They've definitely got the online presence thing going, but as for true Social Media?
By nature, we South Africans are a stubborn bunch. I'd imagine that in the upper echelons of the DA, when it was discussed whether or not to turn majority control over to the general populace (as Obama did), they decided that there was too great a risk of the political equivalent of "brand damage", that they chose not to.
Evidently, they already have their campaign and their message sorted, so they're most likely viewing their SM strategy as an extension of that, rather than a foundation.
Walter Pike
· 10 months ago
Yeah. They are on the web, just a few years behind the curve.
Chris M
· 10 months ago
I hear what you're saying Walter, but do you not feel that they should be given some time to learn everything. Imagine being taken right out of traditional media and thrown into lingo like twitter, tweets, retweet, poke, blog, pingback and so forth, you'd be lost wouldn't you? Not just that, but the fact that you're also incredibly busy campaigning for the elections.
I really think that when non-tech parties/groups venture into the tech and social media space, they need to be given a little time. I attended a private press conference with the DA, where they announced the new websites and they were not shy to admit that they're still learning everything.
Personally, I say we give them a chance to move into this space and with companies live World Wide Creative and LSDev behind them, I'm sure they'll be brought up to speed quickly!
Walter Pike
· 10 months ago
Chris
Sure. I have no issues with that, just that part of learning is accepting that you you have stuff to learn. The appropriate response then is to embrace the people interested enough to offer an opinion.
Having a dig from behind closed doors - not really the way then is it?
The entire social media thing is very much more an attitude change, getting people to make that transition away from the heavy handed one way communication model to embrace the idea of "voter" control.
My initial point was that you cant just copy paste the technology, the technology is only a tool. What I would suggest, and its not too late either, is for them to get hold of some of the people that do understand and get them to explain.
Your point about time is perfect, maybe they should have started earlier as SM takes time, but better now than later.
Stii
· 10 months ago
Excuse my ignorance, but I don't see them doing ANYTHING wrong? They have a social networking site for it's members. Surely thats not wrong? The entire Ning is built around niche social networks. It was maybe never their idea to run a social media marketing campaign. At least that is the impression I get. Sure, they use social media tools, but they can choose how they want to use it, not so?
Also, as you quoted "build a personalised relationship with the DA’s supporters". They accent should fall on the DA's supporters. Therefore the "behind a password protected site". Who is the strategist?
As far as Twitter goes, well others said it already. I agree with them in that Helen might just be a tad busy with bigger problems than to worry about questions like what social approach they're going to have.
Lastly, you say "behind a password protected website". Well, now, you seem to forget that Facebook is not much different. Why lambaste them? Could it be a case that you don't understand their strategy? I know I didn't until I went and had a closer look.
Walter Pike
· 10 months ago
Thanks for the comments, I appreciate you taking the time.
I understand their strategy from the information available to me, and as reported. That's why most of this series of blogs is written as questions.
If their strategy is to create a tight knit closed group of supporters, rather than to maximise their supporter base then I guess that they are going about it the best way. Is that the strategy?
I'm sure that all will be revealed at some stage, maybe even by the DA .
I'm looking forward to it.
Stii
· 10 months ago
That is what they said as I understand it:
“Our approach is to build a personalised relationship with the DA’s supporters by involving them in our activities and campaigns.”
Walter Pike
· 10 months ago
also
“engagement with voters via social networking and in the blogosphere"
You read it as a closed compact social network - I see engagement with voters via social networking and the blogosphere as outward focused, in fact I see both as outwardly focussed.
Wonder if the DA will comment.
I have asked.
Stii
· 10 months ago
They've done that. Justin Hartman and Chris Mills, two of SA's top bloggers attended and started the engagement. By the looks of it I would venture to say it has worked quite well! :) Lots of talk happening at the moment. Job done.
Don't confuse their social network with getting bloggers to start a discussion. Two different things imho.
One of the essences of social media is to let your supporters support you so you don't have to run around and get distracted by nitty gritty questions and rather focus on the job at hand. In this case, the elections. That has also happened for the DA. All in all, a very successful campaign so far.
Walter Pike
· 10 months ago
Just for the record, this debate started before the DA website launch and before Justin Hartman and Chris Mills wrote their blogs. Had nothing to do with the DA activity actually.
