say the number is closer to 80 percent). In either case, over 1 million of his followers are not real.
If you scroll down Newt’s list of followers, you’ll find that many of them don’t have profile pictures and are essentially inactive users, with less then 10 total tweets, and followers, such as the following handles:
Why does Newt have so many fake followers? Apparently, he decided to purchase followers – that’s why someone on his staff has told reporters. This is not a new concept, but it is certainly the most glaring example of it, and a good reminder that Twitter follower numbers can be very misleading.
This is a guest post by Lisa DeCanio. Follow her on Twitter at @lisa_decanio
Last May, I joined thousands of my classmates as we flooded the Big House for the University of Michigan’s 2010 graduation ceremony. This particular graduation, though, was different than most. We had to stand in line at 6:30am to get patted down by Secret Service Agents before our speaker arrived in style on Marine One. Yep, President Barack Obama was my graduation speaker.
I’m sure his speech was inspiring. I vaguely remember him talking to us about open-mindedness, good citizenship and similar qualities a president would hope to instill in his constituents. However, I don’t remember a single word from his time at the podium. What I do remember though, is that in the middle of his speech, Mr. President updated his Twitter feed.
I was confused. As an animated speaker, his hands definitely weren’t sneakily tweeting from the inside of his academic dress. Being relatively new to Twitter, maybe I was naïve to think every account was operated by the individual’s name it bears. Either way, I was disappointed, and my faith in the transparency of both the presidency and social media took a downward spiral.
Then last weekend, President Obama gave a nod to social media enthusiasts with his announcement that he would begin doing his own tweeting from his handle, @BarackObama. Adopting the commonly used practice of signing his initials “-BO” after his updates, the American public will now get a 140-character glimpse into the president’s thoughts as he begins his re-election campaign.
While I personally am a proponent of transparency, in the wake of the Anthony Weiner scandal, it seems risky for the president to expose himself (no pun intended) to his 8.7 million followers. Can you imagine if that BlackBerry got into the wrong hands? The move practically invites hackers looking to cause a stir under Obama’s alias. Not to mention, haters wanting to publically bash him now have even more of a reason to do so via Twitter.
On the flip side, Obama’s social media campaign proved successful during his 2008 presidential run —why not go for round two? As social networks like Facebook and Twitter continue to gain momentum, tweeting from his personal account proves to be the next logical step for the president to send his message to the masses without it being filtered through mainstream media channels. For the time being, though, the president’s tweets have avoided any political references. His first tweet was a sentimental shout-out to America’s dads: “Being a father is sometimes my hardest but always my most rewarding job. Happy Father’s Day to all the dads out there. –BO”
What do you think of President Obama joining Twitter? Will it help or hurt his 2012 campaign?
This is a guest post by Sarah Willey. Follow her on Twitter @willey774.
It was a traditional public service campaign by the FBI that has led to the capture of fugitive South Boston crime boss Whitney Bulger. Up until last night, he was one of the most wanted criminals in the world. Bulger has been on the lam for 16 years with his girlfriend, Catherine Greig. Bulger has had many aliases over the years. He led the Winter Hill Gang and was accused of being involved in loan sharking, prostitution and 19 murders.
Last night, he was finally captured in Santa Monica, California in a small apartment complex where he had apparently been living with Greig for at least a couple of years. It was new media campaign launched on Monday focused not on Bulger, but his girlfriend Catherine Greig, which led to their arrest.
The campaign launched in 14 television markets to which Bulger was suspected of having ties and aired during programs popular with women roughly Greig’s age. The new campaign pointed out that Greig had several plastic surgeries before going on the lam and was known to frequent beauty salons. The FBI also was offering a $2 million dollar reward for information leading to Bulger’s arrest. And it was a tip that led to her arrest alongside Bulger where he was going under the name Charlie.
The pair is scheduled to make an appearance in Los Angeles federal court Thursday. Bulger faces a series of federal charges including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, narcotics distribution, extortion and money laundering. Greig is charged with harboring a fugitive.
This is a guest post by Cathy Pittham, Managing Director, Racepoint Group Europe
A recent article, “PR Firms Make London World Capital of Reputation Laundering,” in the August 4th edition of The Guardian has been getting a lot of attention lately. The piece talks about the increasing amount of public affairs work being done by global PR firms in support of countries such as Russia, Sudan and Rwanda – the last being a Racepoint Group client.
