Comments on: Obama doesn’t Tweet. Does it matter?

By: Paul Seaman

Paul Seaman — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:23:32 +0000

Suzie, it was Obama’s admission that he’d never Twittered – not once in his life – that made this news. Your description of how the social media interaction worked makes my case that new media works just like old media in such circumstances. That does come as a real shock to many (and does challenge the personal nature of social media). Of course, you are correct to say that it was the message and the perceived brand/political values of Obama that people related to (or to the simple fact that he was not George W Bush). In other words, there was not a new type of relationship and bond or level of engagement forged by his use of social media, just a new channel for getting the message across, raising funds and surfing his supporters’ hopes and dreams. Getting clarity on that insight should help PRs help their clients make the best use of social media and help cut the hype, of which there’s been much too much.

By: Suzie

Suzie — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:18:19 +0000

While I agree that some people may have believed Obama was a tweeter, all throughout his campaign it was made clear to those following him that he was not the person responding. Whoever responded was entirely transparent, stating they were from someone in his HQ and not the man himself. So no, I don’t believe there will be any major fallout. People were engaged by him because of his brand and what he stands for. He sold this brand through a variety of media, not just social media, although social media was what he was most known for. His ability to summon the masses to act for him was because he came across as a strong, charismatic, measured man – the antithesis of Bush. Those people who saw hope in him should still see hope in him. If they don’t, then I feel sorry for them for their cynicsm.

By: Tim Beighton

Tim Beighton — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:31:09 +0000

Lets be honest Paul; that Obama did his own Tweets was as unbelievable as the clear and present danger of Iraq and Saddam Hussein was to the rest of the world. Simple barefaced hype.
Agree with Ruth that maybe Obama tweets have encouraged other politicians to take up Twitter, but how they use and who writes it, is another matter.
As is now well understood by many; Social Media is a hyped concept of interaction, yes its a conversation but unfortunately unlike a face to face one where you can read the person using methods other than than voice, with Twitter et al you don’t really know who is on the other side. The analogy of a lonely man chatting online with what he imagines to be his ideal future spouse, who in reality is another lonely man springs to mind.
As for Obama his rhetoric is slowly coming to be obvious, whether it is the man or the system that makes it rhetoric is perhaps for another debate.

By: Ruth Seeley

Ruth Seeley — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:15:06 +0000

Here’s the silver lining in that cloud: the news that Obama wasn’t really tweeting didn’t emerge till almost a year after he was elected. But the perception that he was really engaging in social media in general and was on Twitter in particular seems to have inspired other politicians, including Toronto, ON (Canada) Mayor David Miller and Britain’s Lord Drayson, Minister for Science and Innovation. In fact, Ben Goldacre challenged Lord Drayson to a debate on the quality of science reporting and the debate actually happened. On television (gasp).

I agree there will be fallout on the Obama front though. But we’ve been seeing that fallout from about a week after his inauguration as the initial euphoria surrounding the election of a Democrat faded and the harsh realities of trying to govern during the worst economic downturn in living memory set in. Further evidence of the onset of disillusionment is the rather – shall we say – muted response to his winning the Nobel Peace Prize.