Hillary Clinton campaigned for president using a traditional approach to media. I call it the Push & Spin Approach. At this point that outdated approach to media, along with the rest of her campaign, seems to have failed miserably.
Push & Spin
The traditional approach to media is all about control. Build relationships with the key media influencers so that they are willing to listen to your side of things when you “push” your message out to the public through them.
The goal is to get news about you (and your organization, business, etc.) presented to the public in a favorable light or positive spin. Hopefully once the message starts going in your favor it will keep moving in that direction just like a spinning object holds a straighter trajectory than one that isn’t spinning.
Wikipedia has this to say about PR Spin:
In public relations, spin is a usually pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one’s own favor of an event or situation. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, “spin” often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics. Politicians are often accused of spin by their political opponents.
The Clintons have long been masters of this traditional push & spin approach to media.
Failed Push & Spin Looks Silly
One big problem to this approach is that when the control starts to unravel because things refuse to go your way it can start to look a little silly.
As an example, take a look at Dana Milbank’s column yesterday in the Washington Post titled Team Clinton: Down, and Out of Touch. Here’s a telling paragraph.
That Clinton’s spokesman is taking his cues from late-night comedy is as good an indication as any of where things stand in the onetime front-runner’s campaign. To keep the press from declaring the race over before the voters of Ohio and Texas have their say next week, Clinton aides have resorted to a mixture of surreal happy talk and angry accusation.
All in all the Clinton campaign comes across as, well, out of touch.
Social Media Changes the Equation
It was their past effectiveness, however, set the Hillary ‘08 campaign up for failure. They are victims of their own success because the campaign was unable to adapt to the changes that are rapidly happening in the way people get their information.
Today, thanks in part to social media, people have an ever growing variety of places where they can get their information.
Options vary from political bloggers to social sites like MySpace, Facebook and Twitter. As the potential sources where people go for their information increases the ability for someone to control, push & spin their message gets exponentially more difficult.
In fact it has gotten to the point where the traditional approach just plain doesn’t work anymore. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is illustrating this for us in living color right now.
Social Media Comparison
Let’s take a quick look at some of the social media options out there and compare how the two candidates are doing.
First both candidate’s web sites have blogs. Good news. They have the ability to share their message directly with their respective supporters in real time. Neither candidate appears to be writing on their respective blogs directly. Fair enough. They are busy folks and have huge communication staffs.
Blog Comparison
Hillary Clinton’s Blog has 4 posts from yesterday, all credited to the same author. The blog’s got 5 posts on the front page and a quick look at the first 10 posts on the blog shows they are averaging 188 comments per post. Very respectable. Unfortunately other stats on Clinton’s blog aren’t quite as encouraging. It’s got a Page Rank of 0 (horrible) and an Alexa Rank of 14,392 (not so bad).
Compare that with Barack Obama’s blog though and it falls a bit short. His blog has 10 posts per page and I had to dig to page 4 before I found a post that was more than 24 hours old. Those 30+ posts from yesterday had at least 5 different credited authors that I noticed. The 10 posts on the front page averaged 302 comments per post. The blog has a Page Rank of 6 (very good) and an Alexa Ranking of 4,060 (much better than Clinton’s).
Take a look at this Alexa Reach comparison. It’s telling.

Blog Winner: Obama – Obviously the Obama campaign is focusing more effort on their campaign blog than the Clinton campaign is and that effort has paid of with greater traffic and participation. This all equates to a higher level of market awareness.
MySpace Comparison
A quick look at MySpace shows Hillary Clinton’s profile has 44353 friends and 8276 comments. Barak Obama’s MySpace profile shows 22467 friends and 1520 comments.
I find it interesting that Obama’s profile has more content but Clinton’s has more community support.
MySpace Winner: Clinton – Clinton has garnered more attention on MySpace. However neither campaign seems to be putting forth very much content there.
Facebook Comparison
Facebook tells a much different story. Hillary Clinton’s Facebook profile has 125,115 supporters listed and 89,321 posts from supporters on her wall. Contrast that with Barack Obama’s Facebook profile. Obama has 641,042 supporters listed with a total of 90,723 wall posts.
Interestingly enough it actually looks like Obama’s got less content on his profile than Clinton does. Even so his campaign has done a dramatically better job at connecting with the members of the Facebook community.
Facebook Winner: Obama – He’s got a much better community connection than Clinton does.
Twitter Comparison
A quick look at Twitter shows a lopsided tale as well. Hillary Clinton’s Twitter account has a paltry 958 followers, has only made 47 updates and is following absolutely no one!
