Two divergent forces at work in our culture today have recently been drawing my attention. The first is the social media revolution that has at its core the ability for millions of citizens the world over to express themselves and find their native communities. Unfortunately, the second force I have in mind is almost the exact polar opposite of this first trend. And that is the consolidation and revanchist behavior of many large institutions including government, quasi-government (think the UN) and multinational corporations. These institutions are only growing in size and power relative to individuals and yet because of social media we are fooled into thinking its not happening, that we have a voice, that our concerns and desires are being taken into consideration.

They aren’t.

It shouldn’t be surprising at all really to know that at the precise moment when the citizenry of this country, and the world, were given the tools to flatten society, the institutions that would suck that power from them are slowly consolidating their own power.

Has anyone witnessed the growth of the government in the U.S. lately and thought to themselves, “that’s ok, because I can speak truth to power on my blog and through my Twitter feed?”

Has anyone seen the massive lobbying efforts by the most toxic industries (energy, healthcare, banking, military contracting) and thought that the rules and regulations being inserted into thousand page bills could be reversed by a Facebook group?

Check out this particular heinous example from the Times:

In a remarkable season of lobbying, business is booming for the Podesta Group, already one of Washington’s biggest players. It has become particularly lucrative for firms like Mr. Podesta’s that are skilled at wielding influence in Congress, the center of epic debates on health care, bailouts and financial regulations.

On the eve of a critical Congressional vote last week on the sweeping financial regulation, for example, Mr. Podesta met with one of the lawmakers to go over some final language and discuss the effect it could have on his many corporate clients.

Once that was over, Mr. Podesta pivoted back to another client, BP, to help the company navigate Congressional waters and, in short, try to prevent an ugly situation from getting even uglier.

For lobbyists, the Obama legislative agenda has been a veritable full-employment program, with 2,500 working just on financial regulation alone.

The results are often buried deep in the fine print.

Social media has done so much to empower so many in our society: individuals, small businesses, local government, activists and grassroots communities. But social media also means that while all these groups are busy tweeting and blogging and sharing their lives and loves and passions and concerns, the wool is once again being pulled over our eyes. We may tweet at Pepsi that their Pepsi Refresh campaign is pathetic and that no matter how much money they give back they are poisoning our bodies with their chemical-dependent sugar water. But they aren’t listening. Are they about to change their entire business? Nope. No matter how toxic their products are to their own customers and the environment.

What is my solution then? I don’t have one, other than to simply say pay attention, and don’t let your own increased importance blind you to the fact that so much of our society is not changing along with us. For many of the worst offenders, those entities that would leech our power as citizens away from us in the name of profits and shareholder value, the social media revolution is nothing but a gnat flying about their faces, ready to be swatted away while they get back down to business.

Image courtesy of Juliana Coutinho on Flickr

The interactive team that spread candidate Obama’s campaign message through the funnel of social media was nicknamed the “Triple O Team.” Their strategy, in retrospect, was obvious to any social media maven, but for the vast majority of political operatives, consultants and campaign managers, it may as well have been voodoo dolls and smoke-and-mirrors. This team produced half a billion dollars in campaign donations nationwide, $10 at a time. They also gleaned truckloads of information about their donors. This was yet another example that no industry was safe from social media fever, and that certain industries, like the one of creating a leader, were inherently suited to social media marketing, its tools and its philosophies.

So if we learnt all this in 2008, why are some politicians letting know-how slip through their fingers?

Politics is a Social Sport

The Massachusetts Senate race is a textbook example of the triumph of these new tactics. Democrats had every advantage in this race, including data left over from Obama’s successful campaign in a state that he won by more than 20%. But Martha Coakley rejected social media in her approach. In fact she rejected almost any kind of marketing, until of course, it was too late.

Let’s consider for a second that 74% of all internet users look for political content online according to Pew Research Center Studies.

Martha Coakley and her staff decided to play by the old rules, relying on a static website, to list events on her calendar, They completely ignored the fact that she already had close to 14,000 followers on Facebook, miniscule when compared to Scott Brown’s 76,000 fans and his ferocious twittering throughout the campaign.

Coakley should have known better how to reach her audience. After all, it was the same audience that searched the web and shared content and information on live events during the race for the oval office in 2008.

Nevada is Next

The Nevada Senate race is heating up and we see 11 Republican candidates, including John Chachas, Sharrron Angle and Sue Lowden, running for Senator in a state where 44% voters are registered Democrats.

Knowing that most registered voters are in the Las Vegas and Reno areas I would love to see some of these campaigns stoke their internal creative fires. They could do this by doing what Coakley apparently could not, run a proper social media campaign that uses all the data that is available to them. The problem is these campaigns don’t even know how to do it.

Some campaign managers are starting including share buttons on their candidate’s pages while others are exploring the power of video with sites like YouTube. But there is a lot of ground to be covered, and the reality is that most Republicans and Democrats remain skeptical and threatened by social media. Instead, they should be viewing it as their most valuable resource, after campaign donations of course.

In addition I have yet too see a bilingual landing page for any of the candidates. In the case of Nevada, Hispanics make for 20% of the population and 12% are eligible to vote, this is higher than the 9% National average. Guess what? They too read political blogs: En Castellano!

Social Media, just as in politics, is a world where you almost always get one shot. Getting it right from the get go so that social media is embedded into the very DNA of a campaign is essential.  The blueprint for online marketing as it applies to politics was well defined by the Obama campaign. If your heart is with any of these candidates I suggest you send your $10 dollars to the candidate and a copy of the New Rules of Marketing to the few campaign managers that apparently left their copies at home.

Image Source: David Paul Ohmer on Flickr