Up until now, if you had been reading reddit and other social media sites fairly regularly you would have thought that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul was the second coming. He had a ton of online exposure, support, and young followers. We even wrote about the "Ron Paul effect" on numerous occasions. After being inundated with all things RP for months on end, it was only natural to think that the guy stood a fightin' chance of winning the presidency.
Then the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries came and went, and Ron Paul did surprisingly poor. In Iowa he came in 5th with 10% of votes, while in New Hampshire he fared worse with only 8% of the vote. Last night in Michigan he received 6% of votes. What happened? I couldn't even open my Netvibes without the "Technology/News" section displaying at least one headline about Ron Paul being the future of America, Ron Paul having magic healing powers, and Ron Paul being a built-in Swiffer duster and mop.
The explanation is easy, folks. Ron Paul is the Snakes on a Plane of 2008.
Think about the explosion of Internet hype when Snakes on a Plane was being filmed. The mere idea of Samuel L. Jackson starring in a movie with a title as absurd (yet to the point) as "Snakes on a Plane" had Internet-savvy, Digg-frequenting, blog-reading and writing users foaming at the mouth. There were posts. There were mock posters. There were spoof videos. There was a viral marketing campaign where you could plug in a friend's phone number and have them receive a call from Jules Winnfield himself, urging him or her to go see Snakes on a Plane. People online (including me) had snakes on the brain, and everyone thought it would do monstrously well its opening weekend at the box office.
It didn't. The movie made a little under $14 million its opening weekend and ended up grossing only $62 million worldwide (in comparison, 300, also rated R, made $70 million its opening weekend). It was considered to be a disappointment through and through (though I still enjoyed it in all its campy glory), and yet, like with Ron Paul, you'd have thought that with all the Internet buzz it had created, the movie would have been a resounding success.
Both Snakes on a Plane and Ron Paul have taught us a valuable lesson: Internet buzz doesn't resonate as much as you think. Since I literally work on the Internet and am online at least 10 hours a day, it's easy for me and other 'net savvy folks to think since the online masses are obsessed about something, that must mean that it's going to be equally popular offline. Not true. I doubt that most of my relatives were aware of the massive online campaign behind Snakes on a Plane, nor would they consider Ron Paul to be a major contender in the Republican race.
Even though more people are online today than ever, that doesn't mean they're hitting places like reddit and other sites that are spreading viral and social media marketing like wildfire. Most people still use the Internet for email and little else--maybe some Yahoo! games and basic searches. These people aren't seeing scores and scores of stories about the "next big" movie, political candidate, viral video, etc. How many of the people that you know have seen the Chronicles of Narnia video? If I were to narrow down my choices to people I know that aren't SEOs and that I don't work with, I'd say that my answer is probably less than 20, maybe even less than 10. This sounds absurd, given how obscenely viral it was, but it's true.
The point I'm making translates directly to any viral marketing campaign you have up your sleeve. It's absolutely crucial to understand that viral or guerrilla marketing doesn't always translate smoothly from online to offline (the Aqua Teen Hunger Force promotion comes to mind). At this point, we are still a minority of Internet sponges that soak up information and readily retain it. We're a little-discovered species that don't necessarily represent consumers as a whole. Keep that in mind the next time you see an online campaign crash and burn offline, and you're confused as to what went wrong.
Don't think that you can just release something online and expect it to snowball into an avalanche--in many cases, offline marketing and awareness is just as important, if not more, than online marketing. Marketing is a comprehensive effort, and it's often easy to get caught up in the craziness happening online and overlook the even bigger audience that isn't logging on. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go watch Samuel L. dispatch of some serpents...
By: Rebecca Kelley
Ron Paul is the Snakes on a Plane of 2008
Online Advertising
The author's views are entirely his or her own (excluding the unlikely event of hypnosis) and may not always reflect the views of Moz.
It's like how, if your whole neighborhood or group of friends is totally excited about something, you might think everyone in the world is -- but it might be only your neighborhood.
Social media sites are kind of like a particular "neighborhood" -- buzz on them is valid, but not everyone will be aware of it.
There are just less people online (and using social media sites), like feedthebot says.
Wow, lots of comments from a lot of different viewpoints. After reading through them all, I'd like to clarify a couple things:
Though a lot of you feel that I am, I'm not bashing Ron Paul, per se (Swiffer joke notwithstanding). I apologize if any of you were offended by my comparing him to a lackluster summer film that most of you either didn't see or hated (for the record, I like the movie). It wasn't my intent to offend. Rather, my analogy was partly to catch your attention and to make for a good read, and partly because, when you strip away all intents and purposes (Ron Paul = political awareness, which is much more important, vs. Snakes on a Plane = box office bucks and entertainment value), you're still dealing with two examples of online momentum and viral marketing that, for some reason or another, weren't nearly as prevalent offline as they should have been. And that was my point--the moral of my story is that marketing is comprehensive and should include multiple facets, and relying too heavily on a single strategy doesn't always work.