Contrast that to Barack Obama’s Twitter account. It has 6661 followers, has made only 73 updates and is following 6793 other accounts. Granted his campaign isn’t using Twitter as effectively as it could. Even so he is doing better than his oponnent.
Twitter Winner: Obama – He’s not great here, just better. It didn’t take much.
The Social Media Factor
Here is the lesson. Social Media can be a huge help in getting your message out there. Barack Obama’s campaign has embraced it and integrated various social media options into their entire marketing strategy. By embracing Social Media his campaign was able to move from underdog to front runner and surprised many in the process.
In contrast the Clinton camp seems to have tacked a social media component onto their campaign almost as if it’s an afterthought. “Oh, yeah. We’ll need a blog too, I guess.”
The Clinton Twitter account that is following 0 other accounts is symbolic of everything they are doing wrong where social media is concerned. They aren’t even giving the appearance of listening to their constituency.
The era of Push & Spin PR media manipulation is over. Hillary Clinton has graphically demonstrated that for the world to see.















Hi Chris,
Great analysis, and right on the money. Seems like Hillary figured if she had the inside the Beltway crowd cowed she’d sweep to the nomination. Bad assumption.
Mike
Very interesting analysis. It’s a new day for politics as well as other aspects of life.
Mike, I find it interesting that the very crowd her campaign was so sure was on her side are the folks like Milbank that are throwing her under the bus now.
Pete, so true, so true. Kennedy is seen as the first TV president. Will this election select the first “social media” president?
Chris,
I came up with this analysis back in July in my blog posting: http://danmosqueda.blogspot.com/2007/07/top-twittering-politicians.html
I need to do an update. Now McCain has a twitter account, obviously by supporters – http://twitter.com/JohnMcCain2008 -
Dan, Social Media is a fast moving thing. The numbers of followers for both candidates in the post has gone up just since I posted this morning.
Obama’s still way ahead though.
The Twitter stats are interseting, but I wonder how many of the folk that Obama follows are actually American? I’ve blocked several attempts to follow me by Obama followers, and I’m in the UK!
John, That’s a good question. I don’t think there is any way to know for sure. I’m here in the US and am not following either myself. However I think Obama has managed to engage a more successful social media strategy than Clinton has.
And the more I think about it the more I believe the overriding metric differential is with the blog.
Why any candidate at the national level would fail to engage a whole stable of bloggers to help promote their message is beyond me. Several different staffers with other jobs could even be tasked to post at regular intervals in addition to their other duties.
The cost is so low that not doing something along those lines just doesn’t make any sense.
I also was impressed with Obama’s use of linkedin to ask a question of tech savvy business types. I think the linked in crowd probably leans towards being politically independent and his appearance showed an attempt at interaction at an early stage.
Obama has always had the lead when it comes to the Internet and in particular social media. I think its due to a different mindset. Obama may not directly understand the intricasies of the Internet and social media but he sure did hire a top notch team. They even have a Digg profile for him. well all the candidates do, but their’s are amebic by comparison.
I thhink her video showed a fundamental misunderstanding of social media and in particualr youtube.
Great post. Thanks
Politicians are elected officials, The media is not elected. They have robbed the American people of fair reporting. If you voted for Obama this may be an exciting time for you. Ted Turner will continue to lift Obama. The media makes darlings so they can destroy them later. No Pity for the fool!!!!!!! Your turn!!!!
A lot has been discussed about the effectiveness of Web 2.0 marketing in political campaigns. However, I think that it is being given more credit than it deserves. The fact is that it was not Barrack Obama’s web 2.0 campaign that defeated Hillary. Instead, it might be one factor, but in my opinion it is far down the list in importance.
Obama’s campaign is just a factor. But Obama had a blunder ( about muslim )
so it will not be easy after this
I strongly disagree that social media was a major factor in how Hillary Clinton lost the election.
I also think that this is very untrue
Hillary Clinton is lost election right because of writing media and Obama is showing right in time like first black man on White House.This factor America need in this moment.
Generaly speaking media does influence on Hillary Clinton’s lost election,but she’s self not do enything for better results.
a politician will have whatever spin they apply subjected to the views of the cycnical eyes of many surfers, a different tactic is needed for politicians to engage online
Speaking of Hillary Clinton:
There is bad news about her husband.
It is opined that Bill Clinton committed racist hate crimes, and I am not free to say anything further about it.
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Y. Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are probably thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post.)
_________________
“If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.
I’m just dropping by to say that I very much liked seeing this post, it’s very clear and well written. Are you considering posting more about this? It appears like there is more fodder here for more posts.