Wednesday 10 September 2014

Tweet for Scotland! - How Salmond's slick Twitter campaign has polished the independence turd

THE SNP's modern, accomplished Twitter campaign has made a weak case for Scottish independence seem incredibly strong. 

 Alex Salmond's Yes campaign has more than twice as many followers than the Nos, and it's not down to coincidence or dumb luck. They've been taking social media far more seriously than Better Together for quite some time.

They have put rivals Better Together to shame with slick design, an (ostensibly) optimistic message, and a vocal, mobilised online support-base.

They regularly publish more engaging posts than the Unionists, and their content looks more modern, more dynamic and more exciting.

 Look at the two logos as an example. Here's the Yes logo:
Just look at that glorious tightly-kerned Helvetica. It's marvellous. It looks like something I want to look at.

 Now the No campaign:


It looks awful. Negative and unappealing. I don't even know what that font is, but I know those rounded edges are hideous.

 The whole No page is like a vision of everything that is dull and dreary about modern Britain. I wouldn't vote for that. Who would vote for a country represented by a font as terrible as that? Fewer and fewer people, apparently.







And if we look at the personal pages of the two leaders we see the same again - Salmond looks friendlier, busier and more fun than dreary old Darling.

 He and his team are publishing loads of posts throughout the day with pictures of real people. This - like so much of what we all do on social media - gives the impression that he is incredibly popular.


Darling, by contrast, just isn't a natural at this. You can tell he's trying, but it just doesn't have the energy of his Anglophobic opposite number. His banner picture cuts off his own head because he's only optimised it for mobile (Salmond's works multi-platform, FYI) and you can see he's only got about a quarter of the number of followers.


All of this combines to give the impression that the Yes campaign is winning the war through positivity and confidence. It's doing an excellent job of convincing users that there is an excellent case for independence when, of course, there is no such thing.
Alex Salmond's genius lies in his ability to convince Scots that he is the positive, good option and the No campaign is the negative, bad option. Part of that mission was already complete when he chose the question on the ballot paper, obviously, but the message has been reinforced by smart social marketing that mobilises people power online.
How many profile pics have you spotted with little 'Yes' badges in the corner? The chances are you've seen far more Yeses than Nos. They thought of it first and used it better.

 The fact is there is no real case for Scottish independence - the economy is already faltering at the mere possiblity that the UK could break up. Without a monetary union with the rest of the UK, and access to the lender of last resort in the Bank of England, Scotland will become an economic basket case. 

 It will be mired in debt and unable to borrow money on the international markets at affordable rates. It will therefore be unable to spend the money it doesn't have fulfilling the empty promises made by Alex Salmond.

 But, of course, perception is often reality. And social media is increasingly becoming a link to the wider world for all of us. It gives huge opportunity to talk to and mobilise people - an opportunity the SNP saw and seized on faster, smarter and much more ruthlessly than the more traditional No campaign. 

 It left them looking old and tired - just like the vision of Evil England it is selling to voters. And it seems to be working.

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday 5 September 2014

Brutal, but not clever - Here's why you don't need to be afraid of the IS media machine

MUCH has been made recently of the way social media and the web have changed the face of global terrorism.

 The narrative says the barbaric Islamic fundamentalists IS have become incredibly web savvy - as seen in their horrific beheading videos - and now threaten a whole new type of terror, which we in the west will have no idea how to deal with.

 I'm not so sure.

IS video of the brutal murder of US journalist James Foley

IS do, of course, have a better understanding of technology and the internet than their predecessors in Al Qaeda (probably helped by the brainwashed idiots flying over from countries like the UK). 

 But being better than other Middle Eastern terrorist organisations at using the web isn't really a very big ask. It's a difference of scale rather than type, and not one that makes them necessarily any more dangerous.

 The most obvious way they've employed their internet marketing skills is in the promotion of the infamous beheading videos.
IS recruitment video

There has been a lot of talk online about how the clips look incredibly professional - but I'm not overawed. 

 Yes, they are put together better than the camcorder-in-a-dark-room terrorist vids we're used to seeing. They have more than one angle, employ some effects, and switch between different shots with linking sequences like fade-outs. 

 But these are the kind of techniques any A-Level media student would be able to put together with ease. It's hardly The Matrix.

The savagery of the acts committed on screen is what gives them their power, not the production process.

 Another worry for us in the west is the way the clips have been distributed and received online - the seemingly massive reach of the super-tekkie militants.

 But, again, I think the truth is less worrying.
The now-infamous IS flag

 IS were synchronised in launching the clips online, but the mainstream video sharing sites removed them almost immediately. And IS's own servers were clearly not well enough equipped to deal with all the traffic, as the video download on their channels was very slow and crashed constantly.

 Even when the clip was available, something very interesting happened on social media - people CHOSE not to watch it. 

They enforced a sort of self-censorship, believing that by refusing to watch the video they were taking the power away from IS. 


But they didn't just quietly shuffle off - most took the opportunity to post tributes to Steven Sotloff, remembering his life, rather than leering over his grisly demise.


IS have no way to combat this kind of smart, rational response, so they will never be able to win the information war (because, make no mistake, we are at war).

 This point is even more salient when you compare the IS tech machine with the capabilities they're up against in the west.

 Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter - all of the platforms they use are owned and operated by American companies. The foundations of their castle are built on western sand.

 We have rightly been debating the extent to which the secret services should be allowed to watch our own digital movements - but I don't think any of us have any complaints about MI6 or GCHQ using their considerable expertise to monitor and shut down terrorist communications. And their methods and capabilities are far in advance of anything IS will be able to cook up.

 These maniacs are a threat - a very real one. But we should be realistic about the capacity of their much-feared media machine, and also be confident in its eventual defeat.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)