Rebecca, I appreciate the sentiment and message of this post. But I think the comparison isn't quite apt.
Major political pundits, including John McLaughlin, Pat Buchanan, and Chris Matthews believe that Paul has had a transformative effect on politics (McLaughlin even went so far as to name him 2007's "Man of the Year"), even if Paul himself had very little to do with it.
He's raised as much, if not more, money online than any mainstream candidate, and were his message not so radical, I think he would have been able to translate it into many more votes. Just because he hasn't translated his online support into offline votes does not mean that his impact on politics will not reverberate for years to come.
In other words, it might be more appropriate to compare him to a box-office bust that's had a more lasting effect on the movie industry than Snakes?
I think that it's apt. Much like with Howard Dean, who kind of kick-started online campaigns but offline seemed a bit kooky with his "Yeehaw!" A lot of people who aren't online a lot may only vaguely know of Ron Paul's "radical" message and little else. I don't disagree that Ron Paul had a transformative effect on politics, much like Snakes on a Plane paved the way for other movies to virally market more aggressively and creatively online--however, in both cases, it didn't do either much good at the moment.
Just because people have heard of Ron Paul, doesn't mean they agree with him. Just because people have heard of Snakes on a Plane, doesn't mean they want to go see it.
So I don't think we really know for certain about how internet hype translates over to the offline world. To really measure that, you'd have to get an accurate measure of name recognition. As in "Have you heard of Ron Paul?" and "Have you heard of Snakes on a Plane?".
These websites you refer to are still mainly used by young white males. So just because people that post there are into these things, doesn't mean the offline population, which consists of more than young white males, will take a liking to it. Even if they have HEARD of it.
Ron Paul has MAJOR offline support. He had more signs in yards, etc, than anyone. CNN started mentioning him quite a bit, along with a few other networks. His ONLINE fundraising and internet hype DID translate very well over to the mainstream offline world. People just aren't ready for his view on politics. Or they simply disagree with it. Whatever.
That's my 2 cents.
That's the point I was going to make, Greg.
Clearly, more than 6-10% of voters had heard of Ron Paul, and clearly many of those who had heard of him and the buzz still didn't agree with him.
As always, content is king. Voters just didn't like Ron Paul's content.
Honest truth, I don't have a clue what his message is/was at all. Literally the only thing I know about him is that reddit loves him.
"Snakes On A Plane..."
What do the passengers of Air Force One have to do with Ron Paul?
Here's where I think the difference between Ron and Snakes is:
I think the disconnect here is that everyone on this blog is an SEO expert (at least compared to 99.99% of the general population) but none of us (maybe with the exception of Ciaran) are experts in the political arena.
All I'm trying to say is that I think that the attention paid to Paul by so many mainstream political experts, not just this community of SEO/SMM experts, signifies that he's a more important figure than you give him credit for with this post. I doubt that Snakes will be remembered much, even by folks in the movie industry, but that political types will be talking about Paul for much longer.
I appreciate the comparisons made to Howard Dean below, and would only point out that Dean was able to parlay an unsuccessful bid for the presidency into the Leadership of the Democratic Party because of how well he was able to mobilize his support & use the internet to his advantage. And that was only four years ago. Who knows where he'll be in another four, or even 10 years.
I think, though, that the "mainstream" media paid attention to Mr. Paul because of the support he got online and the way he turned that online support into people carrying Ron Paul signs outside every major political rally in the country.
The point remains: Viral marketing success doesn't necessarily translate into offline success.
[Oh, and I have more expertise in politics than SEO, which might not say much considering I don't know much about SEO ;)]
@ David
"...and were his message not so radical..."
You mean, about wanting to protect constitutional rights? I know, that's crazy.
"...it might be more appropriate to compare him to a box-office bust that's had a more lasting effect on the movie industry than Snakes?"
You mean, like Zoolander?
Sean, full disclosure:
Although I will not be voting for Ron Paul in the general election, I am a Paul supporter and have gone so far as to place a RP bumper sticker on my car.
Radical was probably not the right word -- people below have used "fringe" which is probably more appropriate. I completely agree with MANY of his stances, incl. constitutional rights and the exorbitant control the Fed has over our economy, but I am trying to keep political leanings off of this blog. :)
Very well said. And before S.O.A.P., Howard Dean had a similar sort of internet popularity that didn't translate into real-world popularity.
Often it's easy to be convinced that the latest Web 2.0 trend is going to turn the world upside-down. Going to somewhere like rural Kentucky, Tennessee, Nebraska, or Michigan is a good way to get a different perspective. Lots of people there don't spend all their time on the internet (gasp). Or have dial-up. Weird, but true. :)
One of the first things you have to teach a new Googler is "you are not the typical Google user."
And then you make them listen to the Talking Heads' "Once in a Lifetime."
