Links and links

Posted on | September 6, 2010 | No Comments

• http://brownstonecommunications.blogspot.com/2009/11/viral-marketing-and-social-networking.html

Two interesting things here: argues that Obama learned from Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004; the latter was the first to have used the internet during a campaign. Secondly, consider this question:

“The universe is changed. How many of you on Twitter today were on Twitter when Hillary Clinton started campaigning for the Presidency and the young upstart from Illinois came on the national scene? Be honest. None of you (excepting the IT professionals, of course) had ever even heard of Twitter.”

Which makes me wonder: did Obama win because of Twitter, or did Twitter win because of Obama?

• http://www.drs3.ch/www/de/drs3/themen/ratgeber/digital/210085.politische-kommunikation-im-jahr-2010-bundesrats-aspiranten-schneiden-schlecht-ab.html

This is interesting; the “iLike”-Button on Facebook provides an effective, easy and especially fast way to communicate with your electorate. Should be used conscientiously though.

• http://adassier.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/ump-lusine-a-mediocre-propagande/

The basic gist: it’s difficult for a government to steer in-between docility and debate; too much debate makes it look like you’re internally divisive, whereas too little debate makes it seem like you’re only communicating propaganda, and therewith disengaging your own people as well. Political communication is an art.

• http://www.bvmed.de/presse/pressemitteilung/MedInform-Konferenz_zum_politischen_Marketing.html

“Attention and retention are the limited ressources of political marketing in the future. Attention and retention is only possible through a limited number of continuous stimuli (in form of messages), which are coherent, distinctive and easy to comprehend.”

That sounds quite right; it’s only proper to consider the consequences of the economics of attention for political communication.

• http://www.lenouveleconomiste.fr/vu-den-haut-par-thierry-maillet-consultant-enseignant-en-marketing/

Why is the link between marketing and politics so, well, out of tune, or even unpopular? Here’s a possible historical interpretation: marketing (at least in France) sought distance from “society” – including the messy and leftist business of politics – in the 1960s. That’s “noble marketing” – whereas we’re now living in an era of “democratic marketing” in which we witness the necessity of marketing to reintegrate itself into society – and, I find: politics, potentially.

• http://blog.madmagz.com/marketing-politique

You think definitions don’t matter? They do; according to this article, communication is only a level for marketing; the first objective being “the electoral conquest, not to communicate and even less to converse with 60 million human beings, voters or not.” On the other hand, if marketing is only an instrument of communications…

Comments