It's late, and I should be wrapping up Q+A (or at least blogging on my promised topic of the Beginner's Guide) and getting some shut eye, but I simply couldn't resist sharing some thoughts about the web-based fervor for Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. For those who don't know, Paul's supporters are possibly the most organized and galvanized web community in the modern political spectrum. Here's just a sample of their accomplishments:
- How a Fringe Politician Took Over the Web - from Wired
- Ron Paul Has Lots of Money - from the NY Observer
- The Ron Paul Effect - ABC News
I felt this quote, in particular, was impressively insightful:
So are the polls missing a Paul boomlet? Is the famously contrarian ob-gyn -- a libertarian nicknamed "Dr. No" because of his propensity to vote against anything he believes contradicts the Constitution's original intent -- poised to surge into contention in the GOP field?
Not likely. What's more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of "viral marketing," using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.
Paul's supporters certainly have a knack for driving traffic and dominating online polls, as well as flooding mainstream media with calls for more attention to the long-shot candidate. The problem is, the networks running those online polls are starting to get savvy. Here's Allen Wastler, Managing Editor for CNBC.com with An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Camp:
I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.
The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.
But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.
If Paul's supporters really were as savvy about viral marketing as they claim to be, they would have long ago discovered the power of anchor text, link bombing and taking over the search results. Imagine - if the thousands of bloggers, hundreds of forums and handful of social networking sites all took it upon themselves to boost Paul's visibility through search engine rankings, they could achieve an effect far greater than the dominance of online polls - they could truly start to influence the campaign by marketing information for their candidate.
Say the Paul supporters were savvy enough and dedicated enough; there's no limit to the pages on Paul's site they could get ranking for hot button issues and important, politically relevant queries - everything from Iraq War to Immigration to Health Insurance and 2008 Election could have pages on Paul ranking in the top 1-5 results. With control of the search results, it's likely he'd have considerably more brand recognition than his current 29% (note the Reddit thread - If you don't read Reddit, there's a 70% chance you don't even know who Ron Paul is). The best part? Those Ron Paul supporters are very frequently armchair generals of the web - their fanaticism extends only as far as their blogs' collective RSS readers, but through this strategy, they would, in fact, leverage that weakness into a strength. After all, if you had an army of bloggers at your bidding, wouldn't you distribute a search strategy to rule Google's blue link lists?
Naturally, this brings up a fascinating debate - if biased parties start taking advantage of the search algorithms' love of editorial blog links to wage information wars in the SERPs, how high might it escalate before the engines are forced to block or alter the results? If one search savvy political camp were to seize control of the results for a rival faction (picture if every search for George Bush in 2004 had returned a Kerry-based attack or vice versa), how long would it be before bloggers the web over joined the campaign? Perhaps in the future, we really will be voting over the web, but we'll do so with hyperlinks, not checkboxes. Maybe it's best to keep that Pandora's Box shut.
And, of course, may the best SEO'd candidate win... 
p.s. Although this post does discuss political figures, SEOmoz IS NOT a forum for political discussion or the merits of particular beliefs or candidates. Myself, Scott, Rebecca & Jane are likely to quash comments that cross into the realm of political debate.
If they were truly smart, they would write 10-20 comparison pieces for each candidate (mitt romney vs. ron paul, giliani vs paul) and get them to rank for each of the candidates names.
Imagine a SERP where ranking 1 is Giuliani's website, and 2-10 are posts on why Paul is better than Giuliani (although constructed in an editorial / news format so it does not appear biased)
I can't advocate people running blackhat for their candidate or anything like that, but it's always funny to me that the major media cries foul when someone does the end run around them. The process is clearly already biased; money controls the airwaves and candidates like Ron Paul are seriously disadvantaged. If using the internet well gets him some coverage than, IMO, that's just leveling the playing field. The nominations are little more than a game, and until that changes, people should play it the best they can.