"One of the first things you have to teach a new Googler is "you are not the typical Google user."
Yeah, but that doesn't stop them from thinking that they're smarter than just about everyone else on the planet.
Okay, so they are....but still.
Matt, see my comment above re: Howard Dean. He didn't win the nomination, but I would say he still got a pretty good consolation prize for his efforts...
Rebecca,
Your analysis is apt, up to a point. I agree 100% that the linkerati overestimated the actual offline support of Ron Paul.
But to compare him to Snakes on a Plane is misleading. There's a big difference between something that goes viral for it's comedic/ironic value and something that goes viral because it has a very passionate evangelizing userbase or fan club.
Would you look at Apple and say, now there's a company that's got a lot of online support, rabid fans, etc., but they're totall failing offline because they only have 8% market share for computers?
There was a lot to Ron Paul that people liked, and that they weren't hearing from anyone else--mainly his antiwar stance. Howard Dean's popularity stemmed mostly from a rabid dislike of George Bush, but Ron Paul stands for something very specific--limited government and non-interventionist foreign policy.
People were chattering about Snakes on a Plane because LOL it's Samuel Jackson and isn't this going to be ridiculous!
People supported Ron Paul because they really agreed with him or at least a good portion of what he was saying. That's why he had tens of thousands in MeetUp groups and people standing on street corners. That's how he raised $20 million. Unfortunately for him, his support was very deep, but not very broad.
"Would you look at Apple and say, now there's a company that's got a lot of online support, rabid fans, etc., but they're totall failing offline because they only have 8% market share for computers?"
8% market share for computers means you're making money hand over fist. 8% of the US popular vote means you lost.
Edit: I still thumbed you up, and agree with your statement that something going viral for comedic purposes and something going viral because it's a cause people care about are two very different things.
You're right-- in politics you have to get 51% of the market share; I meant to include something about that in my comment.
I guess that business and politics are just two completely different animals; in business trying to to please everyone is a bad strategy, but it's a necessity in politics.
See, that's where I'm not quite sure how we define "success." As others have pointed out on this thread, without the Internet, Paul NEVER would have had a chance to get his message out as widely and as lengthily as he has. He would have had to drop out of the race even before the Iowa primary.
But as it stands it looks like he'll be in at least through Super Tuesday, get to participate in a couple more debates (except for the ones run by Faux Fixed Fox News), and continue to be a voice in the race.
Edit: How come the strikethrough formatting isn't working?
Rebecca,
I totally agree. Which is why I plan on voting for Bush AGAIN in the next election (and every other one after that). :)
I find the Bush dynasty to have the staying power of old classics like "Gone with the Wind".
Obama is too John Hughes for my taste.
:)
Rebecca,
Thanks for the great post.
It is easy for those of us who are connected 40+ hours a week, to assume that others are aware of the same online buzz we are exposed to. I can't even count the number of times I've mentioned some massively popular online video/site/news story/blog post to a friend only to get blank stare.
But I'm not entirely convinced that "Internet buzz doesn't resonate as much as you think." I think a more accurate statement might be:
Internet buzz doesn't resonate with everyone as much as you think.
Additionally, I would content that the effectiveness of Internet buzz is inversely correlated to the age of the consumer you are targetting.
While internet adoption as whole is very high across all age groups, the way younger users interact with the web can be very different from older users. Try finding anyone over 50 who knows what Digg,Reddit, or Slashdot is.
While it's far from scientific, there seems to be a very strong correlation between the digg/reddit demographic and those who voted for Ron Paul
If you look at CNN's exit polls in New Hampshire, Ron Paul finished 2nd among 18-24 year olds and 3rd among 25-29 year olds.
Great point, twitmer. It definitely doesn't resonate with everyone as much as you think. Thanks for clarifying that point.
Perfect analogy Rebecca.
Don't listen to the naysayers :)
The amount of people online is less than amount of people offline.
I admit that the analogy is a bit extreme, but hopefully you all get the underlying message.
...I do. And I mostly agree with the underlying message.
I am glad you admit that the analogy is a bit extreme; that's all I was trying to point out in my comments above!
How about the amount of people online that vote vs the amount of people offline that vote?
That would be an interest statistic to find out.
In 2000, a study said that 88 percent of web users planned to vote, compared to 56 percent of the general populace who voted the year before.
Don't know how it might have changed since then, but that's a significant difference!
I think this article totally missed the point. Without the internet Ron Paul is a >1% canidate. The internet has made him a major player in the republican party. He has raised more money then any other republican presidentail canidate in the 4th quarter. Ron Paul has to be taken seriously by the other canidates because they all know he much like Nader did to the democrats could be a major reason they lose the election due to pulling away the fiscal conservatives, as well as the anti war, the constitutionalist, and many other wings considered strongholds for the republicans.
