e marketer the_new_political_influencers-social_medias_effect_on_the_campaign_trail(2)

Copyright ©2012 eMarketer, Inc. All rights reserved.

Consumer Behavior and Attitudes 2

Social Political Marketing 6

Conclusions 8

eMarketer Interviews 9

Related Links 9

October 2012

Executive Summary: The 2012 election is the first truly “social” presidential cycle. Candidates from major and minor parties alike are plastered all over the most popular sites, with presences on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, not to mention Tumblr, Reddit, Quora and many others. In surveys, social network users claim social content doesn’t influence their political opinions and activity, but the evidence is adding up that they are wrong. 145992

Meanwhile, election-related social activity is also having an influence on social media users’ opinions about their own friends.

For marketers and media companies, the evolution of political activity on social networks, and the ambivalence of users about it, echoes longtime challenges surrounding controversial content, whether traditional news or user-generated. The data suggests that users are influenced by political/social content but also that they are resistant to it, pointing up opportunity and risk for marketers when working within social media.

In addition, the emergence of political messaging via social networks underscores two core lessons of social media: First, social messages can take on a life of their own, upending the intended message, and second, privacy is a paramount concern for users, even in a “sharing” environment.

Key Questions

■ How many people turn online, and especially to social media, for information about campaigns and candidates?

■ How are politicians, activists and other politically involved marketers using social media to get their messages out during the national election season?

■ What are consumers’ attitudes toward receiving political messages on social sites?

% of respondents

Select Social Media Sources Used by US InternetUsers to Get Political Information, by Age, April 2012

Facebook22%

12%

8%

YouTube/other video17%

6%

6%

Political blogs16%

14%

12%

Twitter11%

4%

2%

18-34 35-54 55+

Note: n=1,104 likely votersSource: Burst Media, "Online Insights: Online Voters & Online Advertising,"April 26, 2012145992 www.eMarketer.com

Nicole Perrin [email protected]

Contributors Danielle Drolet, Lauren McKay, Mitchel Winkels

The New Political Influencers: Social Media’s Effect on the Campaign Trail

The New Political Influencers: Social Media’s Effect on the Campaign Trail Copyright ©2012 eMarketer, Inc. All rights reserved. 2

Consumer Behavior and Attitudes

There will be more than 150 million social network users in the US by the end of 2012. But most say they don’t learn about politics on the social web, and they claim their opinions aren’t swayed by it.

The data suggests otherwise.

Before charting the impact of political messages on social media users, though, it’s important to put media usage in perspective. For politics, TV is the place where the average citizen turns to learn about the candidates and the issues.

Asked in January about their sources for news on the presidential election campaign, just 36% of consumers told the Pew Internet & American Life Project the internet was among their top sources. This ranked it second, far behind television, at 74%. The figure for the internet was the same among voters surveyed in November 2008 and slightly higher than research conducted in October 2008. During the 2008 campaign season, the internet was just barely ahead of newspapers as the No. 2 election news source, but since then, print newspapers have decreased in importance while the internet’s role has held steady.

Harris Interactive similarly found in September that TV was still tops overall, though among the youngest consumers surveyed, online had pulled ahead as the No. 1 news source.

% of respondents

Preferred Source of News According to US InternetUsers, by Age, Sep 2012

18-35 36-47 48-66 67+ Total

TV 34% 50% 59% 60% 50%Online 55% 38% 27% 17% 36%—on computer 43% 29% 22% 16% 29%

—mobile device 7% 5% 2% - 4%

—tablet 4% 4% 3% 1% 3%

Print 5% 7% 13% 22% 10%Some other way 7% 3% 1% 1% 3%Note: numbers may not add up to 100% due to roundingSource: Harris Interactive, "The Harris Poll" as cited in press release , Sep25, 2012145863 www.eMarketer.com

145863

Among those who did tell Pew in January that the internet was among their top two sources for political news this election season, most said that they turned to places other than social networks for information. CNN was the site mentioned most often, at 24%, followed closely by Yahoo! or Yahoo! News. A paltry 5% reported using Facebook to get election news, while 2% said the same of Twitter and 1% of YouTube, the only social sites named by any respondents. In December 2007, when Pew asked a similar question, the site mix was somewhat different, but the overall picture was the same: Just 3% of those who got

political news from the internet named Myspace as a source, while 2% named YouTube.