I'm from the UK and Ron Paul is the only candidate I've heard of. Ok, that's not quite true (I've heard of Barak Obama too - courtesy of a girl on youtube)
From reading Digg/Reddit you'd think Ron Paul would walk the elections but I'm sure most of American doesn't even really know who he is
You make a fantastic point though Rand - what if all this time and attention was focused on gaining ACTUAL influence, not just influence on the net.
Imagine a world where the candidate who could rank for "President" at a pre-determined time would win the election. No, wait that would mean electing Wikipedia....
I'm a political junkie from the UK (West Wing? You betcha; Primary Colors? Loved the book, hated the film) and the only reason that I have heard of Paul is because of this type of post.
It's surely a perfect example, as Tom says, to show that style can't always beat substance (that's regarding his campaign tactics, not his policies - like Rand said, no political views here!)
West Wing all the way baby!
Let's not forget the magic that is Yes Minister. And House of Cards (which BBC4 are repeating at the moment, whilst BBC3 repeat Party Animals - I'm in political drama heaven!
What We Pauliticians need is advice on how to win the rest of the world. We've already won the internet, and that's without being nearly as savvy, or even organized, as the media baselessly claims we are. I am a 44 year old soccer Mom who doesn't even blog. I find sites like this because I search blogs for "Ron Paul" in Google. Note that means that I didn't find the poll until it was long since closed down.
What's funny is that I assume that MSNBC goes to great lengths to drive traffic to its site, but when they brought a flood of Ron Paul supporters they took away the bait. What the heck were they thinking?
They were thinking that a flawed poll isn't worth the paper it's printed out on..
Agreed. That might be an inherent flaw with Internet polling that isn't controlled effectively. Not worth a damn.
I can't imagine this viral nature of Ron Paul's campaign really carrying through to a nomination at this point. The fact is that the voting population does not include a majority of Digg and Reddit users. If I walk into the other room right now and ask my father, a 56 year old who has voted every year for probably the last 38 years, whether he thinks Ron Paul is a serious candidate he'll probably laugh at me.
Point is, we aren't quite there yet. Most people under 30 at this point have extensive experience with the internet as a main source of media, but there are still a large number of people out there who are glued to the tube. Fox News, I'm afraid, will still have more of an impact than Digg - at least for several years to come.
Don't get me wrong, I hate Fox - I'd be ashamed of it, really. Were it not for the Simpsons, Family Guy. . .and When Animals Attack.
It's easy to assume that Digg numbers have some real world correlation in the semi-closed system of the Internet. However, I run with a group of around 15 young men and women all in their 20s, and I have confidence that a quick survey would show that maybe only one of them other than me has even heard of Digg or Reddit.
Bottom line: God bless Ron Paul's geeky following for trying their hearts out, but it ain't gonna happen.
Yeah. I am one of those geeky supporters. I love the guys message but I know he really has no chance to win (Ima vote for him anyway even if I have to write in). I know a few SEO's that are Paul fans and one or two have a blog. He is definitely not taking advantage of SEO as much as he should.
now imagine if Obama and Clinton were using the same tools in addition to their otherwise well covered media exposure...to capture that target market.
BigTequila, I really like how your message is optimistic that someday, voters will look to the internet to do more research on candidates.
However I would challenge you to not say, "It's not gonna happen," in regards to ANY candidate. In my opinion it gives rise to cynical apathy and hopelessness. It can discourage someone from learning about and enjoying the democratic process. It's like saying: "It might not happen SO WHY EVEN TRY?" Or "Why should I even waste my time researching and learning about democratic process if my candidate MIGHT NOT win?" What if, as a result of all this excitement over candidates, we increase the voting participation in the U.S. by 20%? Fantastic!
We need to overcome learned helplessness and apathy - and encourage people to vote and learn about democratic process. It doesn't matter what candidate it is they support - it matters that one more voice is heard with a vote. It matters that another American voted. We have too few voters in America as it is --so let's encourage people rather than discourage.
