2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Facebook likes or votes mean nothing, why did Hillary spend $630,000 on
generating astroturf likes?
Hillary Clinton Spent $630,000 to Get More Facebook Likes
Between 2011 and March 2013, the agencys Bureau of International Information Programs used the funds on advertising to increase the number of fans for each of its four Facebook pages from 100,000 to more than 2 million, according to the May report.
The program was initiated after the bureau expanded the agencys presence on social media by setting up Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, and blogs targeted at foreign audiences, the report states.
The report found that many employees in the bureau were critical of the advertising campaigns and felt that the agency was buying fans who may have once clicked on an ad but have never engaged further.
http://www.educationviews.org/hillary-clinton-spent-630000-to-get-more-facebook-likes/
Wouldn't that be a colossal waste of the peoples' money?
Furthermore does anyone know what Hillary's plans for social media are?
Clinton identified an agenda of 21st-century issues -- women, environment, youth, State Department reforms and social media. I call it planetary humanism. But it's not an agenda that gets you into the Secretary of State Hall of Fame.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/12/opinions/miller-hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state-record/index.html
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)model of how things would be run if Hillary were President, the money spent on her political campaign follows this same M.O.
I'm still curious about the second question on my OP though regarding Hillary's plans for reforming social media as you're a supporter of her do you have any idea what those plans are?
Darb
(2,807 posts)Beep beep beep
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-10152015-htmlstory.html
Campaign finance reports offer another indication outsiders' appeal
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)In 2008, right before the Iowa caucuses, Hillary finally responded to widespread criticism tegarding her inability to connect with Iowans. She left speeches without taking questions, gave canned/boring talks and seemed very off standish.
Meanwhile, Edwards and Obama were speaking at small and large venues, answering questions, engaging with people and meeting many of us.
Hilary's response? She organized a town-hall and agreed to take audience questions. The only problem was that after the event a reporter from the Des Moines Register discovered that the questioners were a staffers and the questions were planted.
Seriously. The fakery from this campaign and the lengths to which it goes to appear "likable" and popular--when it is not--speaks volumes.
This is her second time running. You would think by now, that she wouldn't have to create fake fans. Sad.
Logical
(22,457 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Led and fueled by VOLUNTEERS.
Virginia has hundreds of volunteers gettinghisname on the ballot,and registering voters!
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)are deep denial.
Bernie is setting it on fire and he's not spending megabucks to do so.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Part of Clintons image is being bigger than life. Don't think Sanders doesn't have an image he works to present. You as well.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)shenmue
(38,503 posts)It is a cesspool of childish garbage.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)they don't know why, so don't ask...it just is
DanTex
(20,709 posts)How about How same-sex marriage threatens parental rights. Seriously, isn't possible to hate Hillary without going to right-wing websites?
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)A striking finding in a recent Inspector General report revealed that the U.S. Department of State spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Facebook "likes" in the past two years, effectively buying fans.
In order to bolster its presence on Facebook, the State Department paid about $630,000 for campaigns to increase its total number of likes, the May 2013 report indicates.
While the sheer amount of funds the State Department dropped on social media may be surprising in and of itself, the most significant aspect of the report may be the finding that these fans are, for the most part, fake.
As the report states: "Many in the bureau criticize the advertising campaigns as 'buying fans' who may have once clicked on an ad or 'liked' a photo but have no real interest in the topic and have never engaged further."
Brought to light by DiploPundit, the report states that the Bureau of International Information and Programs commenced a crusade to expand the department's social media presence globally in 2011. Facebook, in particular, was targeted with two campaigns -- launched in 2011 and 2012 -- with the overarching goal of increasing the department's fan base on the social networking site.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/state-department-facebook-likes-spent-630000_n_3541734.html
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)that I posted on in regards to this subject.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)The campaign ran ads on Facebook, which generates 'likes.' I ordered a pizza from a chain restaurant after I saw an ad on Facebook. If it was an astroturf pizza, it sure was tasty.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Joey Joe Joe
(50 posts)People seem to forget that poor country who also loves Clinton...
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)As the report states: "Many in the bureau criticize the advertising campaigns as 'buying fans' who may have once clicked on an ad or 'liked' a photo but have no real interest in the topic and have never engaged further."
Brought to light by DiploPundit, the report states that the Bureau of International Information and Programs commenced a crusade to expand the department's social media presence globally in 2011. Facebook, in particular, was targeted with two campaigns -- launched in 2011 and 2012 -- with the overarching goal of increasing the department's fan base on the social networking site.
The $630,000 Facebook campaigns were, in fact, successful, increasing the total number fans of the State Department's English-language pages from about 100,000 to 2 million since 2011, the report notes. (The State Department's main Facebook page currently has more than 279,000 likes.)