Other sources suggest use of the internet for political information could be higher than Pew found—at least among likely voters surveyed online. When that group was polled by Burst Media in April 2012 and allowed to choose only a single primary medium for getting political information, nearly 35% of men said the internet was their choice, beating out TV by more than 10 percentage points. Among women, however, TV was still ahead by about the same amount. Burst also found fair percentages of likely voters looking to social sites, including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and political blogs, for at least some information about politics.

% of respondents

Online Sources Used by US Internet Users to GetPolitical Information, by Age, April 2012

18-34 35-54 55+

News sites 44% 48% 53%

Google/search 34% 24% 23%

Facebook 22% 12% 8%

YouTube/other video 17% 6% 6%

Entertainment sites 16% 8% 5%

Political blogs 16% 14% 12%

Candidate's sites 15% 13% 11%

Advocacy group sites 12% 8% 10%

Twitter 11% 4% 2%

Note: n=1,104 likely votersSource: Burst Media, "Online Insights: Online Voters & Online Advertising,"April 26, 2012141149 www.eMarketer.com

141149

Meanwhile, Pew found that social network users said the sites were minor sources of campaign news. The same January survey showed that a small core of social networkers indicated the services were “very important” for them to keep up with the news, get people involved with the issues that matter to them or find like-minded souls. But most respondents said social networks were “not too important” or “not at all important” for these purposes. Consumers as a whole also reported being less likely to have learned something about a candidate or campaign from social sites than from any other source, from cable news networks to the internet in general to NPR and religious radio talk shows. Those who placed the greatest emphasis on social sites tended to spend the most time talking about politics offline as well.


% of total

Importance of Social Networking for Select PoliticalActivities According to US Social Network Users, Feb 2012

Keeping up with political news12% 24% 21% 41%

Recruiting people to get involved with political issuesthat matter to you

8% 18% 20% 51%

Finding other people who share your views aboutimportant political issues

7% 18% 25% 47%

Debating or discussing political issues with others6% 19% 24% 49%

Very importantSomewhat important

Not too importantNot at all important

Note: n=1,047; numbers may not add up to 100% due to roundingSource: Pew Internet & American Life Project, "Politics on SocialNetworking Sites," Aug 30, 2012144920 www.eMarketer.com

144920

But other data suggests that social content is in fact having an effect on voters. For instance, when AYTM surveyed US internet users in September, more than a quarter said social media had influenced their political opinions. Similarly, Pew found that 41% of Twitter users at least sometimes learned something about the election from the service, as did 36% of Facebook users.

% of respondents

US Internet Users Who Have Had Social MediaInfluence Their Political Opinions, Sep 2012

Yes, very much5.2%

Yes, somewhat20.9%

No61.4%

No, I don't usesocial media

12.4%

Note: n=306 who will vote or are unsure if they will vote in the nextelection; excludes respondents who will not vote in the next electionSource: AYTM Market Research as cited in company blog, Sep 18, 2012145527 www.eMarketer.com

145527

And research published in Nature indicated that social media could pump up the power of a nonpartisan message intended to get out the vote. The researchers examined the behaviors of Facebook users who saw a reminder that “Today is Election Day” with a clickable “I Voted” button during the 2010 November midterm elections. About 1% of the Facebook users who saw the message were exposed to a version of the notice that included photos of their friends. When University of California San Diego researchers analyzed Facebook

interactions in conjunction with publicly available voting records, they discovered that viewers of the social message had the highest rate of actually voting.

“Social influence made all the difference in political mobilization,” said James Fowler, lead author of the study, in a statement. “It’s not the ‘I Voted’ button, or the lapel sticker we’ve all seen, that gets out the vote. It’s the person attached to it.” The research also found that a person’s closest friends had the greatest influence on their likelihood to vote.