Let's ENCOURAGE people, especially our younger generations, to get more involved in the political process! Someone remarked at a Republican straw poll dinner recently: "It's so refreshing and nice to see so many young people get involved - this isn't normal!" (The median age had to be about 50) Isn't that wonderful - that our younger generations are learning about democratic process because of Ron Paul? Does that make sense?
I would also challenege all of you this question: if every American had equal Internet exposure and savvy, including access to blogs, how would that impact elections? (Think: A blog versus 30 second sound-bites on CNN)
I am trying not to be political but I hate when the mainstream media classifies him. They try their hardest to give him as little face time as possible and the headlines are all kind of snarky. Like the first one of your links "How a Fringe Politician Took Over the Web". It implies he is kind or crazy and the fact is he has been in congress for 20+ years. He is not just a whackjob with a ton of money who is jumping in the race. I suppose that is something the fervent supporters could combat with good SEO work but to be fair the most vocal and outspoken Paul supporters are a bit whacky themselves.
I'm ashamed to say I don't know much about his history or the platform he's running on. I was once heavily into politics, worked for a NY State Senator (the one not in this race) and read/wrote heavily on the subject. The result, I learned, was only frustration with my inability to change enough people's minds.
This is a country still largely controlled by television. The internet is growing in that regard, but it's not there yet. The average family still flips on CNN or Fox News to find out "what's what" in the world today. 15 minutes, and then lights out for bed - wake up and do it over again. It's hard to shake people from that cycle and show them something real, and most of them don't even want to know. It's easier to just get your 15-minute "all is well and the U.S. is in fine shape" message from CNN/Fox, sigh in comfort and get a good night of sleep.
Here's a quote fitting to the television-centric American political condition:
“We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.” - Edward R. Murrow, RTNDA Convention Speech (1958)
I'm political but only about Canadian politics, so I really have no opinion either way about RP. However, while reading this post and comments it struck me that you could argue that SEM's are really paid professional special interest group lobbyists.
We choose a "candidate" (the site in question, which is rarely the frontrunner in the SERPS) then use a variety of techniques to spin the messages so that it resonates with the voters (ie alter your content so it works with Googles ranking algo) and the get the word out (linking and social media).
Heck, some SEM's have been known to use bribery (link buying and DMOZ editor corruption) and other tactics to accomplish these goals, which tactics of course the "government" (of Google) opposes as being anti-democratic.
Weird. I probably should avoid reading political messages and posting my thoughts before I've finished my morning coffee.
Ian
I think that's actually exactly how Newsweek analogized SEO in its interview of Rand and Gillian: as lobbyists. No?
If that's your case then ad agencies are lobbyists, lobbying me to get me to buy a particular brand of loo roll.
An analogy too far IMO...
I agree in principle (elections are obviously important in a free world), but on the other hand I've actually done work for Proctor & Gamble, and I assure you that they take loo roll, diapers and shampoo VERY seriously, as do their competitors.
Don't mistake the perceived "social status" of a product with it's commercial, social, or personal importance.
Also, (places tongue in cheek) I suspect many people consider loo roll to be significantly more useful and important on a day to day basis than most elected officials...
Ian ;)
It sounds to me like you guys are spending too much time behind your monitors. You are missing what's happening in the real world.
For one, Ron Paul now has over 54,000 volunteer activists. Real people who have real lives and take the time to actually go out and campaign for their candidate. Here in Florida where I live there are Ron Paul signs everywhere and not one sign for any other candidate. You can't drive down the street without seeing dozens of Ron Paul bumperstickers on the cars going by. I have yet to see ANY stickers for any other candidate.
Also, take a look at the straw polls - real life events where real people have to actually get out from behind the monitor, show up at the event and even pay a fee to vote. Ron Paul has finished first in 15 of the 33 polls so far, some with overhwhelming margins. He has beaten "front runner" Giuliani in 29 of the 33 polls.