This article challenges the reader to think about the kinds of countries that get reputation assistance in Western media and policy markets. If decisions were made strictly based on assessments by NGOs, special interest groups, Western governments and media pundits, many of these countries might not have agencies representing them. The reality is, however, that work done for these countries is often the subject of the same kind of practical assessments that Western governments have made in dealing with these countries for decades.
A good example would be prior to the Nixon administration, when no US government had engaged with China since the 1947 revolution. The widely held view was that it was not appropriate to deal with a Communist regime during the Cold War. Yet Nixon had a vision for a free China based on the notion that opening dialogue and promoting capitalism would generate Western style freedoms. This, in turn, led to an opening of business channels, locating dozens of Western PR firms in the country and a détente that has cemented partnerships between the East and West that, 40 years ago, were unimaginable.
While the jury is still out on whether the promotion of capitalism in China will yield a democracy, what is undeniable is that it has led to a vastly improved lifestyle for hundreds of millions of people.
The argument that countries that have policies we might not like are not entitled to communications representation is a flawed perspective. Opening channels of communication ensures that influence can occur in both directions and provide better balance. And often this communication is in support of agendas that are strongly in favour of the interests of the citizens of those countries. For example, enabling countries in Africa to promote their agendas in the West gives them access to new capital and investment to create jobs, drive technological innovation and ensure a better future for the wider population.
Our work in Rwanda focuses on positioning the country with potential investors around the world, with the international tourist industry and with the Diaspora in order to reconnect Rwandans everywhere. We also promote the extraordinary lessons that the Rwandans have learned in rebuilding their country following the tragic genocide of sixteen years ago – a lesson that can teach ‘The West’ (who largely turned their backs on Rwanda during the genocide) a thing or two.
We have focused in particular on the possibilities extended by digital communications. We have built and launched two online Rwandan communities (Rwanda Fact Check and Friends of Rwanda) that highlight key news and facts – serving to correct misinformation that emerges elsewhere. This is supported by engagement via Twitter, Facebook, FlickR and YouTube. These resources allow us to educate and inform people beyond Rwanda’s boundaries about the challenges and opportunities for rebuilding a country from democratic, judicial, cultural and economic standpoints.
Since September last year, we have increased discussions on Rwanda tourism by 183%, on the economy by 129%. Our two communities online receive approximately 2,000 visitors a month with traffic coming from 21 different countries. Our 1,000 Twitter followers include representatives from the media, World Bank, UN and International Finance Corporation among other key stakeholders.
I’m very proud of the work we do for Rwanda. It encapsulates all the values that differentiate Racepoint Group as an agency. At all times, we facilitate honest and open dialogue that seeks to balance historic perceptions with true representation of the country as it is today. The impact and devastation of the genocide Rwanda suffered is always acknowledged.
Applying oversimplified definitions of Western values is not helpful in a world that is much more nuanced and complex. So, while Mr. Booth’s article suggests one view, in my opinion it lacks the depth of understanding required in assessing such a complex situation.
Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter Discussing the McChrystal Mess on MSNBC
Somewhat lost in the full blown media storm around Rolling Stone’s“Runaway General” profile of General McChrystal that ended up costing him his job yesterday, and could be a turning point in President Obama’s attempt to fix the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, was how this all played out behind the scenes. How could someone as bright as McChrystal open the door to this controversy with seemingly no regard for what he was saying to an embedded, freelance reporter with a tape recorder in hand? What was his staff thinking? Was he trying to get fired?
Michael Hastings, the freelance reporter for Rolling Stone who compiled the profile (who is still in Afghanistan BTW), discussed some of those details in an interview with his former news weekly yesterday. And, surprisingly, it only took one email to get access to Gen McChrystal:
“I was Baghdad correspondent for NEWSWEEK for two years, and I left the magazine after covering the elections. I wrote a piece for GQ before Obama took office that raised some serious questions about the direction we were taking in Afghanistan. So it was something I wanted to be writing about. I saw General McChrystal and his new strategy as a way to look at our Afghan policy to see if it’s working or if it’s a totally insane enterprise. I met with editors at Rolling Stone, they seemed into the idea, so I e-mailed McChrystal’s people. I didn’t think I was going to get any access at all. It’s one of those strange journalistic twists. They said yes, come on over to Paris to spend a couple days with us.”