Another amazing thing Ron Paul does for this election is he gets people talking about politics. How many political posts did SEOMOZ write before Ron Paul. How many 1000's of young people are out there digging up Ron Paul blog posts? Ron Paul has done more to get young people to vote then any stupid vote or die campaign.
So yes he may not be the winner but he has done a lot of good and his online efforts have been amazing. To say it didn't translate forgets that he beat Rudy Gulinai in both Iowa and Michigan, it forgets he energized young people, it forgets if he runs as a 3rd party he could determine the next president of the United States.
Anyways I am not a die hard Ron Pauler but I do think what he has done for our country is respectable. He has energized a largely apethic youth.
There's another interesting point which also backs up your main point.
In his recent post on stats, Rand said:
And yet posts like this would suggest that this is a site which is primarily concerned with US issues.
Now I'm actually a politics junkie, so find this stuff fascinating. I also (along with anyone with an ounce of sense) care what happens in the world only superpower. And I also agree with the point that Rebecca makes about not confusing one's own views & habits with those of the wider world.
All the same, not only does Ron Paul appear to have had little impact on the campaign in the US, in the wider world, his name means absolutely nothing.
Slight edit: just read this comment back and feel that it might seem like a criticism of the post; it's not - I really like the post & the analogy (and agree entirely with it). Just felt that it was worth raising the issue of global sites (which is what the Moz now is) assuming that everyone understands US issues.
I spent an hour talking to a journalist yesterday about what companies should consider when launching international sites/online marketing campaigns, and one thing is obviously the reference points of the audience.
Outside of the internet world - his name means absolutely nothing as well - relatively speaking.
I have a large extended family and they are all very heavily into politics. They support a lot of local Democratic candidates with their money and their time. We even have some state legislators in outlying parts of the family tree that come to our family functions.
Yet, even among them there is a quizzical look when Ron Paul is mentioned, and on more than one occasion a confusion between Ron Paul and Ru Paul (the cross dresser).
When you extend out to the non-politically involved (a vast vast majority of the population) his name recognition drops to zero.
As others have mentioned, it is easy to think everyone enjoys and knows the same things we do.
I always like to point this out about the Daily Show. As popular and witty as he is - Jon Stewart still only averages about 1 to 2 Million viewers a night.
Compare that with the number of people who watch ANY NFL or College football game. Or American Idol. Or even "The Office".
Whether it is disinterest or just being disenfranchised - not that many people care about politics. And a "Google Ron Paul" sign isn't going to change that.
And as Scott mentioned, there is the whole "don't waste a vote on a non-viable candidate" issue.
This is just a hunch - I would imagine the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters are actual card carrying if not self-identifying Democrats. The fact that Ron Paul is running as a Republican probably taints his chances some.
In Iowa, if you went to a caucus and the candidate of choice was not going to be selected - you have the option of backing another candidate.
I don't see many Ron Paul supporters upon realizing their candidate wasn't going to be chosen would then go for a Huckabee (pro-religion) or McCain (pro-finance campaign finance laws) or Romney (pro-corporation and business).
And in some states you can only vote in the primary of your party affiliation.
I think the greater lesson here isn't the use of social and viral marketing to change someone's idea about which candidate they're going to vote for - but the use of viral marketing to actually get out the vote for the candidate of your choice by finding like minded people who might not otherwise go to the polls.
Ron Paul - with virtually no traditional political organization (relatively speaking) actually did better than two nationally known candidates in Iowa (he beat Giuliani) and New Hampshire (he beat Law and Order (and the Hunt for Red October) star Fred Thompson).
I think this can only be attributed to social media.
You find a whacky fringe candidate and when you go online you find 20 other people in your county who like him also. And so on. And so on.
I think this is what Mark Zuckerberg would like to see happen with Facebook. In the last big election we saw a little bit of it happen with the MoveOn and the Meetup people.
In the next big election, expect the impact of the Internet to be even bigger.
For the record though - at the risk of getting a thumbs down and having a reddit account banned for life - I think Ron Paul is just TOO out there to be viable as a national candidate.
Over the last several elections I've ended up splitting my votes between the two major parties and I actually voted libertarian in the last election (Michael Badnarik anyone?).
But even I wouldn't have voted for Ron Paul.
I'll probably just hold out and hope Bloomberg runs, or make my "least of two evils" decision the day of the election.
I agree with you in general, ciaran. In the case of politics, see my comment below ;)
Just want to say to all mozzers who are participating in this thread, I have very much enjoyed reading every single one of your comments. What a lively, intellectually stimulating debate.
(Truly the mark of a great post, Rebecca)
What can I say, sometimes I'm polarizing. ;)
Great observations, Rebecca.
1. I guess that also depends on niche - celebrities are doing a great job at online viral campaigns... just because they are targeting younger [and hence internet 'savvier'] audience. [yet again 'Snakes on a Plane' phenomenon is still valid in this case - maybe people who live online - do not go the cinema? :) ]
2. Viral campaign does not necessarily means people's engagement. The more correct would be to count how many people actually know RP due to online buzz - and also to analyze how his campaign could be changed to engage vs to create buzz.