Then there's crowd size. Thompson struggles to get 50 people to hear him speak. Giuliani is thrilled if he gets 200. Ron Paul rarely draws fewer that 1000 people and often gets over 2000. And don't try to say that crowd size estimates are way off. Last weekend at the War Memorial Auditorium in Nashville, fire marshalls counted 1,440 people entering the hall before they closed the doors and started turning people away because the hall was full to capacity.
Sorry guys, but your analysis is WAY off. There really is a Ron Paul Revolution, it's big, it's growing and it's coming to your neighborhood. Just look out your window.
Mike - I think you're missing the point of the post and the message. Whil the mainstream media may be discounting the passion and representation Paul has, we at SEOmoz certainly are not.
I concur that the only bumper stickers I've seen yet (in Seattle) are for Paul (and a few for Obama as well). We also see a lot of Paul supporters driving on the highway - overhangs seem to be a popular tactic.
What I am saying in the post is that overwhelming web polls is a fine strategy, but if a candidate truly understood the world of online marketing and SEO specifically, they could leverage their passionate online communities to make a far greater difference.
The problem with this is that Ron Paul doesn't represesnt the Republican base. So if he did understand online marketing it would come back to bite him in the butt.
Paul couldn't run as a Dem either for the same reason. He's not a centrist - he's cherry picked extreme positions on a variety of issues. That makes it very difficult to gain momentum and carry it across any medium.
I like this post because it makes the distinction between being internet-savvy (which Ron Paul users are) and SEO-savvy (which Ron Paul users aren't). I think many times, people confuse the two. Just because RP posts are all over Digg doesn't mean that his supporters are actually taking advantage of the publicity from an SEO standpoint.
I say they ARE pretty savvy about viral marketing, but it's the old-fashioned kind where they excel. Months ago, I saw Ron Paul 4 President signs - handwritten signs at the major intersections of our community. I thought at the time, "Well, that's certainly effective, if low-tech." Who believed in a candidate so much that they were writing about him with black marker on white posterboard? I had to find out who this guy was! His presence on the Internet might be lacking at this point, but in terms of 'getting his name out there', as several other commenters have stated, his supporters are doing that. And getting people to talk about you through established social networks, that's viral marketing at its most basic.
Rand, I was about to comment you on your methods of gaining new members but you quashed this post with your quashing threat, times 4!
{sigh}
Imagine all the growth numbers you could have tauted as the Ron Paul wave swept over SEOmoz. Imagine!
{End drama}
As for SEO and politics, they will get it. Most likely by next election they'll have very well coordinated ranking machines since the political march reaches into social, edus, govs, and many other corners of the web. I think if they coordinate themselves ala the Steve Rubel's gmail hacks: 1, 2, 3. Automating all that, being able to comment via mobile, and in a coordinated way should make for interesting times.
Ha ha hah. Oh, those horrible evil Ron Paul "spammers" that have made online polls a "target of a campaign" Oh my goodness, I thought that this was an election?
I suppose that you haven't noticed that most Ron Paul supporters really aren't all that tech savvy, just passionate about something. Oh yeah, we haven't figured out how to use SEO yet, have we? Oops sorry, I already know how to do targeted SEO, but wait just a minute, I haven't had to do any at all. There is already this huge group of people who are on-line and are expressing their passionately held beliefs and positions.
Flooding the polls? No, flooding is part of a distributed denial of service attack using botnets, which are masses of zombified computers. Like the ongoing ddos attack flooding a Ron Paul Grassroots site out of existence today, that has even nearly wiped out the Google cache of the site. Botnets of zombie computers aren't human beings that take valuable time to write individual emails and blog comment postings to complain about bias against their passionately held beliefs and positions.
I'm sorry, you can not have your cake and eat it too. The web savvy part of the Ron Paul phenomenon are all the young people who are already connected and becoming passionate about the message of individual liberty that Dr. Paul has consistently espoused with great personal integrity for the last thirty years. They don't even need 50 year old nerds like me with 30 years of experience making computers do useful work, to do SEO for them. They are just passionate about the truths that our nation was founded upon and are using the tools at hand, to tell the world about it. That's not spam, bias or flooding. It's dedicated folks spending their effort, time and money to see a candidate with integrity elected to the office of the US President for a change.