However, no matter how well-intentioned the efforts, the act of liking a Facebook page does not automatically translate into active engagement. By mid-March 2013, only a small percentage of fans were regularly contributing to the pages, with just over 2 percent liking, sharing or commenting in the previous week.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/state-department-facebook-likes-spent-630000_n_3541734.html
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Though the State Department appears to be making a lot of changes to its social media program, including proposed guidelines that restrict what employees may post, the IG recommends the State Department adopt a clear-cut strategy that clarifies the "public diplomacy priorities of its social media sites."
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki addressed the IG report in the department's daily press briefing Wednesday, assuring that "spending on online advertising has significantly decreased."
"Its now at $2,500 a month, and that still allows us to reach out and communicate with a wide range of individuals living overseas," Psaki said. "I think thats a clear indication weve taken the recommendations seriously and put changes in place."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/state-department-facebook-likes-spent-630000_n_3541734.html
But aside from that why would you want to advertise on a medium which apparently means nothing when those people vote or voice their opinion on a political matter such as a debate?
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)my OP and as you're a supporter of Hillary, do you know what her plans are for social media?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)to give it.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I have yet to get an explanation of what the hell Hillary was talking about when she answered that important question about whether or not she changes her message based on whom she's talking to.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251682637
The supporters seem to be like the candidate herself, sidestepping, parrying, avoiding subject, and then eventually insulting. Meh.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)what an eye opener! Thanks for the read.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Thanks!
Jackilope
(819 posts)Buying Likes is a signal that Camp Hillary is concerned she isn't as popular as competing candidates.
It's reflective of honesty. Parallel to how she was promoting TPP in China, but saying she is against it in a US national debate -- to trick people into thinking she is on the correct side, then flipping back to supporting TPP. Just not honest.
I see red flags and it's stuff like this that makes me not trust her.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)we would be told how 'Scientific' FB etc. were.
They made this mistake in 2000 also, disminssng the millions of online activists.
Otoh, Hillary has tried to use Social Media, but she just doesn't seem to resonate with orindary people, especially the young!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Action_Patrol
(845 posts)Sanders: 848k
Clinton: 4.9 million
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Hilary 372K
Bernie 302K
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Do those numbers have a source?
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Just go look.
But who knows, maybe they are a part of the great anti-Bernie conspiracy and are making up their own membership numbers, because of, um, something.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)When you put numbers, etc., out there, you should include a link.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)In debate, as in the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence, the person who alleges that X is true bears the burden of proving that X is true. I did not put those numbers 'out there', you did, so the burden of proving that they are correct is yours.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)I am not on trial, and you are not my judge.
The flaw in your position is that you assume I care if you believe me or not.
As I know the numbers I posted to have been factual when I posted them, what you think of them is irrelevant.
There was once a time when people here were willing to trust each other on simple statements of easily proven fact. But those days are long gone, alas.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)You can't back up your statement with proof.
Have a nice day.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)It's unfortunate that it doesn't extend as far as the effort it would take for you to go to Instragram for 2 minutes.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Well, I would have moved on if you didn't keep tugging at my sleeve.
If you think I'm a liar, fine, it means nothing to me.
I'm done with your pestering.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)In law school, one of the first things they teach you is to never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sanders+clinton+debate+winner+twitter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)What does a list of news stories about Twitter have to do with how many followers each candidate has on Instagram?
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)I'm quite sure you didn't count them yourself, so either someone whispered them in your ear, or there must be a link to a news source where they originated.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)I simply went to Instagram and looked at each candidates "page" or whatever they call it there, and saw how many followers each has.
Or, if you'd rather, my Corporate Master called and gave me my daily orders to subvert democracy and thwart the will of the people, in this case by spreading the dastardly notion that Hilary had more followers on a social network site than Bernie has.
Take you pick.
Gotta go now, I've been assigned to go to the market and say something negative about Bernie in the check out line.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Bernie might really be winning the internet.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Here is the caveat though.
Sanders has his Senatorial Twitter profile and a Sanders2016 campaign profile. Clinton uses the same Twitter feed that she has used for years. She never started a Clinton2016 one.
On Instragram they have about the same. And yet again, Sanders is the newer profile set up the for 2016 campaign and Clinton is using her same one for years back.
Now with that knowledge, we can say that Clinton may have more in numbers currently but Sanders has has a higher number of followers in a shorter period of time.
In social media, trending is the more important rubric than just a static number.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)that showed her winning or leading, I absolutely would dismiss it as unimportant.