I am talking about the use of social media. Not about the technology of social networks. Also the point was that the DA are targeting voters, which you interrupt, if I read your comment correctly are volunteers/contributors (the only people able to sign up to the site) and which I interpret as people who will vote.
As far as I am concerned social media is about participation in the discussion, a two way dialogue, not a one way monologue.
Lucky that there are different viewpoints. Life would be very boring if we all thought the same.
supercopygurl
· 10 months ago
You, know I commend them for their effort, but I feel like they are spewing political nonsense at us through SM channels and I don't think they actually get. Also, I think its a bit too late for the Social Media aspect to pull significant votes. Aren't the elections in April?
Walter Pike
· 10 months ago
That is a very good point, a point that I had ignored. Sorry.
Social Media isn't something you can just switch on - its not an advertising medium - especially when step one is to listen
1 - social media describes the online tools that people use to share content, profiles, opinions, insights, experiences, perspectives and media itself, thus facilitating conversations and interaction online between groups of people. These tools include blogs, message boards, podcasts, micro blogs, lifestreams, bookmarks, networks, communities, wikis, and vlogs.
2 - Social Media is the democratization of content and the understanding of the role people play in the process of not only reading and disseminating information, but also how they share and create content for others to participate. It is the shift from a broadcast mechanism to a many-to-many model, rooted in a conversational format between authors and people.
Darren
· 7 months ago
Interesting post Walter. I think you've hit the nail on the head.
The reality though, is that there *are* people involved in this project who *get* social media, in spite of the fact that the DA clearly doesn't.
I know the developers who were tasked with this project. Good, competent and ambitious, they fit the description Walter coined "internet engineers" in his recent post:
http://walterpike.com/2009/05/to-understand-the... "The first are the technology people, developers etc. They understand the tools and can construct them into solutions, build beautiful websites, optimise the websites for search engine rankings and actually understand the algorithms that drive those rankings. I criticised the DA for this in an earlier post. These are the internet engineers."
But I'd also think that these guys understand and get Social Media.
So the problem doesn't seem (in my mind) to be the advice the DA has been getting, or the competence of their developers.
The DA's failings in *getting* social media seems to me to be reminiscent of the classic business failing when it comes to marketing and communications, in that many businesses simply pay lip-service to the whole exercise.
Unless the 'ethos' of these conversations is understood and driven from the top down, the bottom-up conversations will never really happen, or at least never really happen in a way that maximizes their potential.
Revisiting Walter's conclusion:
"Well I think that my question has indeed been answered, the DA have copied the structures of the Obama campaign but not the ethos. Do the DA get social? The evidence strongly suggests that they don’t."
I'd agree. The million $ question though, is how do we help the *non-getters* ... become *getters*?
Walter Pike
· 7 months ago
Yeah, I took a lot of flak writing this, people got a lot too sensitive. I have no doubt whatsoever that the developers are highly competent and talented people. The point is that we get it in different ways.
oneafrikan
· 7 months ago
Totally agree with you Walter - would all South African politicians please join the 21st century?
I remember getting an email from the DA a while ago, which was wrong in some fundamental ways (tech, approach), so I mailed the 4 or 5 email addresses I could find in the email, to offer to help out for free, but got nothing back. Of course, the DA is swimming in cash and web experts, so they didn't need me, but a no thank you email would have shown me they at least checked their inboxes....now I dunno.
All Comments
By nature, we South Africans are a stubborn bunch. I'd imagine that in the upper echelons of the DA, when it was discussed whether or not to turn majority control over to the general populace (as Obama did), they decided that there was too great a risk of the political equivalent of "brand damage", that they chose not to.
Evidently, they already have their campaign and their message sorted, so they're most likely viewing their SM strategy as an extension of that, rather than a foundation.
I really think that when non-tech parties/groups venture into the tech and social media space, they need to be given a little time. I attended a private press conference with the DA, where they announced the new websites and they were not shy to admit that they're still learning everything.
Personally, I say we give them a chance to move into this space and with companies live World Wide Creative and LSDev behind them, I'm sure they'll be brought up to speed quickly!
Sure. I have no issues with that, just that part of learning is accepting that you you have stuff to learn. The appropriate response then is to embrace the people interested enough to offer an opinion.
Having a dig from behind closed doors - not really the way then is it?
The entire social media thing is very much more an attitude change, getting people to make that transition away from the heavy handed one way communication model to embrace the idea of "voter" control.