These are not script kiddies pwning an election with industry tricks and insider knowledge, they are new voters, concerned about their futures, out to win an election fair and square.
Steve
Check out this pic of offline campaigning to drive traffic to Ron Paul websites. If they follow your advice on the SEO, they can walk around with additional keyword signs. Check pic at www.jasonfinleykent.info/blog/picture
if you view pic delete space between "ron -paul" in link
edit - I made your link live :) - Rand
Funny, they pointed to this SEOmoz post from the Ron Paul blog with which my daughter is a blogger.
She is an avid Ron Paul supporter and is proficient in some aspects of SEO as she's worked for me the past two summers, along with hearing hundreds of SEO phone consultations with clients as she was growing up. Admittedly, her proficiency would be more along the on-page optimization lines, rather than social media, however.
Her post on Ron Paul's stance on abortion is #21 for Ron Paul abortion, which ain't too shabby (considering I'm sure she didn't actually optimize for it).
Ok - i came across this info and thought it would make a good addition to the post:
According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, more than 75 million Americans over the age of 18 look online for news or information about politics or the upcoming campaigns. That's more people than voted for either George Bush (62 million) or John Kerry (59 million) in the 2004 presidential election.
The online population and the voting population largely overlap each other.
Source: Search About to Upset the Political Applecart.
I think we should rank this post for Ron Paul in order to show the campaign the power of SEO!
Ron Paul supporters don't have to resort to link bombing or anything else out of the SEO dirty tricks department. This campaign's message is so cool that people actually want to be a part of it, they don't have to be manipulated or bought by special interest money to wave signs, they do it of their own free will because something inside of them says it's the right thing to do. The core reason Ron Paul is popular is because he is diametrically opposed to the practice of a few people exerting unjust control over the many, which is the fundamental basic premise of SEO.
I think it's more likely that Ron Paul's opponents will resort to dumping their money on SEO trickery out of desparation once they realize that this isn't a scam and that there really are hundreds of thousands of real people behind the thousands of legitimate meetup groups across the world willing to spend every last free moment of their lives to send in unique personalized letters to the editors, comments, custom content, and whatever else in defense of constitutional government.
*shudder* stop giving them ideas Rand...
hehe...I agree , now they will use there ideas :)
"Perhaps in the future, we really will be voting over the web, but we'll do so with hyperlinks..."
Will paid hyperlinks be allowed?
The poll that CNBC ran was accurate. Ron Paul consistently wins most every online poll by a large margin.
What big media does not realize is that online polls measure STRONG support. It takes a bit of effort to go online, find the poll, click on your favorite candidate, and submit your vote. Lukewarm supporters of a candidate won't do that. Firm, committed supporters of a candidate have no problem with putting in the effort to vote in online polls.
Now lets take it one step further. The election is over a year away and most people haven't even started thinking about who to vote for. They are just not interested. Not yet anyway. So when a "scientific" poll asks these people who they plan to vote for, they will say Rudy or McCain since they've heard of those guys. But when it comes time to actually vote, these people will do some research and a substantial number of them will decide to vote for Ron Paul. And if big media decides to treat Ron Paul with the respect he deserves as a top-tier candidate instead of dismissing him as a fringe candidate, then a large number of folks who do their research by watching television will also decide to vote for Ron Paul.
That is the difference between the "scientific" polls and online polls.
*cough-Howard Dean-cough*
;)
*cough-Howard Dean-cough*
*cough - no political discussions - cough cough cough* lol.
I wasn't commenting on his politics, just the way that online buzz was mistaken for ordinary people caring!
;)
Ha-YEEEEEEEEE-AHHHHHHhhhhhhh!!!!!!
I'm going to reply one line at a time.
LOL. Voters sitting on their ass clicking websites means virtually nothing when it comes to the actual election! I've seen this hundreds of times working with non-profit groups, people love to "show support" online, but when we ask them to roll up their sleeves all we hear are crickets. I would wager that the supporters you see writing articles, showing up to events, campaigning door-to-door, etc are much stronger supporters regardless any time spent online.