A similar difference in the self-reported importance of social media for politics vs. social media’s actual effect appeared when Pew asked users how much political content they posted. Social network users tend to say they don’t post much about politics on the social sites they use—but someone must, since they also report seeing such content from their friends. While just 16% of social network users told Pew they posted at least “some” political status updates, comments and links, 39% said the same of their friends. Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds of respondents claimed to post no political material at all, while just 23% reported seeing none in their newsfeeds.

% of total

Amount of Political Material US Social Network Usersand Their Friends Post on Social Media, Feb 2012

All/almost all Most Some Just a little None at all

Note: n=1,047; numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding; includesstatus updates, comments and linksSource: Pew Internet & American Life Project, "Politics on SocialNetworking Sites," Aug 30, 2012144922 www.eMarketer.com

Users themselves

2%

4% 10% 21% 63%

Friends6% 30% 36% 23%

3%

144922

It’s possible that most people really do not post political content, but have just a few friends who post an outsized amount of it. But what’s controversial, and thus political, to one person may be run-of-the-mill to the next, leading to a perceptual gap: What I post is not political, but what you post is.

The volume of political activity on Facebook and Twitter certainly suggests that the behavior is more common than is self-reported. During the Republican and Democratic conventions, seven of the top 10 most-buzzed about topics were convention-related, led by discussion of President Obama’s nomination acceptance speech.

The convention also boosted Facebook “likes” for the Republican and Democratic candidates, with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan gaining 2.6 million and the Obama/Biden ticket adding about half a million new followers, according to Mashable.



The Obama/Biden ticket had 29.3 million “likes,” and the Romney/Ryan ticket 8.3 million, as of mid-October. Those presidential candidate “like” counts point up the clear difference between what users say they do and what they actually do. Consider the numbers again: The two campaigns had harvested a total of 37.6 million “likes.” Assuming no overlap between “likers” of the two, and that all “likers” are in the US, that amounts to 26.6% of all US Facebook users, who will number 141.2 million by the end of this year, according to eMarketer estimates. That’s a nearly 27% penetration rate of actual political activity level (on Facebook alone), far exceeding the 16% of social network users (across all social sites) who told Pew they posted at least “some” political content.

Meanwhile, Twitter saw record amounts of political discussion during the conventions. Obama’s speech in particular sparked nearly 53,000 tweets per minute. Twitter also reported that 9.5 million tweets were sent about the DNC, compared to 4 million about the RNC and just over 14,000 tweets per minute during Romney’s acceptance speech. The first presidential debate set users tweeting up a storm as well, breaking records again for a political event, with 10.3 million messages sent over the course of the 90-minute debate.

Is Politics Making Social Media Antisocial?

Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, explained that there is a “nice healthy share” of Americans who are interested in politics, but that many would not necessarily want that interest to dominate their online socializing experience.

“For lots of people, it’s not the dominant part of their life,” he said. “It’s not the dominant part of their conversations. It’s not how they organize their social networks. It’s not how they present themselves to the world. It’s one of several things that they are, and for most people, it’s a minor segment of their identity rather than a dominant segment of their identity.”

But for those who do have an interest, social media is unquestionably opening up new avenues for discussion and activism—whether that’s appreciated by their friends and family or not. Just as traditional attitudes toward privacy are changing (if not as fast as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg might claim), ideas about what topics are appropriate for mixed debate are also evolving. David Almacy, senior vice president of digital public affairs practice at Edelman and former White House Internet and E-Communications Director under President George W. Bush, pointed to longstanding conversational taboos on subjects like religion, politics and money, and how—at least for some people—discussions are newly uninhibited.

“It’s out of a sense of not wanting to offend others” that people have avoided such controversial topics in the past, he said. “But these conversations have always been happening.

They just have not been happening necessarily in the open, and so now these channels allow for some of that discourse. They have become more acceptable for some because of the channels that are available to us, which I think is a good thing. The more that we can have constructive discourse around these issues and agree to disagree in some cases but respect the conversation, I think is ultimately a good thing.”

Chris Tolles, CEO of Topix, parent company of Politix, a politically oriented social networking site, argued that even for people who want to have a social political experience online, a site like Facebook may not be the most natural fit. Facebook has size going for it—but also against it.