My initial point was that you cant just copy paste the technology, the technology is only a tool. What I would suggest, and its not too late either, is for them to get hold of some of the people that do understand and get them to explain.
Your point about time is perfect, maybe they should have started earlier as SM takes time, but better now than later.
Also, as you quoted "build a personalised relationship with the DA’s supporters". They accent should fall on the DA's supporters. Therefore the "behind a password protected site". Who is the strategist?
As far as Twitter goes, well others said it already. I agree with them in that Helen might just be a tad busy with bigger problems than to worry about questions like what social approach they're going to have.
Lastly, you say "behind a password protected website". Well, now, you seem to forget that Facebook is not much different. Why lambaste them? Could it be a case that you don't understand their strategy? I know I didn't until I went and had a closer look.
I understand their strategy from the information available to me, and as reported. That's why most of this series of blogs is written as questions.
If their strategy is to create a tight knit closed group of supporters, rather than to maximise their supporter base then I guess that they are going about it the best way. Is that the strategy?
I'm sure that all will be revealed at some stage, maybe even by the DA .
I'm looking forward to it.
“Our approach is to build a personalised relationship with the DA’s supporters by involving them in our activities and campaigns.”
“engagement with voters via social networking and in the blogosphere"
You read it as a closed compact social network - I see engagement with voters via social networking and the blogosphere as outward focused, in fact I see both as outwardly focussed.
Wonder if the DA will comment.
I have asked.
Don't confuse their social network with getting bloggers to start a discussion. Two different things imho.
One of the essences of social media is to let your supporters support you so you don't have to run around and get distracted by nitty gritty questions and rather focus on the job at hand. In this case, the elections. That has also happened for the DA. All in all, a very successful campaign so far.
I am talking about the use of social media. Not about the technology of social networks. Also the point was that the DA are targeting voters, which you interrupt, if I read your comment correctly are volunteers/contributors (the only people able to sign up to the site) and which I interpret as people who will vote.
As far as I am concerned social media is about participation in the discussion, a two way dialogue, not a one way monologue.
Lucky that there are different viewpoints. Life would be very boring if we all thought the same.
Social Media isn't something you can just switch on - its not an advertising medium - especially when step one is to listen
1 - social media describes the online tools that people use to share content, profiles, opinions, insights, experiences, perspectives and media itself, thus facilitating conversations and interaction online between groups of people. These tools include blogs, message boards, podcasts, micro blogs, lifestreams, bookmarks, networks, communities, wikis, and vlogs.
2 - Social Media is the democratization of content and the understanding of the role people play in the process of not only reading and disseminating information, but also how they share and create content for others to participate. It is the shift from a broadcast mechanism to a many-to-many model, rooted in a conversational format between authors and people.
The reality though, is that there *are* people involved in this project who *get* social media, in spite of the fact that the DA clearly doesn't.
I know the developers who were tasked with this project. Good, competent and ambitious, they fit the description Walter coined "internet engineers" in his recent post:
http://walterpike.com/2009/05/to-understand-the...
"The first are the technology people, developers etc. They understand the tools and can construct them into solutions, build beautiful websites, optimise the websites for search engine rankings and actually understand the algorithms that drive those rankings. I criticised the DA for this in an earlier post. These are the internet engineers."
But I'd also think that these guys understand and get Social Media.
So the problem doesn't seem (in my mind) to be the advice the DA has been getting, or the competence of their developers.
The DA's failings in *getting* social media seems to me to be reminiscent of the classic business failing when it comes to marketing and communications, in that many businesses simply pay lip-service to the whole exercise.
Unless the 'ethos' of these conversations is understood and driven from the top down, the bottom-up conversations will never really happen, or at least never really happen in a way that maximizes their potential.
Revisiting Walter's conclusion:
"Well I think that my question has indeed been answered, the DA have copied the structures of the Obama campaign but not the ethos. Do the DA get social? The evidence strongly suggests that they don’t."
I'd agree. The million $ question though, is how do we help the *non-getters* ... become *getters*?
I remember getting an email from the DA a while ago, which was wrong in some fundamental ways (tech, approach), so I mailed the 4 or 5 email addresses I could find in the email, to offer to help out for free, but got nothing back. Of course, the DA is swimming in cash and web experts, so they didn't need me, but a no thank you email would have shown me they at least checked their inboxes....now I dunno.
Couldn't agree with your post more.