General statistic: every 10 emails sent to a government official equals one face-to-face supporter. Why else would lobbyists get paid so much??
You don't give voters much credit, do you?
My question, why have we heard of those guys? Sure they have a ton of campaign $$, but the bottom line is we've heard their names because they're proven leaders on a large scale! Again, working with non-profits, I see volunteers that like to sit back waiting for their time to shine while others are actually DOING something.
I'm not trying to get political, just making the point that online presence has little to do with election results when you have an army of foot soldiers.
"Don't put all of your eggs in one basket!"
Agreed. I think in time voters will form more opinions on the candidates based on what they find online, but I don't think we're there yet. I would think the majority already know who they plan to vote for and will find information online to confirm their choice, not to find information to question it.
It will change in time as more people get their information online and candidates do end up paying more attention to their online presence. Still a face-to-face will probably always do more to sway voters.
That is true Rhea, but that's only looking at the poll statistics as your source of Ron Paul support. Factor in meetup groups and their attendance ratings, the fund raising figures (Average donation was $40 3Q, so do the math from $5,080,000), and the winning of straw polls (which require physical attendance) and you see significant "real" support. Part of the porblem is the assumption that RP supporters are all hovering over their keyboards to spam websites and polls. The reality is you've got mostly guys like me who browse their news or blogs for info and make maybe 2-3 posts a week in the comments sections of news posts and things. The problem is there are several thousand of us doing this creating the illusion of spamming. Now, there are real spammers out there and most of us RP supporters will be the first to tell them to shut up and sit down.
$5 million isn't going to win the presidency, nor will meetup groups.
AS FOR STRAW POLLS, HAS ANYONE HERE TAKEN THE TIME TO SEE WHERE THESE POLLS WERE TAKEN?
From the Ron Paul site, here's a sampling of the poll locations:
Of course he's winning in those polls. I bet I could walk into a granola eatin' Birkenstock wearin' hostel in Vermont and be labeled the next president, too.
Anyways, back to supporters. One could argue that REAL supporters show their support through donations NOT Diggs. So, despite what the polls say, Clinton's $27 million crushes his $5m.
The problem is, and I tried to do the research on this but I can't find the figures to compare, we don't really no how much support there actually is for alot of these front running candidates. They all accept contributions from private interest groups that Ron Paul refuses so they get these huge boosts form invididual sources. I'd like to see some average and mean donation figures for other candidates.
"My question, why have we heard of those guys? Sure they have a ton of campaign $$, but the bottom line is we've heard their names because they're proven leaders on a large scale!"
Or perhaps it could be the support of the same media machine that would have a great deal to lose if someone like RP were to be elected?
The Internet is a far more honest medium than any other press outlet. Maybe that's why the "big" media squashes polls that don't represent the way they would like things to be.
Even "educated" voters (so called), really only get the news from one or two sources. No matter which network you claim, the news all comes from the same place, the AP.
The Associated Press and maybe Reuters (which aren't really different) are the reporters of most news. Almost every major newspaper and network derives it's stories from there. They choose what they will report and what they won't, but it's all coming from the same place.
They shape the view that the public has on the world. Call yourself informed because you read the New York Times, but you are only getting stories that have fashioned for the way they want you to see the world.
The Internet on the other hand is by and large uncontrolled by money or power (pending Googles takeover of the new 700 band).
For the first time in a long time, there is no way for those in control of the infomation to control what the populace is exposed to. Free flow of views and ideas, much of it garbage, but some is worthwhile. More importantly, it's untampered with. That is why NBC will pull a poll.
Who are they to say, and why do so many accept that it must be some aberration, some group of wackos pulling some well organized scheme to appear more significant than they are?
I like some others here have never seen so many people in my community (NV) so energized about a candidate so early in the election cycle. I will say this, the online poll results more closely reflect what I see with my own eyes than does the coverage I see from any organized news source.
