Just for fun on a lazy Sunday morning...
While two candidates have come forward in the Wildrose Alliance Party leadership race, I am going to save commentary on each until all of the candidates have come forward. That said, I have been following both Danielle Smith's and Mark Dyrholm's web presence with interest. Here are my thoughts...
- Danielle's website is clean, bright, crisp and visually appealing. It is easy to navigate and simple but highly effective.
- Mark's website is good, but it has the PGIB/Chandler NASCAR advertising style, which may turn some people off. It is not as easy to read and forces you to read long winded letters of endorsement, with a few website links from those endorsing him. Hmmm...
Now, just for fun...( don't read too much into it) lets look at the Social Media following of each leadership hopeful....
- Facebook: 140 Followers.
- Twitter: 696 Followers
- Facebook: 58 followers
- Twitter: 90 Followers
Edge: Danielle Smith by a mile.
Now, It looks like Craig Chandler and his PGIB crew were a little slow getting the Dyrholm website up and twitter account up and running, so this may be the reason for the "gap" here. Perhaps it may also be a demographic issue, as older people generally do not use Facebook or Twitter?
Anyways...I just figured this would add some mindless banter! Time to grab another coffee...
Interesting, although you may want to expand beyond the numbers and include the conversation. A myopic view on numbers can be very misleading, one may be influencing discussion more than the other. Building consensus, inspiring action, that to me would be more meaningful.ReplyDelete
Hi Walter, thanks for your post. I agree with what you are saying. But the intent here was just to look at those #'s in a lightheated way. I will be posting a full comment on the candidates soon.ReplyDelete
What an absolute breath of fresh air Danielle is. My gawd. This party is doomed if Mark is elected. This 'absolute social conservative morality' needs to die from conservatism...it absolutely needs to die.ReplyDelete
Odd how did not mention that when it comes to actual professionals on Linked IN, the results are different.ReplyDelete
Danielle Smith = 25
Mark Dyrholm = 36
The reality is we just launched our website and that is evident in the numbers on Twitter and Facebook. However, not mentioning Linked In was odd?
However, you are right that this is fun. We have a young university student managing our social networking named Keith Pridgen and so far so good. Our main focus is membership sales as only members can vote.
I look forward to your write up, but, I can already guess what it will say.
Very interesting. Also interesting that Corey Hogan, just running for a Liberal nomination has more Facebook support and a better website than either of them.ReplyDelete
Hey! I'm starting to resent this idea that we "older" people aren't hip. There's a lot more of us on face book and twitter than you might think!ReplyDelete
Perhaps it's the younger demo that just can't put themselves out to follow the politics of our country,
Mike H...thanks for your post. I agree that I did not event think to look at Linked In, thanks for adding that! I am on linked in, but dont use it, so It was not on my radar, I apologize.ReplyDelete
ANON 7:41: I think that is awesome that you use these social media site. I was generalizing about the age of users. I know that there is a big following.
I guess there are a lot of Mark Dyrholm supporters here. Perhaps what Shane is pointing out is how fast and rabid can you move people on the Internet. That's more important. And honestly what is Linked IN seriously? If Shane and I go "what in the world is that?" then chances are you're not even getting mainstream coverage on that. You need rabid Paulbot supporters who can effectively spam and increase membership online to get massive viral internet marketing and a massive following.ReplyDelete
We have known for a very long time that viral marketing doesn't impact voting patterns anyways, but if you want Internet presence, I have to say Danielle has the lead. The Internet is about being fast and exponential increases. I believe Shane is pointing out the strengths of each candidate's Internet presence. Sure Mark has more "Linked IN" numbers, but you aren't capitalize on something that's not even heard of. I'll put up my ICQ number and will anyone care? Probably not.
I understand what you are saying and you just proved my comments.
Linked In is the most used network for professionals. It is social networking but you need to put your bio etc... it's target is entrepreneurs and business professionals. Those who are unaware of it are not self employed.
I have left Keith Pridgen in charge of all the social networking. He is young and goes to U of C. Our main focus is Membership Sales.
It is Keith's first campaign and he is doing well.
I noticed since our site has been live the numbers are changing.
I do agree with the reality that our supporters (Reformers) mostly do not have an internet prescence.
I am glad Danielle is in this race as she is bringing a different dynamic.
Shane, thanks for writing about this, even though we know who you support. At least the party is getting more exposure and that is a good thing.
I forgot to mention. If Linked IN is irrelevant, why does Danielle have a link to hers as well?
If both candidates have it up is it not fair to compare?
The real story here is why does Mark have policies listed and Danielle does not? Mark makes it clear where he stands.
I wouldn't question how you guys are going about with the Internet presence. I am very sure you guys have capable manpower in reaching out to the Internet crowd, perhaps even more than I will because you guys have actual networks.
I wouldn't dismiss your campaign because the Internet is terrible at predicting true election results. We're not just talking like "yeah it's kinda suck", but a whole lot of suck. A great example of the Internet going haywire is Howard Dean. The YEAHHHH meme pretty much left his campaign in shambles.
In response to the Linked IN irrelevancy comment, Internet campaigning is focused on two things: a) Massive online presence within a popular social network and b) massive online presence in general. Ron Paul's campaign demonstrates the Internet phenomenon in those two categories very well. Ron Paul was extremely visible on YouTube with paulbots making his videos the most watched almost daily. Not only that though, Ron Paul supporters spread this support across the board on the Internet. Every single space available somehow had Ron Paul on it whether or not it was popular or not. Danielle Smith is using the tactic of pressing against Mark by being competitive. I would assume that she knows Linked IN is not popular, but she's going to pressure him. She may have a lower number, but she's going to tail him wherever he goes. I'm not an insider on political organization outside of the Internet, but I assume that's what happens too. Danielle is making her name big on the popular websites and putting pressure in the ones where she hasn't been in or has the disadvantage.
The thing to note is that I don't really follow Wildrose intraparty politics, but I know bits and pieces of Internet viral marketing. I think Shane's post is highlighting perhaps Internet tactics and strengths. I really don't care who wins or not, but it's interesting to analyze how the Internet progresses within the confines of say, a leadership campaign.
Best of luck in your campaign Mike.
Gents, Gents.. Remember the title of the post.."just for fun"... I didnt intend this as an analysis of who has the better campaign Mike. It was just in cheeky fun.ReplyDelete
This thread may well be finished but, here it goes ...ReplyDelete
1. Mike? What are you doing wasting time on a blog? Selling memberships is much more productive activity.
Oh, by the way, never write a business letter using the first person. Counted over 15 I's in the first few paragraphs of the endorsement letter on the website. Almost sounds like you're running.
2. WRAP is done even if Mark doesn't win! Why? Because Chandler, Willerton etc are still part of the party. Speaking of campaigns, when the next election comes - well - just wait for one of them to say something they are not supposed to.
Just my opinion - all in good humor - of course.
Chandler is part of every party, he is a viral diesease floating from one party to the next that no one seems to be able to immunize against.ReplyDelete
Admittedly he has become less objectionable in recent years.