Some Campaigns Are Web Clueless… — The Digital Edge Blog

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s team has a lot to learn…

Over the weekend, I received a comment on The Digital Edge from someone acting on behalf of the Ron Paul 2008 campaign. In the comment, he discusses the erosion of freedom that is taking place today in America, and exhorts people to act and get involved. The comment had links, of course, to the Ron Paul campaign web site.

These are important issues, and they absolutely should be discussed in the public sphere.

Spaming blogs is just the wrong way to go about it…

In the opening sentences of the comment, the writer admits what he is doing:

Why did I just spam your blog? I spammed it because america is under attack…

(Emphasis Mine)

If Ron Paul – or any candidate – wants to reach out and persuade people, they need to do it by blogging about issues themselves, and becoming active in the discussions already taking place on blogs all around the web. Having surrogates post ‘comments’ having nothing to do with any active discussions at various sites won’t help anyone’s cause.

By not understanding how the blogosphere works, Ron Paul’s team has ended up damaging his crediblity with an important – and potentially fairly sympathetic – group of influencers. Campaigns need to bring web literate people on board to advise them on how to reach out to a digital audience. Ron Paul was clearly not well served by whoever made the call to post these ‘spam comments’ all around.

And neither were the principles he is fighting for…

Tagged as: Current Events, Politics

Mark

I haven’t seen the Paul campaing spamming blogs — there are hundreds of Ron Paul supporters independently participating in blogs, as you must be aware (just check Technorati). If that comment you cited was actually submitted by someone working on the Paul campaign, I suspect it was not authorized, nor is it indicative of the way in which the campaign is availing itself of the Internet. In fact, the campaign recently received praise from one of the digital-marketing publications for its hands-off recognition of how the social networking sites are providing platforms for the spontaneous organization of Paul’s grass roots supporters.
steve

Ron Paul’s campaign is directing virtually none of the online activity. It is all spontaneous from enthusiastic supporters.
Pingback: University Update - Ron Paul - Permanent Link to "Some Campaigns Are Web Clueless..."
http://www.thedigitaledgeblog.com John

Control of the message is clearly a challenge for any campaign today (see my previous post: http://www.thedigitaledgeblog.com/2007/03/19/campaigns-are-out-of-control/). As Steve points out, “enthuiastic supporters’ are often a major component of how campaigns communicate, and they are true lone wolves when it comes to control and accountability.

Mark, I appreciate your perspective on how the Ron Paul campaign is conducting itself online. A campaign can define the issues that it want’s to have discussed, and to a certain extent influence the tenor of that discussion. But there simply is no way to control it like was done in the past with traditional media.

I think that having the candidates themselves participating online would be a great boon to true public discourse. There is way too much packaging and way too little passion in what I see with most campaigns. I feel like we’re being sold to. People today can sense that, and just start to tune it out. I think candidates like Ron Paul who don’t get the same level of exposure as the media ‘front runners’ could have a big impact here, and could play a larger role in driving the ‘issues agenda’ in this election. A genuine voice with true conviction will resonate if it can rise above the noise.

What’s frustrating is I believe that Ron Paul’s voice is an important one in this campaign. His issues are genuine, and are a reflection of the principles he has built a career of public service on – not simply the most current polling numbers. I would hate to see his perspective in our national debate minimized by on-line gaffes by his staff, or surrogates that otherwise reflect badly on his campaign.

Thanks for the comments!
Chris

I didn’t see where the person who ‘spammed’ your blog is affiliated or acting on behalf of the Ron Paul 2008 campaign. He has a very minimal staff, I highly doubt one of them left the comment on your page. I’m sure you are an important person and all, not trying to take away from ya on that.

I also haven’t seen a single sign that indicates the large amount in Internet activity is hurting the campaign. A few blog posts are not a sign. When reaching out to millions of people, some are bound to get upset. If his support or fundraising totals were dipping, there may be cause for concern, but that is far from the case.

Some would consider the large amount of unrelated keyword advertising that John McCain does to be spammy, although personally I take the free market approach in that so long as these ‘spammers’ aren’t infringing on the civil liberties of other people, then all is fair game. Oh no, a Ron Paul comment on my blog, call the cops! I’ll never vote for this guy because someone/something posted a ‘copy and paste’ comment to my blog! I mean really, c’mon.
http://www.thedigitaledgeblog.com John

Thanks for commenting Chris.

The point that I was making here is that posting comments unrelated to the material on a site is a poor way to reach out with a message. I encourage and welcome any comments on this blog that are topical and help explore an issue from a perspective different from my own.

Comments from people with strong convictions are part of what makes blogging a worthwhile dialog, and is certainly not a reason for me to “call the cops” as you seem to imply is my intention here. If you reread my post and previous comment, I think you’ll see that I do in fact find great value in having Ron Paul’s voice heard in this election. I see a great deal more depth and honesty in his campaign than in that of many of the ‘front runners’. I’m not sure why you would make the assumption that “I’ll never vote for this guy”.

That said, I do believe the way people engage in a discussion is important. I would disagree with your assertion that as long as fund raising seems to hold up, there really isn’t an issue and “all is fair game”. That belief has made recent elections dark and negative. Respect for civil discourse is an important part of communicating a message with integrity, and should never be traded for short term gain. I do not see Ron Paul doing this in any way – he seems to very much be taking the high road.

Missteps in the online space however – even if they come tangentially from passionate supporters (as Mark and Steve point out above) – can damage a candidate. I looked at this post as a call to his campaign to exercise as much proactive control and guidance as they can in the online space to preserve the integrity of his message in that sphere. Unlike some in this race, Ron Paul does has a positive message and a unique perspective on where we are heading as a nation.

It’s a perspective that deserves to be heard and debated.

I’m glad you joined the conversation…