Elliot Ferguson has an interesting piece in yesterday’s edition of The Kingston Whig Standard. Significant signs explores the importance of visual cues in election campaigns and mentions research using fictitious campaign lawn signs to determine if they influenced voters into believing which candidates were qualified.
The researchers concluded that in the absence of much other information about the candidates, voters will mark next to the name they recognize.” Translation, lawn signs, or visual cues more specifically, still work.
The article then goes on to talk about the role of social media in campaigns. However, it fails to suggest digital lawn signs as I call them. In case you’re new to my blog, digital lawn signs are the visual cues of the online world. They’re the photos, badges, avatars, overlays and “twibbons” people can use on their social media accounts and websites to show support for particular candidates and parties. Everyone who follows updates issued by people who have proclaimed their political support through these visual cues will see them with each update.
It’s no longer sufficient for politicians to simply have websites, Facebook and Twitter accounts, etc. Particularly since my research shows most politicians don’t use them effectively. In fact, there are many examples of politicians who launch social media outposts to much fanfare and never actually use them. Or worse, they use them to their detriment. I believe politicians, or their campaigns, haven’t quite figured out how to integrate these powerful tools into their strategies. They either don’t fully understand how to engage, lack the necessary skills or time to do so, or simply couldn’t be bothered to do it. That hypothesis was validated when only 26% of local candidates responded to a question I posed directly to them in multiple tweets.
The article also talks about the power of QR codes. I’ll share my thoughts on QR codes in a separate post.
comments