“Whether it’s sports cars or golf or basketball or politics, Facebook is not the No. 1 network for anything [in particular] because it’s just too broad,” he said. “You might put something out in passing, but social networks are really more broad-based connectors of you and all the people in your life. If you want to go to a specific topic, you go to a specific site, whether it’s ESPN for sports or LinkedIn for career.”

And if Facebook, along with other general social networks, is fundamentally about “all the people in your life,” it’s a fair bet that at least some of those people will disagree with you about the issues, or about how you’re presenting the issues—making political discussions on the site a potential hot-button.

In Pew’s early 2012 research, it found that 38% of social network users discovered unexpected beliefs about their friends on the sites, including 49% of self-identified Democrats, 39% of Republicans and 32% of independents. More than half of liberal, very liberal and very conservative social network users were surprised by a friend’s political views based on social media postings.

And when those views, surprising or otherwise, cause conflict, they can break down the social graph. Pew found that, overall, nearly one in five social network users had blocked, unfriended or unfollowed someone because of political postings that upset them. Liberals were much more likely than conservatives to have done so, and their reasons were various, including 16% who had blocked or unfriended someone because of a post they disagreed with, and 14% who had changed their settings because a person simply posted too frequently about politics.



% of respondents in each group

Reasons that US Social Network Users Have Blocked,Unfriended or Hidden Someone on a Social Network,by Political Orientation, Feb 2012

Posted something you disagreed with16%

6%

8%

Posted too frequently about politics14%

8%

9%

Argued about political issues11%

6%

7%

Disagreed with something you posted11%

1%

4%

Posted something that you worried would offend8%

3%

5%

Liberal Moderate Conservative

Note: n=1,047Source: Pew Internet & American Life Project, "Social Networking Sites andPolitics," March 12, 2012138061 www.eMarketer.com

138061

These dropped friends were most likely to be distant connections to begin with, but nearly a third of all those who had blocked someone did it to a close personal friend, while 18% had blocked a family member. User tolerance is sure to be tested even further as the election approaches, and with more unfollowing and unsubscribing, social network users will potentially be replacing broader networks of influence with smaller echo chambers—a situation unlikely to be reversed after the election chatter has died down.

“There’s some adjustment, and more broadly speaking, people are twisting the dial on their social networking experiences,” said Pew’s Rainie. “They’re paying more attention to the privacy settings, for instance. They’re paying more attention to content that they like as opposed to content that they don’t like.”

In addition to disconnecting people from each other on social networks, the same political sensitivities can prevent users from expressing their opinions: 22% of social network users avoided posting content or links that they thought might alienate people politically, Pew found.

Q&A: Do you think people are changing their behavior on social networks to avoid controversial topics?

Erik Martin General Manager

Reddit

“Obviously, there are plenty of people who don’t mind discussing politics on Facebook and Twitter, but there are a lot of people who don’t [do it] because it’s tied to their real identity, which is tied to their job, their family, their friends. So they may have very strong political opinions on a certain issue, but they’re not going to put that on Facebook because they’re worried about what their employer or colleagues or family might think. Of course, many people are perfectly fine with that, but there’s definitely a large group of people—and oftentimes, those are the people who know about a certain issue, or work in a certain field that’s being discussed, or in government or politics—who aren’t able to really openly discuss some of these issues on Facebook or Twitter particularly.”

Lee Rainie Director

Pew Internet & American Life Project

“That showed up some in our data, yes. We saw a portion, about 10%, who said they’ve blocked somebody out of their life because of the volume of material that was posted on politics. It might not be that they objected to the politics. It was just they objected to that being the dominant part of their persona on social networking sites. They just thought that was too much. They wanted to talk about other things or they didn’t want so much politics in their life.

“So some people do walk away or do block people who just have antithetical political views to them. So there’s a portion of people doing that and in many cases, they are not acting precipitously as far as we can tell.

“They are observing for a while, maybe even they’ve tried to suggest talking about other subjects or something like that. It’s not like there’s just this kill switch on somebody who says one thing about a candidate that they don’t like, it’s more the totality of the posts that are going on. So there’s some evidence of behavior change, but it’s mostly that people just want to ignore it and move on.”

