The Social Media Race for Massachusetts Senate Seat

Posted on January 19, 2010 by Heather Snow — 1 Comment

For those watching the Massachusetts special election, a particularly interesting storyline is Republican candidate Scott Brown’s surge in the polls — in a traditionally blue state — mapped against the two candidates’ respective social media strategies.

Through grassroots tactics Brown has managed to leverage the simmering unease surrounding the healthcare debate to appeal to independent voters. Springboarding his campaign off of the pledge to be the 41st vote against national healthcare reform legislation, Brown rolled out his announcement with a Twitter hashtag: #41stvote. Martha Coakley is using social media tools as well, but she’s using them differently. The overall cadence of her campaign is more traditional, as the Boston Globe details, heavily targeting a select set of political influencers, expecting they will help get people to the polls.

Although media coverage (such as AdAge’s Coakley Ignores Obama’s Digital-Media Playbook in Massachusetts, and the WSJ’s Atwitter in Mass.: Brown’s Social Media Strategy Tops Coakley’s) positions Brown as the clear leader in social media, a study conducted by the Emerging Media Research Council paints a somewhat more nuanced story. Brown certainly has more Facebook fans (70,800 vs. 13,529) and Twitter followers (9,679 vs. 3,385), but the two candidates have produced a similar amount of content (with the exception of Facebook posts):

• Tweets (since Jan. 1) Brown 142 vs. Coakley 144
• Twitter followers Brown 9,679 vs. Coakley 3,385
• Facebook posts (since Jan. 1) Brown 125 vs. Coakley 58
• Facebook fans Brown 70,800 vs. Coakley 13,529
• YouTube videos Brown 57 vs. Coakley 52
• YouTube video views Brown 578,271 vs. Coakley 51,173

What’s notable isn’t whether the candidates are using the channels (because they both are), but how each is using social media channels. The hook here is the level of engagement and interaction the candidate is able to induce.

A few key details noted in the EMRC findings:

• Social media extends visibility, and with it, name recognition. According to a Nov. 12 survey only 51% of voters had heard of Scott Brown; as of Jan. 14 his name recognition had surged to 95%.
• Content drives engagement on Twitter. Brown sent twice as many news-related messages as Coakley, whereas Coakley retweeted followers’ messages twice as often as Brown and included more personal messages. The total volume of tweets was similar (142 vs. 144) but Coakley delivered less original content. EMRC reports that in previous races stronger user engagement tends to correlate to delivery of news announcements and calls to action, versus personal messages.
• Follows and fans are only a means to an end; interactions are what count. Brown received 10.6 times more Facebook fan page interactions and views of uploaded videos on YouTube than Coakley. Brown supporters are twice as likely to interact with the Brown Fan page than Coakley supporters are to interact with the Coakley fan page.
• Social networks make the local national. Coakley has a higher percentage of in-state Twitter followers (24% vs. 17%), however because of the nature of social networks, out-of-state followers can make just as much impact (as evidenced by the 2009 Virginia McDonnell/Deeds race). Both candidates have called on out-of-state supporters to make “get out the vote” calls.

Regardless of who wins the Senate seat, the takeaway here is one of nuance. It’s not enough to simply use the channels. It’s about using them well. Understanding the dynamics that drive influence and engagement online, creating compelling content and inducing engagement and action amongst supporters.