3. This is going to change [sooner or later] - when our 'net-savvy generation gets older, we will still remain 'net savvy, so soon much wider scope of people will be influenced by the online world.
what a good point. This hits home to some of the exact same thoughts I've been having lately. It's amazing how different the offline and online world can be and it can be a real shame that things don't translate better. I find it rather disturbing most times the things that are so widely spread on the internet but never have an impact on anyone offline. Couple that with people who do nothing more on the internet than emails and facebook, you've got a pretty big gap to jump across if you want to make a mark in both arenas.
That being said, I do think that people and the media are starting to understand that there's something to this whole 'internet thing' and in the future, I think they will start to blend together.
This is strictly looking at the glass as being half empty or half full. Considering the fact that, this man seen to be a crazy old 70+ year old liberterian with not a chance of snowball in hell, before the net craze, I would say 6-8 percent is revolutionary. P.S. I am a Democrat but since Obama is winning in my state, I am voting for Ron Paul just to prove a point and yes because I do believe in the constitution. Given the fact that this thing called internet is barely a decade old, I think its power to convert even 1/20th of the American population to a liberterian (given the liberterian voting percentages in the history of the country) to me is more powerful than any other type of advertisement out there.
I don't agree with the thoughts that he hasn't done well at all. He has beat Thompson and Rudy who were both being pushed by the media as Front runners less than 6 months ago. He got 50,000+ people to show up and vote for him in Michigan, a place he didn't campaign for hardly at all. That was double what Fred Thompson had show up and absolutely killed Rudy.
While he isn't doing as good as Ron Paul supporters would like he is doing so much better than anyone had expected.
Great article! I have been following the Ron Paul phenomenon online. I never really expected Ron to do well in the primaries, due to all of the above mentioned aspects of how our primaries are run and who actually votes in them.
I think it will be interesting to see what Ron Paul does with his online fame and the money he has raised off line. I think people are just beginning to actively engage in the Presidential election. Most people I know just couldn't bear to think about it before the primaries.
I agree with BamaStangGuy. Ron Paul has fared better in the primaries than anyone expected and better than some candidates that were expected to do well. I think only time will tell if Ron Paul is truly just another Snakes on a Plane.
It all adds up to US politics being more interesting than UK politics....
Maybe I'm just biased by the West Wing.
i love the offline promotion for ron paul going on in dallas, at least. small garage sale sized signs placed at intersections with a tiny hand-scribbled "google ron paul" with a sharpie. i bet that's getting a lot of non-internet users attention.
Same thing going on here if Ft Lauderdale - only people are holding the signs in the intersections!
Great post Rebecca - I think it is very much to the point.
I think audience is a big factor also. In general, old people vote in the primaries and although young people are coming out more, it's still not enough.
My grandparents refuse to have a microwave, so getting them on the Internet to hear about Ron Paul isn't going to happen.
He is also the crazy candidate. He's the Howard Dean or Ross Perot of this election. People want change, but not too much change. So Hillary and Barack say they want change but never mention what they are changing.
I think if you could vote online, the game would be completely different.
The real question is, can he have a come back. I remember Austin Powers BOMBED at the theatrically release. Then it hit video and everyone was saying "Yeah baby!" At 72 he probably won't be running in the 2012 election, so this could be it.
This whole situation reminds me of the way I assumed that everybody knew about "All Your Base Are Belong to Us."
Then after reading the part of The Long Tail where Anderson mentions how not-that-mainstream it was, I asked a bunch of my less geeky friends. Nobody knew what I was talking about. Not one.
I think this is the PERFECT analogy.
Snakes on the Plane kind of just fizzled - never lived up to the online hype. It will be remembered as a cult classic (maybe).
Ron Paul has made a small splash (especially once some of the big websites and papers saw that they could get lots of social media traffic by featuring him) but he won't make any meaningful impact in the 2008 election. He'll be remembered as one of the first candidates to really start harnessing the power of social networks and we'll see some interesting stuff come out of that. Beyond that....
"especially once some of the big websites and papers saw that they could get lots of social media traffic by featuring him"
Great point Chris.
One has to wonder how much of the attention he received was for traffic rather than journalistic interest.
Chris, that's exactly the point I was trying to make with my comments. Thank you for being more eloquent! He won't make a meaningful impact in THIS election, but by all accounts he WILL have an impact on future political candidates' online strategies, and parts of his message may still be picked up by future candidates; we just don't know.
Cult classic status is exactly the point I was trying to make (and I don't think Snakes will achieve it!) :D
Let us not forget Dennis Kucinich. Not even close to as strong on the Web but also gets the shit end of the stick with media coverage just like Ron Paul. They stand for a lot of the same liberties but Ron Paul has the online exposure and Kucinich hasn't much of either.
