Web 2.0 and the Election

When I got onto Twitter today for the first and only time (weird, right?), I found this article from PROpenMic.com. Evelyn McCormack wrote blog post entitled, "Facebook, YouTube and the Presidential Election," which I found very interesting. As people are well aware, I have a slight addiction with social media and the election, even though I usually don't voice my opinions about the latter one. When I found this post, I knew I had to link her blog to mine.

McCormack provides her readers with quite a few stats to compare the Obama/Biden campaign against McCain/Palin. Obama's YouTube site has 1,538 videos with 100,595 subscribers and 23,828 friends of the page alone. The videos featured on the page include ones of his family, speeches, advertisements and even Michelle's speeches. By searching his name alone, you get 514,000 results for Obama and Biden returns 47,600 videos. 

McCain's page, which does not include Palin, has 305 videos with 25,060 subscribers. When searching for his name, you receive 268,000 results, which is almost half as less as Obama's. Palin does not have her own page but when searching her name, 107,000 results appear. 

In regards to YouTube, the numbers do tell that Obama/Biden are taking over this portion of social media. However, according to McCormack's article, the numbers are closer for Facebook. I must disagree because Obama's page has 2,077,944 supporters while McCain only has 573,390 on his Facebook page. Obama even dominates on Twitter, with 101,500 followers and McCain doesn't even have an official page.

This obviously shows that Obama is dominating Web 2.0 and reaching out to more audiences. Obama is targeting first-time voters by using sites millennials visit every day. By using these resources, both candidates are changing the way elections are conducted. You have to wonder what the numbers for these Web 2.0 sites will be like during the 2012 election, when more people are using the three mentioned outlets and more will be developed. Will TV ads still have the same effect as they do now? Will print still be the main focus? Or will the candidates be moving toward the Internet and using those resources for smear campaigns and relaying messages to their target audiences? We will figure this out within 3 years, when the next presidential election comes about.

Social Media Making Us... Not Social?

As I was creeping on Twitter for the first time in days, I found this interesting post from  PR News' "The PR News Blog."  The post, entitled "Anti-Social Media" by Diane Schwartz and Courtney Barnes, tells of a story about one of the authors going to Rosh Hashana services and having to "greet your neighbors" for two minutes; needless to say, some people did not like being forced to be social and did not participate. The article posed the question "have social media sites made people less friendly in person and more friendly online?"

This is an excellent question Schwartz and Barnes asked, as face-to-face communication is slowly fading away. Instead of calling people on the telephone or talking to someone in person, text messages and e-mails have taken over. Social media sites, such as Blogger, Facebook and Twitter, are allowing people to keep their "friends" updated on what they are doing without actually communicating with individuals. Facebook, for example, allows "friends" to keep updated on a person's life, including relationships and what they're doing, without actually talking to anyone. This site has even added Facebook Chat because writing on walls wasn't effective anymore.

Social media sites and the Internet have made people less friendly in person. People prefer to communicate through instant messaging or e-mails as well as blogs, tweets and wall postings. Talking in person strikes fear into people, making them feel awkward and second guessing everything they say. However, with social media sites, the awkward silences are not present and you can edit what you're thoughts before communicating them. 

Unfortunately, social media is making us less social in person. We would rather spend time in the comfort of our own homes in sweatpants updating complete strangers about our lives instead of going to the local watering hole and meeting new people. Maybe this is why online dating has become so popular and effective. Without the pressures of face-to-face communication, people can be themselves on social media (or dating) sites. Just like the video killed the radio star, social media is going to kill face-to-face communication (okay, maybe not kill but severely damage).

The Worth of a PR Degree

I'm waiting for my retailing class to start (and let me tell you, I am PUMPED about that) and I came across this interesting blog posting about earning a degree in public relations. I found the author's point of view very intersting, especially since I studied over in London for a few weeks about international public relations.

A little background information might be helpful to fully understand this article. The way people in England view college education and degrees is how the U.S. once viewed them. No one really goes to college in England, so earning a college degree is very prestigious and usually you can obtain a very secure, well paying job by having that little piece of paper.

Now, I understand how the author can think that earning any degree can get you into PR, but I do not agree with this. Yes, anyone can enter public relations if they want and they don't even have to go to college to become a practitioner. However, individuals who study specifically PR in college do know what they are doing better than others and should obtain the jobs at PR agencies. I know a great amount of agencies will only take you, even as an intern, if you are studying PR in college.

I become so frustrated and irritated when people think PR is only publicity and so easy that anyone can do the tasks associated with the position. While studying PR, students learn the necessities of the field, how to use the RACE model and how to create a successful campaign. We are ahead or right with the trends, learning how to make our client stand out and how to use PR 2.0 and Web 2.0 to our advantage. Someone with a English Literature degree will not know how to do this. They might be able to write like no one's business, but they won't know how to use this skill to their advantage. Maybe I am slightly biased since I am a PR student, but I am standing by my statements.

What are your thoughts?

Dirty, Sexy PR

Once again, I was on Twitter (really, I am not that big of a creep... just extremely bored) and found an article from The New York Times about how public relations practitioners are obtaining press. After working at a PR agency this summer, I know the importance of having a press release followed up or printed. To do this successfully, you have to make your client or a product sound new and exciting, dangerous... or sexy?

All of us are aware that sex sells, but you have to draw the line at some point. You cannot use words to grab someone's attention to only have the story be about something completely different. I feel practicing public relations like this is unethical (the misdirecting people) and only unexperienced individuals will use type of tactic. But I guess we all can't find the sex appeal in toxic shower curtains.