I believe Rand's point is pertinant, and is coming. But even if RP supporters could or did truly understand online marketing, and seo specifcally, I wouldn't look for the "establishment" to ever acknowledge or validate it.
SEO's have the ability to control information online much like the New York Times or NBC. The best of us can get our information up there right next to theirs, but without the multimillion dollar budgets and high rise buildings. Do you think they like that idea?
I don't think we should all just assume because NBC makes a statement about something, that they really have our best interests at heart. They have interests as well.
The thing about all this talk about SEO, social media, and viral marketing when it comes to politics is that elections are won by a complex intersection of a myriad of factors.
When I worked in politics, I remember a huge graph on my boss's wall. Hardly any of us knew what it represented except for him (he'd been in the business for 20 years).
It was lines and dots representing so many different channels and demographics across various timelines and other data points.
Even if Ron Paul's supporters knew SEO, it wouldn't make him the GOP front runner. He wouldn't even come close.
It's the older voters who determine elections. 2008 could be a weird year in that more young people vote, but it will quickly retreat back to the senior vote in 2012. You better have a heck of a lot more than SEO knowledge if you want to win.
Depends... digital natives (look up wikipedia - not allowed to link to it in SEOmoz) are going to be voters as well by then - and these guys spend their time online for research - if I want to look up some politicians stand - I google him /her - can you imagine a whole generation doing that?
Plus the social blogosphere is growing with these natives - which means that they are more likely to look for information when they have time - not to tune in to TV etc like the older generations - SEO propaganda could play a huge place in political wars - I mean see this suggestion..
Politics is politics, and to be honest, SEO os just another medium - when posters dont work, move to radio, when radio weakens migrate to TV, when TV slows down, well, the webs the way forward...
But even then, people will see through that SEO propoganda.
People may use the web, but SEO will not necessarily be the ticket.
Social media? Maybe
Email? Maybe
Mobile? Maybe
Ultimately, the core concepts of motivating voters will be at work. The medium is just the tool, and you kind of said that. But I wouldn't call it the way. Radio's not dead yet (though some of you may wish it was). And neither is TV.
And underneath it all is fundamental beliefs and principles, many of which are formed between elections, but as Rand said, this isn't the forum for that.
lol... point taken...
While I think you are right I believe that the web will continue to become more and more important. As the older demographic becomes more and more Internet savvy they will rely on the Internet for their news and will research candidates using search engines and web portals. I understand the seniors today are not that web savvy (some are but not most) but my parents generation are flocking to the web and becoming more and more sophisticated when it comes to the Internet. I think many people of every generation are tiring of the way the old media present information and are beginning to use the Internet as a source for news and information and politics will be a big part of that moving forward. That means SEO will become increasingly important to all politicians because their potential voters are going to be out there learning about them and their rivals.
lol. looks like we crossed posts - but the ideas are the same!
great minds and all.
I wonder i there will come a point where search engines are required to give 'equal results time' to candidates the same way tv networks are required to give 'equal air time.'
I'm not suggesting they should, butI can easily see the political battles, especially as more elected officials won't really have an understanding of why one page or site shows more often in the SERPs
Rand Fishkin for President!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on Guys!!! We all love Rand. We are all SEOs. We can sure unite powers elect one of our own as the president....
Could you imagine if we actually pulled it off????????
I hate to do this but...Jesse Ventura is the classic beginning of using the Internet as a campaign tool.
I'm not sure what impact it had, but he was considered an impossible long shot that won the Minnesota's Govenor race in 1998.
The info can be found on the Jesse Ventura wikipedia page of course.
Another reason not to write off Ron Paul just yet.
It's amazing. The ron paul camp has just taken over the pole I did with a friend called www.whowouldtheworldelect.com
Which was suppose to be a way for people from different countries to come together and tell the US who they'd like us to vote for.
And of course Ron Paul comes in first!
Amazing!
SEO is almost never used for anything other than personal financial gain.