I think it's apt. Didn't a similar thing happen with Howard Dean's soaring popularity the last time around? :) Not as bad, but still same effect in my opinion.
The difference is that Dean was actually doing very well in the polls and showed strong in the early primary states. Then he had "The Dean Scream," and his poll numbers plumetted almost overnight. He was a much more mainstream, viable (*ducks*) candidate, but suddenly his relative sanity, stability and ability to deal with pressure came into question and it hurt him big time.
Paul got a lot of attention because of his policy message which is strict Libertarian and, thus, different from the other candidate. His message does appeal to a great deal of people, but he's still considered a fringe candidate by the majority. No matter how appealing a fringe candidate may seem before the votes are cast, they still need to overcome the, "I don't want to waste my vote," phenomenon on election day. Think back to Ross Perot for a great example of that. In more recent times, much has been made of how Ralph Nader may have cost Al Gore the election (yes, I know he really won it anyway). Many people are hesitant to give their vote to a fringe candidate (even if they truly support the candidate) for fear of taking their vote away from thier more legitimate second choice.
Note: this happens on both the Democrat and Republican sides. Kucinich has received much the same problem as Ron Paul this year.
Scott, very nice comment. The "I don't want to waste my vote" sentiment is exactly what has led to Paul's support / awareness not translating into votes. Just my .02.
I thought it was a great analogy also. It's a great reminder to keep an eye on the offline world even if you want to live in the online bubble =P
Good observation Rebecca. The Ron Paul online movement, when you think about is, is a very small % of US voters. Yes, stories online were all over the place on a variety of social media news sites for him, but the audience there is very small (in relation to US voting population) and demographically younger as someone else had mentioned.
I think if he ran today with the technology of 10 years ago nobody would even know who he is - he would've been just "another" candidate standing off in the background. The truth is, his online popularity brought him (somewhat) into the national spotlight. But, he never really took in the mainstream media - which is where you're going to hit a majority of voters - especially in the primaries.
Regardless, it's still impressive to see someone that's not a major contendor garnish so much attention, it really is evidence of the growing influence of the Internet in media, and really gives hope that someone with a strong, clear message that people believe in can get that message across without the mainstream media.
Just thinking more about the demographics situation - if it were American Idol he would probably win! (look an Sanjaya or whatever his name was). The presidential primaries are a whole different can of beans because it is one area where younger, tech-savvy people are the minority voters.
No one cares about Snakes on a Plane today. The reason Ron Paul is popular is because of his message. He won't win the election, however, he has excited millions of Americans and they will continue to be enthusiastic about the Constitution and personal liberties. His message will live on long after this election. No other candidate's message will cross on to other elections because their campaigns are based on personal philosophies --- not the Constitution.
Ron Paul has continuously said that his support isn't about "Ron Paul". It's about the ideas that he believes in. He has said that he has joined the revolution – not started it. His supporters concur. Ron Paul will move on and remaining will be an enthusiastic base.
Other Presidential candidates will move on and their supporters will be much like the fans of Snakes on a Plane. They'll be lost in the crowd without much to cheer for.
I agree,
Ron Paul has a very bad single to noise radio.
I have heard loads about Ron Paul, but being in the UK I cannot vote for him.
I apply this to my clients sites very often, they can have loads of traffic if they want, if thats what makes them happy. But thats not necissarily going to meet any aims of the site.
Surely its better to know who your audience are and target them specifically with a message that is relevant. you know... like all the other politicians that are doing well are doing :)
Special_K, I am sure that in his heart of hearts, Ron Paul WOULD love to be president. But I also think it's important to him that he have a platform to spread his message as long into the campaign as possible, and the support he has garnered online HAS allowed him to do that. So I would say that he has achieved at least part of the aims of his site.
Point taken,
I completely agree (even though I have no idea what his message is)
Whoa! WHOA! Had I known about this undocumented feature, it would have certainly changed my opinion of Dr. Paul Cleaner. Who amongst us could deny the edifying efficacy of Swiffer(tm) dusters and mops!
Hats off to Rebecca to venture into politics online :-) You go girl! Was interesting to read the various views we all have! I for one don't care for him. But because of what we do for a living it was certainly interesting to follow the effects and impacts the internet campaign had.
Rebecca, I'm glad you took the time to write about this as it's a great perspective.
We can't deny the impact Paul's campaign has had on the online community, but as you stated, the transition off-line has not been so smooth.
Imagine scenarios where there's no need to transition off-line, such as viral movements like online fundraisers for charitable organizations. I think those have great potential.
We've also been able to witness the difference between traditional media and online media. Not just saying this because Matt commented above, but in my experience Google News has provided a much broader opportunity learn about all of the candidates, than any traditional media platform as.
In the excitement of writing my mini-rant above, I forgot one other point I wanted to make.
