|
Page 1 of 8 The use of MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, forums, chatrooms and blogs has changed the nature of the 2007 Federal election campaign dramatically. The fast turnaround and co-creative nature of the Web 2.0 phenomenon has seen political parties from both sides of the fence embrace these new-tech marketing tools, with differing results. But is it everything it is cracked up to be? Will the effective use of Web 2.0 ultimately decide the election result?
 The 2 main parties have different strategies for Web 2.0. For example, the Coalition leverages YouTube primarily as a means of garnering mainstream media exposure - drape yourself in an Australian flag, mumble on about a policy or two, and bingo - guaranteed coverage on the 6pm news bulletins. Nice.
Team Rudd are very aware of the above strategy and also use it to advantage, but in contrast, they have seriously embraced the Web 2.0 phenomenon, whereas the Coalition merely pays it lip service. Don’t believe me? Kevin Rudd currently has more than seventeen thousand MySpace friends, whereas Howard’s Liberal Party page has nine. Rudd allows YouTube commentary (albeit moderated), Howard turns it off completely. Rudd has Kevin07.com.au, replete with blogs and videos. Howard has nothing.
Why then would the Coalition seemingly ignore the influence of Web 2.0, while Rudd embraces and exploits it? Surely this is a flawed strategy….the Government requires every single vote it can scrounge up. With just weeks to an election and lagging badly in the opinion polls, can Howard afford to ignore the power of Web 2.0?
‘Conventional wisdom’ dictates that the Coalition are full of fuddy-duddies; that Howard can’t use a PC, thus he doesn’t rate Web 2.0 as a legitimate electioneering tool. Don’t believe it. Their use (or lack thereof) is a deliberate strategy. Brian Loughnane would be well aware that, while Coalition-leaning voters are eager web-goers, YouTube, MySpace and the like just don’t enter their web repertoire.
Roy Morgan data indicates that almost 80% of YouTube viewers who are enrolled to vote would give their first preference to the ALP or the Greens. No wonder the Coalition turned off the commentary. The figure is around 70% for MySpace visitors. Hardly fertile ground to release WorkChoices Mk2. Much of this is purely demographic - over 80% of MySpace users are aged 18-35, while close to 70% of YouTube viewers are in that age band. Again, hardly “Howard Country”.
But is it a fatal mistake on the part of Coalition strategists not to fully utilise the unique Web 2.0 environment to, in essence, segment Howard’s ‘brand’? Would it not be useful to ditch the Australian flag in favour of some rock and roll that appeals to the kiddies and Greens voters? Perhaps it would. However, that is not the Coalition strategy. They are using the Web 2.0 in a basic form; just enough so that they are seen as being engaged, but not enough to soak up precious resources from their true target - powerful mainstream advertising.
When the election is finally called, expect an out and out blitzkrieg on the mainstream media from the Howard camp. Rudd will try to match it, but likely fall short. TV will be saturated with Coalition advertising, as will the daily newspapers, radio stations, billboards and bus shelters. The Howard strategists have taken a gamble. They have to an extent sacrificed the Web 2.0 sphere to Rudd, saving their full resources for a traditional media campaign. Sure, they will continue to use YouTube as leverage to get mainstream media coverage, as will Rudd. But they have taken the stance that Web 2.0 is the ALP’s domain, and that resourcing this phenomenon in an attempt to match Rudd will be counter-productive to their traditional advertising strategy.
Will they be right?
- Chris (from the Oz Election 2007 Forums )
Views: 1083
2. vdfdfsia
Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
 , on 25-11-2007 13:50
pzkuxffx xhuxciei http://hocvjvdj.com jqsvwhdq hzibrjcr hlkuzyqg
|
|
Comments (38)