Except for me of course. (seriuosly, I dare you to find a way my site can make a penny). He's goofy. The internets lov'im! Here <a href="https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-politics/congressman-ron-pauls-stance-on-solar-power/"> is Ron Paul's issues with solar power and renewable energy</a>
I pray that someday, blogs, chatrooms, forums, and internet websites will have a lot more to do with how our voting base gets their information. There is so much to learn and so much knowledge, wisdom, and history on the Internet.
Profit minded news channels operate on 30 seconds, but with a blog you have all day. :-)
I love your comments, and think this kind of intelligent conversation is often lacking in the news. Of course, some comments are quite influenced by news-media fed opinions, but the general discussion is fantastic.
Don't most people now-a-days form an opinon based on what they find online? I have a medical background and "Dr. Google" was the main way patients' diagnosed themselves with a "life threatning" disease when they simply had a cold.
This is the perfect example of how information online can persuade the masses.
Gotta love the power of a digital voice!!
Ron Paul is everytwhere on the internet but outside of the internet social media world he is really almost unheard of, I have asked some of my friends that are much more political then I and they haven't a clue about who I'm talking about.
It is going to be interesting once the election comes around to see what kind of a vote Ron Paul does get versus some of the other candidates. However, it does seem like Barrack Obama has been doing quite a bit of viral marketing online also. I heard on the radio some of his mobile ring tones, they were.... interesting?
haha, have you heard the rap?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQoqo1OIEOk&mode=related&search
Don't like rap? There's some slow moves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU&mode=related&search=
Hahaha! Just found this...
SEO for Ron Paul FB group
I haven't noticed; are interactive marketing campaigns flourishing now for presidential hopefuls? Hiliary affiliate programs, or Giuliani paid search? Imagine Obama widgets!
The SERPs would be a mess this time. *shudder*
So I had a crazy thought after reading through more of the thread. Who is going to forward this to their candidate of choice and solicit some political "marketing" business?
Interesting. I've seen a bunch of Ron Paul headlines on Digg and Reddit the last few weeks, but had no idea who he was (and therefore didn't bother clicking on them). Here in Canada, the mainstream media only mentions Obama and Clinton.
I have been reviewing this all day and effectiveness it might have on the future. I tried to take a closer look at the way viral internet marketing has affected the 08' presidential campaigns. I mainly used Barack Obama as my example, but I believe it goes unspoken for campaigns that are years to come.
Is Brack Obama a SEO in disguise?
A revolution that I feel will strongly influence elections and their outcome.
Just think what would happen if a presidential hopeful spent only half of his marketing budget online. The results might be insane. Search for president on Google = paid adds on sidebar showing all different canadates. Right now only John McCain is paying for that.
They spend millions on other marketing stuff. Why not online ads?
Then the smart ones would go here and find them a good SEO.
I have to say because I don't follow politics religously, I have heard more about Ron Paul through his grass roots & web based following than even the news.
Here in Arizona, I see Ron Paul signs all around, but the best one was of course "Google Ron Paul" which I assume is intended to get people looking at all of the YouTube videos, etc.
We've got these signs in San Diego too. They are spray painted on cardboard. Maybe the homeless have taken up marketing for Ron Paul.
How will "attack ads" work on the internet? Will we see a decrease in this despicable tactic? Will it fade into oblivion where it belongs?
I deplore the thirty second television inuendos aimed at opponents with accompanying sound effects aimed at sulling an opponents reputation.
The political parties are hopefully going to be forced into adopting a policy of actually stating their true plans for the future.
It's time for real discussion of the issues. The internet could bring about this change. This format encourages viewer feedback, you better have your facts straight.
Worst case scenario; Karl Rove as a SEO. Scary.
Domain name with page rank of 4 for sale at 100 USD
Domain is https://********
Contact ******@gmail.com ;dealings on first come first server basis only
Note from Scott: Edited for douchebaggery.
stop spamming - even if its a good offer. use ebay or sedo.