David Almacy SVP of Digital Public Affairs Practice

Edelman

“I have friends who are fairly vocal about their views and they feel strongly about politics and they want their opinions to be made known. Others might have other considerations about



people who they work with. Maybe their boss is diametrically opposed politically and so they don’t want to be vocal about their thoughts for fear that it might affect their career. And so there are reasons why people are able to publish things. But at the same time, I think you need to be sensitive about the audience and the community, and obviously be measured in your responses. And that’s why on my Twitter account I say opinions are my own, because the last thing I’d want to do is to offend a client or a colleague or a friend because I’ve said something political.

“But the same is true for sports or for hobbies or anything else. I mean I probably have offended a lot of Cowboy fans out there with my Redskins tweets, right?”

Social Political Marketing

Social network users are sensitive to the political content they find on social sites. But with most Americans regularly socializing online, messaging from candidates and other political groups is expected—and, based on the evidence, such messages do move the dial for at least some people.

At this point, any major political campaign has a social presence. But different strategies are evident as politicians continue to experiment with the relatively new medium. Even on Facebook, where brands have spent billions over the past few years on their own experimental campaigns, this year’s two major presidential candidates have notably different styles.

Romney’s Facebook page is set up to read as first-person messages written by the former governor, such as this announcement of a donation contest: “Paul Ryan and I will be touring the great state of Ohio on Tuesday and we are looking for some company. So for today only, if you make a donation of $3 or more, you will be entered for a chance to join us on the road.” For a social call to action, Romney says, “We need a real recovery. Click ‘Like’ if you agree.”

Obama’s page, by contrast, is explicitly “run by Obama for America, President Obama’s 2012 campaign.” The posts are less personal, the calls to action more forceful: “Share this if you believe that multi-millionaires like Mitt Romney should pay their fair share in taxes.”

Most of the images posted to Romney’s page are photos of him on the campaign trail. Obama’s Facebook presence, meanwhile, includes numerous pictures that can only be described as “marketing collateral”—edited photos of the president overlaid with a quote and stylish-looking five-point plans, all clearly branded with Obama for America blue.

These may seem like minor differences, but they highlight a lack of convergence in campaigns’ approaches to social media, as they continue to test and experiment with what works. As more people turn to social media for political information, the audience for these efforts is in flux. And with Americans from a range of demographic groups checking out political content on social sites at various levels of engagement, politicians’ social audiences are fragmented in their desires. “Romney’s Responsibility Map,” in which the Obama Truth Team encourages viewers to “cut out the 47% of the country that doesn’t matter,” may be red meat to many supporters, but the undecided voter could be turned off by negativity—and would probably not share something so provocative. By contrast, the photo of Michelle Obama smiling at a baby is likely to get much more play among this group. For now, there is a mix of both types of content, across candidates



and across the political spectrum, but delivered through the same channel, preventing the social political experience from becoming a cohesive one.

Playing Politics

Since social media marketing began in earnest, brand marketers have had to contend with a central problem: A conversation with and among consumers has the power to generate new levels of engagement, but it also means consumers have unprecedented control over a brand’s message.

In the realm of politics, this problem is compounded. When a consumer brand commits a Promoted Topics gaffe, for example, it might find itself made fun of by any number of Twitter users eager to take advantage of a new meme. But for politicians, there is a ready-made opposing team actively looking for such chances to knock a campaign off-message—and often have some fun while doing so.

In mid-September, the Obama campaign launched the #ForAll initiative, which encouraged Obama voters to write on their hand their reason for reelecting the president, then take a photo of their hand placed over their heart, pledging support for a president they believed would do good “for all” of the country. Campaign senior strategist David Axelrod wrote the words “medical research” on his hands and tweeted his pledge photo, along with several celebrity supporters who helped launch the effort.

But using such a general phrase as a hashtag invited hijacking from Obama’s opponents—specifics and creativity optional. One Twitter user put it simply: “Gee, I believe in liberty, justice and freedom #ForAll so I will vote for Mitt Romney.” Other tweets cited particular philosophical differences between the candidates, and Texas Governor Rick Perry added his own photo, with “$16 trillion” written on his hands, “[s]ince @BarackObama has forgotten how much he’s added to national debt #ForAll our kids to pay off.”