It won't take take long until the first post debate polls come out showing the state of the race. And there were a couple of scientific polls on who won the debate, one which showed Sander winning, the other showed Clinton winning. I didn't dismiss either of them.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)and ignore them,I would be embarrassed for any Hillary supporter who naively believed in them.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)This site is becoming a parody site.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)that Bernie won the debate and has contributed greatly to his campaign.
You can also whistle past the graveyard, deny the reality and impact of the Internet's increasing contributions to democracy all you want, if it makes you feel better.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I did enjoy how you described the internet as an "Institution" as if it were some monolithic thing.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)majority of it can make an enormous impact when it comes together.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)As some sort of endorsement and public announcement of something special.
Thanks for the joke.
frylock
(34,825 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)As soon as you find where the Clinton campaign uses Facebook likes as a contest that means something significant, you be sure to let me know.
Bernie crowd are the only ones that seems the think comparing numbers on social media to other candidates is a defining moment. It's HILLarious
frylock
(34,825 posts)coupled with the amount of people that have donated to his campaign, as well as the record number of attendees at his rallies to that of other candidates. Hillary supporter is using the opinions of the punditocrocy as well as polling conducted primarily over land lines to crown her the winner months before the first vote will ever be cast.
Control-Z
(15,681 posts)So?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Laser102
(816 posts)Come on! Enough of this.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I thought that's what democracy was about? Shouldn't we be holding all candidates feet to the fire? They're indebted to us, not the other way around.
shenmue
(38,503 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)cuz it isnt making much of a dent
Catherina
(35,568 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)basis.
But isn't Bernie beating her by about one MILLION likes? And I am sure he hasn't spent a penny on FB.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Duppers
(28,094 posts)Excellent point!
StevieM
(10,499 posts)won a given debate.
You need to use scientific sampling methods that are part of established polling methods.
I have seen a couple of scientific polls since the debate, one which had Sanders winning, the other had Clinton winning.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)StevieM
(10,499 posts)Here is the one that had Clinton winning.
http://www.oann.com/dncdebate/
I can't find the one that had Sanders up, but I saw it here on DU.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)from what I remember reading.
George II
(67,782 posts)Can you dig any deeper to find dirt on her?
By the way, not even going to your link, embedded in that is "OPINIONS"!
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)If you don't trust CNN, I understand.
I guess the entire opinion of what Hillary stated regarding social media reform was false then?
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Thanks for the thread Uncle Joe
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)Thanks for the thread Uncle Joe!
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)BlueStateLib
(937 posts)How Does This Work?
Your fan page will be mentioned in real ads placed on social media related websites that belong to our marketing partners.
Your fan page will then begin to gain likes from Real users that Want to like your page. These likes are of higher value and quality.
Most important, these likes Will Never be removed by Facebook.
After you make your payment, it will normally only take us 2-3 days to successfully gain 1,000+ real Facebook likes for your fan page.
mythology
(9,527 posts)A State Department initiative to attempt to reach out to try to generate positive international opinion about the U.S. is not even remotely the same as trying to claim that an unscientific facebook poll is somehow accurate.
Oh and what an unmitigated shittastic source you have. Trying to link a State Department campaign on one thing with the deaths in Benghazi without mentioning that it was Republicans who cut the security budget. Classy source. It says a lot about you that you either didn't look in depth at the source, or you didn't care.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)As the report states: "Many in the bureau criticize the advertising campaigns as 'buying fans' who may have once clicked on an ad or 'liked' a photo but have no real interest in the topic and have never engaged further."
Brought to light by DiploPundit, the report states that the Bureau of International Information and Programs commenced a crusade to expand the department's social media presence globally in 2011. Facebook, in particular, was targeted with two campaigns -- launched in 2011 and 2012 -- with the overarching goal of increasing the department's fan base on the social networking site.
The $630,000 Facebook campaigns were, in fact, successful, increasing the total number fans of the State Department's English-language pages from about 100,000 to 2 million since 2011, the report notes. (The State Department's main Facebook page currently has more than 279,000 likes.)
However, no matter how well-intentioned the efforts, the act of liking a Facebook page does not automatically translate into active engagement. By mid-March 2013, only a small percentage of fans were regularly contributing to the pages, with just over 2 percent liking, sharing or commenting in the previous week.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/state-department-facebook-likes-spent-630000_n_3541734.html
And if this was such a good use of taxpayer money, why did they change it?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)It sounds more like manipulation to make a Facebook Page appear to have more support than it did in reality. Some might call it a disinformation campaign by State to sway viewers to a particular position. So much money was spent for so little results that it got rightfully flagged.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)out of desperation when things don't go the way they predicted they would.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)and a host of other shared behaviors. This is what cognitive dissonance looks like.