Comments on: Does social media really influence how we vote? http://understrictembargo.com/?p=215 Daljit Bhurji's take on PR, Politics and Social Media Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:30:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Daljit B http://understrictembargo.com/?p=215#comment-564 Daljit B Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:40:44 +0000 http://understrictembargo.com/?p=215#comment-564 Hi Billy, thanks for your comment and you're absolutely right about the power of word-of-mouth and the viral nature of strong social media content. Hi Billy, thanks for your comment and you’re absolutely right about the power of word-of-mouth and the viral nature of strong social media content.

]]> By: Billy North http://understrictembargo.com/?p=215#comment-563 Billy North Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:26:54 +0000 http://understrictembargo.com/?p=215#comment-563 Another connection between social and traditional media that you missed - the act of "sharing". If I see a story in the Times, I might glance at it and give it no more thought. But if a friend of mine - IE, someone I consider trustworthy - "shares" that same story through facebook or twitter, then I will read the article online in a different light. The fact that it was shared by a friend adds a layer of commentary which makes it more relevant to my life, and thus, more likely to be influenced by it. In that scenario, which media format is really influencing me: the traditional news story, or the social networking site that brought it to my attention? Another connection between social and traditional media that you missed - the act of “sharing”. If I see a story in the Times, I might glance at it and give it no more thought.

But if a friend of mine - IE, someone I consider trustworthy - “shares” that same story through facebook or twitter, then I will read the article online in a different light. The fact that it was shared by a friend adds a layer of commentary which makes it more relevant to my life, and thus, more likely to be influenced by it.

In that scenario, which media format is really influencing me: the traditional news story, or the social networking site that brought it to my attention?

]]> By: The influence of social media in elections « Benedict Pringle http://understrictembargo.com/?p=215#comment-559 The influence of social media in elections « Benedict Pringle Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:33:39 +0000 http://understrictembargo.com/?p=215#comment-559 [...] a fantastic article about the influence of social media on elections on Under Strict Embargo.  In it he disputes Weber Shandwick’s (leading PR agency) assertion that social media will [...] [...] a fantastic article about the influence of social media on elections on Under Strict Embargo.  In it he disputes Weber Shandwick’s (leading PR agency) assertion that social media will [...]

]]> By: Daljit B http://understrictembargo.com/?p=215#comment-554 Daljit B Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:43:14 +0000 http://understrictembargo.com/?p=215#comment-554 Good point, another reason why this research is of very limited value. Do people really compartmentalise political messages by channel and then apply some scale to which ones to accord with the most influence? Good point, another reason why this research is of very limited value. Do people really compartmentalise political messages by channel and then apply some scale to which ones to accord with the most influence?

]]> By: Mark Pack http://understrictembargo.com/?p=215#comment-550 Mark Pack Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:41:29 +0000 http://understrictembargo.com/?p=215#comment-550 The other question is whether people's own assessments of what influences them is accurate. The classic is negative campaigning. People say they don't like it, don't like admitting to being influenced it - but it works. One of the benefits of social media, for example, is the ability to humanise a politician so that people react to them as a human being rather than as 'one of those corrupt politicians'. That's a fairly subtle influence even thought it is also powerful. I wonder how good people are at assessing the impact on themselves of such influences, especially as in part it means admitting you were in your previous views? The other question is whether people’s own assessments of what influences them is accurate.

The classic is negative campaigning. People say they don’t like it, don’t like admitting to being influenced it - but it works.

One of the benefits of social media, for example, is the ability to humanise a politician so that people react to them as a human being rather than as ‘one of those corrupt politicians’. That’s a fairly subtle influence even thought it is also powerful. I wonder how good people are at assessing the impact on themselves of such influences, especially as in part it means admitting you were in your previous views?

]]>