This was just one skirmish in a larger war; such hijackings and meme-ings have become common and seem to rise naturally from the trickster element of the social internet. Staying on-message—normally top of mind for a political campaign—is rarely an option.

Message takeover is hardly a problem limited to disagreements between parties or candidates, but can also raise its head within a group that has previously agreed to act cohesively. During the Republican National Convention, for example, a controversial voice vote on amendments to the party bylaws shot the hashtag #RNCPowerGrab to prominence as disgruntled Republicans, both at the convention and watching from home, lashed out at party leaders. For several hours that afternoon, this tag stole Twitter prominence—and mindshare—from the official, RNC-approved convention hashtags.

Targeting Triggers Extra Concern

Consumers might irritate each other with controversial statements and postings, and politicians might get raked over the coals for a poorly chosen hashtag, but a potentially greater danger than any of that lies in politicians’ use of sophisticated new-media tactics for targeting and tailoring ads. Targeting is nothing new for politicians, but sensitivity to the practice online appears to increase dramatically when consumer brands are replaced with politicians.

The Annenberg School for Communications conducted a study in May that compared consumer attitudes about targeted advertising for products and services to their attitudes about the same types of targeting for political ads, and the political ads caused significantly more consternation.

This type of targeting is typically not popular, even when consumers indicate they prefer to see relevant advertising over blanket approaches, but political ads especially rankled. While 42% of consumers said they would want news tailored to their interests and 37% said the same of ads for products and services, just 13% wanted tailored political ads.

% of respondents

US Consumers' Opinions About Online Ads Tailored toTheir Interests, May 2012 vs. 2009

May 2012 2009

Show you ads for products and services that are tailored to your interests

Give you discounts that are tailored to your interests

Show you news that is tailored to your interests

Show you political ads that are tailored to your interests

Yes, wouldwant

37%

53%

42%

13%

No, would

not want

61%

46%

56%

86%

Don'tknow

2%

1%

1%

1%

No, wouldnot want

want

66%

49%

57%

-

Note: n=1,503Source: Annenberg School for Communications, "Americans Roundly RejectTailored Political Advertising," July 24, 2012143626 www.eMarketer.com

143626

Respondents were presented with a scenario where a favored political candidate buys ads on Facebook such as Sponsored Stories, which feature the name and photo of a friend who has “liked” their page. Fully 70% of consumers said that if they learned of such a case they would actually decrease their level of support for the candidate, including 50% who would decrease support “a lot.” Consumers were also hostile to the idea of Facebook serving ads for political candidates based on private profile information.

“The fundamental issue growing out of these findings is enormous,” said the report. “The public’s emphatic and broad rejection of tailored political advertising bumps directly up against the huge growth of this very activity in the 2012 presidential election. What we have is a major attitudinal tug of war—a



political class pulling for new ways to divide and address the populace versus a public that appears deeply uncomfortable, even angry, about activities pointing in that direction.”

This may seem to contradict the findings published in Nature by UC San Diego researchers, but the difference is likely due to more than the biases of self-reporting. The Nature research involved a nonpartisan ad that only reminded Facebook users to vote, a message considered controversial or intrusive by very few viewers. Using friends’ images along with that ad had a measurable positive effect on user behavior. The Annenberg survey, by contrast, posited ads from specific candidates that featured friends who had “liked” the candidates—but had not directly consented to appearing in ads for them. Such ads would make the explicit but low-friction and low-visibility activity of “liking” a politician into a much louder endorsement, and put the face of a friend in an ad that could potentially be offensive or controversial.

Conclusions

Survey data underemphasizes the level of political activity taking place on social sites. TV still dominates as an overall news source, but the rise of the internet to get information has translated to an increase in social political activity—whether survey respondents want to admit it or not. And just as they claim not to be influenced by much brand activity on the sites, most deny that social media would help change their vote.

But the amount of content posted to sites like Facebook, Twitter and smaller social sites belies those claims, as viral messages do appear to move the dial, especially when the perennially important aspect of word-of-mouth from friends and family is introduced to the mix.

