September was a significant news month for Facebook and Twitter. Team Zuckerberg announced a myriad of interface changes designed to upgrade the user experience. Team Blue Bird revealed that its expanded Promoted Products will drive upwards of $400 million in revenue in 2013. Lost in the hubbub were some shrewd political moves taken by the two social networks. Facebook registered two domains – FBPAC.org and FBPAC.us – and confirmed its plan to form a political action committee. Twitter disclosed its intention to sell political advertising ahead of the 2012 presidential campaign. For Facebook and Twitter, throwing their hats in the political ring is an organic, pardon the SEO pun, progression, especially when you consider how influential social was in 2008. Political alliances based on neutrality could be powerfully leveraged legislatively by the networks down the line. Yet, as impressive as these moves are for Facebook and Twitter, they could pose a little danger to eager marketers looking to effectively engage users during campaign season.
With Thanksgiving fast approaching, we all know why political discussions are avoided on Turkey Day. They get the blood boiling and drumsticks flying. But from a social marketing perspective, there’s a big difference between irritating your prospective in-laws and upsetting your potential brand advocates. To that end, brands that advertise politically should continuously monitor user activity. Why? The long-standing and increasingly derisive tradition of political lobbying by brands could have unintended consequences for marketing campaigns. Much has happened since 2008 – WikiLeaks, repeated calls for transparency and tighter online privacy regulations. Politically vocal brands must proceed with strategic caution when engaging in social space. Negative posts, replies and retweets could be linked back to the brand making online reputation management essential. For instance, Alec Baldwin – known for his liberal viewpoint – was criticized via Twitter by Occupy Wall Street protesters for pledging his support to the movement in lieu of his advertising work for Capital One. Baldwin took to social media to respond to his detractors but as any social marketer knows once tweets and posts are out there, they are out there.
Speaking of online brand management, a good many brand and marketing managers still have a tough time adhering to the major social best practice of not overtly selling to customers. They may say they get it but actions, namely too many “We’re so great!” wall posts and “Me! Me! Me!” tweets, tell a different story. Like in product marketing, building relationships with users is critical. Brands active in the political arena should listen to what their ambassadors are saying before selling a particular candidate or position. Listening helps establish trust and makes it easier to eventually present political sponsorships or endorsements without alienating or offending users.
Facebook and Twitter have shown that when it comes to social sharing, the personal is public. It will be interesting to see if this philosophy holds up for marketers trying to navigate the tricky political waters. The 2012 election season could prove to be a strong case study on why adhering to social best practices like cautious engagement, listening and trust building is the right way for brands to acquire and keep ambassador votes.