Whilst those online may not represent the mainstream audience, they are often what might be defined as mavens or influencers. So whilst they may seem like a small audience, they can often influence a much wider one.
This is why a lot of brands go after the cool youth market so much, because they often serve as the "bleeding edge" of oncoming trends.
Thanks for the post Rebecca!
I think that the "snakes on a plane effect" is just further proof that in order to successfully market a brand, a multi-tiered strategy is vital. So many companies become engrossed in SEO and view it as a panacea for their lack of brand exposure, when what they really need to be addressing are much bigger and frequently offline solutions...
Travis,
This was the major point of my previous article on "The Ron Paul Effect" (linked to in the post). He raised a ton of money online, but his mainstream media advertising was scheduled to start too little and too late, in my opinion at the time. It seems that may indeed have been the case.
I would also liek to take a second to point out that I think Paul has actually taken some damage from the tight Democratic race. Paul was testing well with left-leaning independants and fiscally conservative Democrats. When Clinton had a 30 point lead over Obama and Edwards, I think many of those people felt like they could shift their support in the primaries to Paul in order to upset the Republican race and make for a more interesting contest in November. As Obama (and to a lesser extent, Edwards) closed in on Clinton's lead, many of those people have seen a real chance to give the DNC nom to somebody other than Hillary, and are using their vote to influence the Democratic nomination, which is the one these voters are more likely to care about come election day.
Wow my grammer was aweful in the last post. Sorry! :)
I initially looked at the Ron Paul phenomenon as being a legitimate Internet star. Offline and online, his views were refreshing and very much to the point. I didn't see any dishonesty until I heard about these so-called inflammatory documents that recently turned up. They were supposedly written and or endorsed by him, quite sometime ago. What's discouraging is that it appears he hadn't spoken out against these documents in years past and only now says he had nothing to do with them. Kinda disheartening because I liked him, but overall he has a huge social media audience and I suspect that it will continue to grow. Very good debate Rebecca.
I think the tough part about this is determining what is internet hype and what is real. For example, it might be true that the hype around Ron Paul doesn't translate into offline hype, however I think it's very fair to say that the hype around the DISAPPROVAL of G. W. Bush is absolutely echoed by the offline community...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd like to see actual numbers of how random "topics" stack up, online vs. offline... I certainly see the similarities and connections between the conclusion you've drawn - but more data and contrast through VARYING topics would be great.
Edit : For my retarded phrasing of something...
Ron Paul raised 20 million dollars in the 4th quarter of last year. (more then any other republican) to say the internet is under preforming might be a bit off base. Ron Paul isnt getting the votes because old people don't read dig, reddit or any other social networking sites. The watch Faux news. and read USA Today. I believe that over the next 10-15 years you will see a fundamental change in how campaigns are financed and run. As the internet generation comes of voting age. (Recent Polls show 40-80 year olds make up 96% of all votes cast) You will see more and more weight and enphasis placed in online marketing.
Thank you for that Senator Dodd. Oh wait, that's Chris. Sorry - your avatar threw me. ;)
For the record: Old people (apparently myself included since I am over 40) are not voting for Ron Paul not because we are kool-aid drinkers but, because of our maturity and life experiences in realizing that however well intended his message is, he is not the best candidate for president. Thank God we make up 96% of the vote.
Its a great study and I have been following Google and other keyword trends too.
I was pretty surprised that Ron Paul took over Obama/Clinton in search volume!!!
However, who really wants another Republican from Texas :-)
(no offense intended)
i think that almost every SEOmoz reader would be a member of the 'linkerati' and as such has a very different view of the internet than the majority of the population.
for example, I have a lot of friends who work on the internet or with various media companies, and practically none of them have ever even heard of 'digg'.
we all know how big the digg effect is, but that's nothing compared to the traffic you could get if you could harness the 'offline effect'...
What's amazing to me is how much free press the candidates are getting in the SEO world. :) I am curious to see the results (if even measurable) of how things like Social Netowrking impact the elections, and in particular bring to light a certain candidates good or bad attributes.
If Myspace and facebook of the online world are any measure of internet audience, then NO.
Most of the people online can't even vote.
I'll admit that it's UK research, but this sort of shatters the misconceptions many have about who uses t'internet
Edit - as this one does for the US
lol, rather coincidentally, just for fun I tried this earlier this morning:
https://politics.reddit.com/info/65nfp/comments/
I really enjoy reddit and thought this might spark some fun discussion but I ended up having to pull it as it was getting furiously downmodded within just a few minutes.
yup i find it "Snakes on a Plane" had Internet-savvy something too.specially when their to find some anti venom.anyway, internet is still very important when it comes in finding an immediate solutions. . .
https://www.seo-solutions.net/blog/
hey rebecca, next time you write you should come up with your own idea instead of just taking one from michael gray's comments
https://www.wolf-howl.com/socialmedia/ron-paul-supporters-will-they-vote/#comment-59459
That seems like a very unfair leap to make, ruug. While I'm certain the ideas Rebecca's discussing have been mentioned on thousands of blogs (many more in the political sphere than the technology one), that doesn't mean she stole it. If you're unhappy with the post's content, please go ahead and tell us why - we leave feedback like that, but nearly everything in the world is built off other ideas, so this seems an unjust criticism, IMO.