As perceptions of privacy change, the social acceptability of political conversation is changing, too. For at least some social media participants, discussion of politics in a public forum is shedding its cultural taboos, though others remain reluctant to share their views with a wide audience. And some simply do not see political issues as a dominant part of their life, preferring to read and post less controversial, more personally oriented social content when they visit sites like Facebook.

But the amount of political content posted suggests that there will only be more, not less of this behavior, potentially encouraging even broader acceptance. At the same time, social networkers have made use of tools to block this content when friends and family push the line too far, creating schisms in the social graph.

Social content can take on a life of its own. Just as with consumer brands, politicians and their campaigns can quickly lose control of a message once the online masses latch onto it. Because of the adversarial nature of elections, this can turn social into another medium whose “news cycle” each group is trying to win, spinning campaign efforts their own way.

User privacy is a paramount concern. Ad targeting is never popular, but the creepiness meter rises when political advertising is concerned. Despite consumers’ willingness to discuss these topics on their own terms online, they express extreme discomfort with sophisticated tailoring techniques that suggest politicians know more about them than they might like. And going too far may even make them vote the other way, just as many consumers report preferring to do business with brands that don’t target them through behavioral advertising.



eMarketer Interviews

Former White House Internet Director: Mix Politics and Social Media with Care

David Almacy SVP of Digital Public Affairs Practice

Edelman Interview conducted on September 11, 2012

What Brands Can Learn from Obama’s Live Q&A on Reddit

Erik Martin General Manager

Reddit Interview conducted on September 12, 2012

Lila King Senior Director of Social News

CNN Interview conducted on September 12, 2012

David Mark Editor-in-Chief

Politix Interview conducted on September 11, 2012

Bryan Monroe Editor of CNNPolitics.com

CNN Interview conducted on September 13, 2012

Lee Rainie Director

Pew Internet & American Life Project Interview conducted on August 14, 2012

Chris Tolles CEO

Topix Interview conducted on September 11, 2012

Related Links

Annenberg School for Communications AYTM Market Research Bluefin Labs Burst Media Harris Interactive Pew Internet & American Life Foundation

Editorial and Production Contributors

Nicole Perrin Associate Editorial DirectorCliff Annicelli Senior Copy EditorEmily Adler Copy EditorDana Hill Director of ProductionJoanne DiCamillo Senior Production ArtistStephanie Gehrsitz Production ArtistAllie Smith Director of Charts

http://totalaccess.emarketer.com/Interview.aspx?R=6000847

http://totalaccess.emarketer.com/Interview.aspx?R=6000848

http://www.asc.upenn.edu

http://aytm.com

http://bluefinlabs.com

http://www.burstmedia.com

http://www.harrisinteractive.com

http://www.pewinternet.org

The world’s go-to source for information on digital marketing, media and commerce.

In the fast-paced digital world, it is neither prudent nor professional to make business decisions based solely on a single source. eMarketer helps companies minimize risk and maximize opportunity by providing…

COLLECTIVE WISDOM

COVERAGE See all aspects of what is happening today in digital marketing, media and commerce.

COLLECTION Information is gathered from over 3,000 research sources around the globe and hundreds of interviews with industry professionals a month.

CURATION eMarketer sifts through the clutter, vets data for accuracy and distills information to its essential intelligence – to save you time.

COMPARISON Side-by-side source comparison charts display all relevant information on a topic in one place.

CONTEXT Focused, clear and concise, eMarketer reports provide a quick, complete picture of fast-changing digital trends to make sense of complex issues.

CONVENIENCE The information you need is accessible 24/7 from your PC, laptop, tablet or smartphone—and downloadable in PDF, Excel, JPEG or PowerPoint formats.

CONFIDENCE For 15 years, eMarketer has been recognized as the standard for media coverage of the digital world—cited more than 4,000 times in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal alone—and relied on by major brands and advertising agencies around the globe.

COMPETITIVENESS No one in business wants to be surprised, so see the trends coming and make certain your organization always has the latest, most accurate and comprehensive digital information available—with an eMarketer Corporate Subscription.

To schedule a conversation or customized demonstration, go to eMarketer.com or call 212-763-6010

e marketer the_new_political_influencers-social_medias_effect_on_the_campaign_trail(2)

Documents