Why McChrystal’s aides and most likely Duncan Boothby, a senior media aide (who has since resigned as well), gave access so easily is puzzling. Surely, McChrystal also weighed-in on the final decision, but why wasn’t there more consideration of the potential risks in opening the door to an outsider who had previously questioned the strategy in Afghanistan? Perhaps, McChrystal, who has never shied away from the spotlight, saw an opportunity to illustrate once and for all that the President’s strategy / lack of support wasn’t working in Afghanistan? McChrystal stunned the White House back in September of 2009 by making his 66-page recommendation for more troops public – noting that the United States could loose the war there if they didn’t get more troops. At the time, he went on 60 Minutes to get his point across.
“McChrystal, an expert on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, has long been thought to be uniquely qualified to lead in Afghanistan. But he is not known for being media savvy. Hastings, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two years, according to the magazine, is not well-known within the Defense Department. And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.”
The stanza or graph, truly gives you an inside look at what goes on behind the lines and the balance a beat reporter must take in building relationships and balancing what they put out in print with the effect it will have on their future access, and how it doesn’t really apply when working with a freelance writer (or columnist for that matter). In fact, it was such an inside-baseball look that Politico pulled the graph later in the day, likely because they were scared of the scorn they’d take from fellow reporters on the White House beat.
Whether Hastings was far riskier than a typical beat reporter or not, the biggest mistake made by McChrystal and his staff was not having a cohesive objective going in. Or at least not appearing to. What was their objective for the profile? Why did they let Hastings tag around for a bar crawl in Paris and spend even more down-time with them as Volcanic ash grounded in them in Paris? If you’re going to agree to any interview, and especially to a profile of this magnitude, you better have a cohesive game plan going in that sets clear ground rules for you, your staff and the reporter. Perhaps a commander of General McChrystal’s ilk couldn’t bring himself to fear something as harmless as an embedded, freelance reporter. Unfortunately, in this case, the reporter was more dangerous than the enemy he was battling on the ground in Afghanistan on a daily basis.
This is a guest post contributed by Micah Azzano from Racepoint Group’s Washington, DC office
As communicators, we continue to hear about the new communications landscape, where two-way communication is necessary for success. Nowhere is this more apparent than in than public affairs industry, where traditional tactics for influencing legislators — lobbying, advertising, writing op-eds and forming physical grassroots communities — can be expensive, limited and ineffective.
This week I was able to attend a panel in DC moderated by Marijean Lauzier, President & CEO of Racepoint Group on this very topic. The panel asked public affairs experts in DC to explore this new landscape and how public affairs teams can use social media to promote issues, reach influencers and engage grassroots and community organizations. Panelists included: Erik Hower of AT&T, Bill Knapp of SKD Knickerbocker and Allison Giles of Cook Medical.
Below are highlights from the panel:
Bill acknowledged that in the past DC and the government has lagged behind the rest of the world in social networking, but that’s changing at a rapid pace. He notes that social media provides a useful avenue for public affairs specialist to push out necessary communications and nullify incorrect or adverse information. The two examples he discussed are his work with Toyota during their recalls and ABC when considering pulling broadcasting in New York. View Bill’s complete response
Marijean followed up by asking Allison about what concerns she has about leveraging social media over time in a heavily regulated environment such as medical supplies. Allison’s response noted their public affairs team is starting out by slowly dipping their toes into the social media world and using it primarily for monitoring and staying updated with key members of the federal government, media and hill staffers. View Allison’s complete response
The conversation moved into the challenges in communications structure moving forward and whether big brands like AT&T view social media as an opportunity or a risk. Erik said that while AT&T has some of the best PR on the traditional side, there’s a lot more they can do in the online social media world. The challenge they’re facing is how to do social media strategically where it will have the most impact, and not just put up a Facebook or Twitter page just to have one.
Themes throughout the morning addressed the way campaigns have transformed and influenced social media uses inside and outside the beltway including the mobilization of the youth community by the Obama campaign. Because of that, it highlighted and illustrated the advantages of using social media not only for messaging but also for fund raising.
The panel also addressed the difference between traditional and social media messaging. The social media messaging is more segmented to smaller niches than traditional media does. Overall, the event takeaways included that while public affairs has a unique opportunity to reach and interact with key influencers and their audiences via social media, just building a community, social experience on a central hub or even simply opening a Facebook or Twitter account is not enough. The experience must be coupled with the ability to reach and engage key audiences on a constant and ongoing basis for the success of future campaigns.
Additionally, as digital and social media continue to expand as integral parts of media planning, it will continue to grow as the central influencer and information source for many. However, this means public affairs professionals must be prepared to further pare down and segment their messaging to address the needs of extremely targeted audiences.