As an example, go back and dig through the posts that received the most attention on SEOmoz in the last few years - I guarantee that nearly all of them are talking about subjects that have been covered before - in other blogs, comments, forums, conferences, etc. If we limited ourselves to only the very newest, never before mentioned ideas, we'd be stuck with nothing but posts about how using food dye on cow dung can solve the economic problems plaguing middle America - not particularly relevant or fun.
essentially, i was as fair to rebecca as she was to ron paul. the perfect experiment, i feel, although the thumbs up and down on her post and my comment don't seem to match.
snakes on a plane is a commercially produced and marketed film for entertainment purposes and profit. ron paul is a fund raising campaign based on ideas, a man's congressional career, and no beginning balance. to compare them is not only recycled blog filler, it is as unfair as my comment, which is why i left it.
That's a bit immature, if you ask me. Please see the comment I left towards the bottom of this thread and understand that it's not my intent to bash Ron Paul--I've got absolutely nothing against the guy.
hey, i feel that your claim that you havent bashed ron paul by saying he "is the snakes on a plane of 2008" is a bit immature. we'll have to disagree, and that's fine with me.
That's quite impossible to invent something absolutely new in today's world of the high speed of information exchange.
The key is to represent it the way noone did before, to give your own idea and to describe your own attitude. I think Rebecca did that just fine.
You are really unfair!
Ok - I feel kind of bad seeing that you got so many thumbs down, so I've thumbed you up :) I don't want anyone to think we don't appreciate differing opinions, but we do like it when they're a little more constructive. I guess my thumb is just saying - thanks for having the courage to present a different viewpoint - I know it can be tough going into a comment-filled thread like this.
thanks rand. read my previous reply to you. i was concise and unpolite for a reason. i agree that
"we do like it when they're a little more constructive."
that was my point. this article is lop-sided, so my ugly one-off comment was my way of saying "this post should have been more constructive." i know everyone here loves post title bait, but we're talking about a man's political career, capped by a run for the presidency that found a strong surge of public support compared with a scripted movie that is based on samuel jackson one liners about fucking snakes. give me a break.
The comparison was obviously tongue-in-cheek. While perhaps a bit hyperbolic, I wouldn't say there's a complete disconnect: both SOAP and Paul generated rabid online fan bases, predicted huge real-world turnout, and then performed well below the expectations of the online community.
True, one is a movie (a deliciously bad movie at that) and the other is a political campaign (aka colossal marketing effort), and there are certainly dissimilarities in the scope, potential importance and cultural significance of each, but I think you'd be remiss to ignore the commonalities.
Cheers
On the second thought I too feel bad seeing so many thumb downs given to Ruug and only few comments disagreeing with them. Ok, let me explaine, I hate uncommented thumb downs because the person has the right to know why he is disapproved. If you disagree but has no wish to comment why to thumb at all, just skip him.
Ruug might be wrong but that is his right to have an opinion of his own and he well explained this opinion - and moreover he explained a thumb down given by him (don't we always ask to explain when we see a thumb down? - and when a person does, we punish him by plenty of uncommented thumb downs). Is it fair???
thanks for your input, ann, but the popularity points don't mean a thing to me. i expect to get voted down when i voice a dissenting opinion. this is rebecca's site, why wouldn't the viewers (well, in this case her coworkers + you) rally around her?
i'm voting you up for sincerity, but i don't even know what the consequences of doing so (or not) really are because comments don't collapse here.
thanks again
It's actually not my site. I just work here. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I'm fine with that. I appreciate your differing perspective, though I think you could have worded your stance a bit more eloquently.
I thumbed him down, not because he had a dissenting opinion but because I felt it was a troll comment, and frankly I was disappointed to see him get so much attention from Rebecca and Rand both. Isn't that the primary goal of a troll? He succeeded.
Let's see - we're all marketers right? Ever heard of an attention grabbing headline? That's all Rebecca did, yet this guy drops the ridiculous Michael Gray comment and then tries to rationalize it by saying he was being as fair to Rebecca as she was to Ron Paul, because she compared him to "Snakes On A Plane".
She wasn't comparing him to the movie or the title. Her premise was that sometimes inflated expectations fueled by excess hype/noise, don't necessarily translate in the end results. Anyone with half a mind could discern that.
Conversely, if Rebecca had written an article entitled - "Bush Rumsfeld and Cheney are the Snakes On A Plane of 2007", he would have had a valid point in terms of her comparing them to the title. Of course, no one would have objected to that title because, well...it's true.