| Artificial support? |
| State Party | |
| Wednesday, 17 February 2010 09:06 | |
|
First perception means everything. Whether it's a first date, selling a house, or even voting for a politician. I guess that's why Rep. Mary Fallin is so intent on making sure she has a large following on her Facebook fanpage. Over the last few days, Fallin's campaign has bought a number of FB ads encouraging folks to join her FB fanpage.
She seems so set in increasing her following (5,857 currently) that she has this as her status update for the fanpage:
Now first of all, it's quite common for bands, businesses, and politicians to encourage folks to join their online support group. However, paying for that organic support is a bit of a stretch. I wonder how her donors would feel if they knew she was spending frivolous money like this. Makes one wonder how she'll spend money if she wins the Governor's mansion.
As a comparison, Randy Brogdon (R-Owasso) has 2,318 fans at the time of this post, Jari Askins has 1,537, and Drew Edmondson has 2,279. I believe all their support is "organic" in the sense that they have not paid advertisement to increase their numbers.
|
|
Comments
You get energy, volunteers, even financial support with Facebook followers. Who wouldn't pay for some of that?
1) It's not overly expensive to put adds on facebook.
2) It's possible that someone may have donated money specifically for that purpose. Marketing or whatnot.
3) I see it as using techonology to the fullest to run their campaign and get the name out there. I mean everybody seems to have a facebook these days.
You're right on a few points in regards to candidates spending money to advertise and recruit supporters. The Republican National Committee used money back in '08 for Google ads when folks searched for the DNC national convention and raised enough money from folks donating after clicking those ads that they made money on that effort.
However, you miss my argument. It is not using money to build a support base. Does Fallin campaign every announce how many volunteers they have or how big their email list is? No, and neither does any other campaign. The FB group on the other hand is the visual representation on the grassroots or organic effort of the campaign. Jamison Faught did a good review on this a few months ago and showed that James Lankford had a very large organic following.
Using money to "buy" support smells bad. Next I guess a candidate may buy some mercenaries for GOTV efforts.
1) Agreed. FB ads are really cheap.
2) Agreed. A donor could have directly a donation for that effort. I take back my one point on that.
3) It's great to see candidates move into the online, new media world. Conservatives are a couple years behind this. Frustrating to see the left light years ahead of us in regards to technology.
However, note my earlier argument about organic support versus artificial (ie "bought") support.
Um... I take it you're saying I'm not organic?
I personally would only want those who could vote for me joining my fan pag/group so that I could know exactly how many people are on my side volunteer and vote wise; and know that they joined because they are totally for me vs. joining simply because all their friends are fans etc. I think you can have just as much success by inviting your friends to join and then your friends inviting their friends etc. rather than paying to advertise. But, what about those who are not politically involved at all, are new to facebook, or wanting to know more but not sure how to find out? I think paid advertisement can be good for that. When you do a paid advertisement on facebook you can select a group of people to target. I think it can be helpful in targeting young people who might otherwise not be involved or care (esp. when it comes to voting).
Also, it may help raise outside money.
Haha.
You know what, you have a good point on the targeting aspect.
I think you're also right about getting folks to join who can't even vote (ie they're out of state). Leads to the question: should folks out of the state have any involvement? I for one believe that donations should be limited to only those within the voting district (state senate, us senate, governor, etc.)
Thoughts?
I think I'd have to say I disagree, to some degree.
What if the area you represent is mostly rural, made up of small businesses and farmers who can't really afford to donate much to a campaign? But,you have a good buddy living in the city who could really help ya out with some much needed funds...limiting the source of donation would then be a big problem. And if one decides that due to the limitation he would not be able to raise the money neccessary to run an effective campaign, then it could discourage him from running at all.
I think it should be regulated more to within the state, rather than district or whatnot. I mean tons of outside donors gave money to the person running against Sally Kern last year. So I can see how limitations could help (especially the conservatives) to some degree...
Just some thoughts...
One has to wonder where the Tulsa World got those numbers for their poll. On February 5 the Tulsa County Republican's had a rally and straw poll that gave Randy Brogdon a 68+ to 23+ advantage over Mary Fallin. Don't know if TW reported that but I took the figures from M.R. blog.
I do not use any of those "new media" thingys but talk to people every day about the Brogdon campaign and can tell you, support for him in Little Dixie is strong.
Another obvious advantage would be in the personal relationship angle. I see what groups you join because we are friends. Therefore, the more fans she gets, the more she will probably get through those fans.
I fail to see why any elected official shouldn't consider a part of their budget being on FB, especially giving the extremely good demographic targeting you can do with their ad platform.
Just my two cents.
RSS feed for comments to this post.