spreading jam

Social media currently has the world wrapped around its little finger – and no one seems to be complaining.  Like a hungry plant, it yells ‘feed me’ and we oblige because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to play Farmville with our friends, or tell complete strangers the minutia of our day-to-day lives.

It’s become a staple part of our existence and I’m sure it has caused a drop in clipboard sales; as no longer must we be surveyed whilst trying to buy our groceries. We can now order our shopping online as we tweet our opinions on the leader’s debate.

Dependence on social media has been born from a massive communication shift and is subsequently playing a major role in the soon-to-be-concluded general election. The parties can freely dip into a pool of public opinion to inform their campaign decisions – but are they? Social Media has oft been cited as a pivotal part of Barack Obama’s successful election campaign strategy. We think it’s a powerful tool that all UK parties should be using.

The following 5 graphs represent just how much online public opinion is being shared on the key issues.

23/04/2010 Buzz following the second leader’s debate (src: Brandwatch / Jam)

The first graph represents buzz from the day after the second leader’s debate. Focus on tax and the economy comes as no surprise, with conversation on defense & foreign affairs flared by debate over the war and Trident developments. A broad level of buzz on each subject is expected, as the candidates promote and defend their policies.

It is enlightening to see that parliamentary reform receives little conversation, surprising, as it features quite prominently in the Labour manifesto and has been a topic at the heart of tax and finance for many months now with the MP expenses scandals.

26/04/2010 Cameron is challenged on Education policy (src: Brandwatch / Jam)

The second graph represents the Monday after the debate, showing a very different picture. A student in Southampton challenged Cameron’s education policy, causing a peak in buzz around the subject, and the environment came into focus as the leaders clashed over green credentials. It is interesting to note that buzz surrounding education is sustained going into the next graph, whereas environmental conversation once again subsides. The level of buzz surrounding the environment may be low due to loss of public interest in the subject after the various IPCC blunders, however, this dip in buzz could be the perfect opportunity for one party to create a peak and stand out in the subject.

28/04/2010 ‘Bigotgate’ causes peak in buzz on immigration (src: Brandwatch / Jam)

The third graph, taken from the 28^th of April shows the development of online conversation in the lead up to the final leader’s debate. It also reflects significant response to ‘bigotgate’, a catalyst for increased conversation on Labour and immigration. The peak in Conservative buzz on education also seems to cause general conversation surrounding the subject to increase for all parties. Considering the amount of online response to ‘bigotgate’, would it be worth creating a similar situation to create buzz around a subject, as evident in the graph below – taken from the day after the final leader’s debate – ‘bigotgate’ has caused a sustained rise in buzz on immigration. It has already been conjectured that the Conservatives are arranging ‘flash mobs’ to distract Labour voters, and a last minute distraction or revelation may be enough to sway voters, as I’m sure bigotgate already has.

30/04/2010 Buzz following the final leader’s debate (src: Brandwatch / Jam)

These figures aren’t a representation of popularity or effectiveness of communication; they merely give an indication of the volume of public opinion surrounding the parties and policies in the social media space. They also indicate how effective social media monitoring can be in following political progress and how it could be used to give parties an idea of where their conversation is focused.

However, focusing on a particular media platform can produce a very different graph. Comparing Twitter and forum buzz in isolation in the same period 23^rd of April produced very different results:

23/04/2010 Buzz following second leader’s debate (src: Twitter / Jam)

23/04/2010 Forum only buzz following second leader’s debate (src: Brandwatch / Jam)

On Twitter, Labour can be seen to dominate buzz on the economy with Conservatives leading on education whereas on forums there is less focus on the environment and heavier Conservative focus on the economy and taxes. It may be interesting to note that the conditions of Twitter, allowing only posts of 140 characters or less, deter the elaborate discussion that forums provide. Forum posts are more likely to discuss all parties, where Twitter promotes a more focused response. With the formatting, Twitter is perfect for exploring direct and quick opinions; people are more likely to rant on Twitter, in juxtaposition to forums, where people are more inclined to rehearse their post.

Though online buzz alone cannot predict who the new PM will be, it can give a good idea of what people are talking about and where parties should focus their efforts.