Part II: Quigley’s Twitter Problems

Following my post yesterday on the Twitter episodes from the Mike Quigley campaign, Quigley’s campaign manager, Tom Bowen responded and the following email exchange took place. What started as clarifying the record, turned into a discussion on online campaign communication strategy.

Thomas C. Bowen

To: Jesse Greenberg

1.  I am a constituent in the 5th and I’ve lived here for a year now, so I’ll be voting in this election.

2.  I asked questions to @saraforcongress before and she used to answer them, check the history.  I used to think staff were twittering, but she claimed it was her and I believed her.

3.  After she got caught pushing a negative poll, where she accused her seatmate @fritcheyforus of taking mob money, she stopped answering me on twitter.  If the point is to be open, inviting and answering questions, then why didn’t she anymore?

4.  So, I continued to talk to @saraforcongress, knowing I wouldn’t be answered anymore, in the same way any blogger would: with a little bit of snark.  Nothing I’ve tweeted has been

Tom Bowen, Campaign Manager, Mike Quigley for Congress

false or unfair, all have had links to legitimate coverage included.

5.  My twitter account is my own and as mean or as nice as I want it to be.  The Q4C twitter account is run by staff and volunteers and has been a way to reach out to users, albeit limited.

TOM

Jesse Greenberg

To: Thomas C. Bowen

Tom,

Thanks for your response.  Your points are very legitimate.  Would you consider posting this in the comment section or even better, can I use your response as a blog entry?

Jesse

Thomas C. Bowen

To: Jesse Greenberg

Sorry, I thought I had to login or something, I can put them in comments, make them a whole separate post or exchange emails so you can have a more robust post.

Whatever you like.

TOM

Jesse Greenberg

To: Thomas C. Bowen

How about an email exchange I can make into a post?

Here’s some follow up questions:

At what point do you separate your own public Twitter, Facebook or other social media account from your role as campaign manager?  In other words, if your communications are made in a public space, aren’t other people looking at what you say as coming directly from the Quigley campaign?

Do you expect any campaign in this race to speak directly to one another to clarify questions, positions or respond to accusations?

Should candidates be Tweeting their own Tweets?  Is it realistic to cede control of Twitter or Facebook to a non-paid campaign volunteer, again knowing that those communications are public and on the record?

How important do you rate Twitter as a campaign communications tool in comparison to other advertising like direct mail, TV, print, banner ads, etc.?

Regards,

Jesse

Thomas C. Bowen

To: Jesse Greenberg

Exchange sounds good.

At what point do you separate your own public Twitter, Facebook or other social media account from your role as campaign manager?  In other words, if your communications are made in a public space, aren’t other people looking at what you say as coming directly from the Quigley campaign?

Good question, especially since staff are becoming public figures in their own right on political campaigns (case in point, we’re doing an interview about me instead of Mike, very anti- PR 101).  I think the point of twitter, and one of the reasons I’m such a fan of it, is to be open and honest about things.  I obviously have a strong view of the race and I think my account reflects that.  People can scroll through my tweets to see whom I work for and what I’ve been talking about during this race.  There is also plenty of context available for people to form their own opinions.

But it’s also a conversation.  So, I saw your post, we’re talking about it and I think that’s healthy.  You get to ask me, as do others in the twitterverse whether that’s Mike’s position or mine.  I obviously strive to be accurate and fair, but I have a particular view of the race from where I’m sitting.  The same thing happens no matter what medium you’re using to communicate i.e., news, direct mail, TV.

Do you expect any campaign in this race to speak directly to one another to clarify questions, positions or respond to accusations?

No, and that’s partially why I am, perhaps, acerbic in my tweets regarding Representative Feigenholtz.  She started talking to people and then she started talking only to people she likes or “broadcasting” news instead of engaging.  And truthfully, while there is so little data about how voters actually use social networking to make decisions about elections, I don’t see campaigns spending a ton of staff time and resources to debate each other through twitter.  But, eventually, it will be that way, which is very exciting.

Should candidates be Tweeting their own Tweets?  Is it realistic to cede control of Twitter or Facebook to a non-paid campaign volunteer, again knowing that those communications are public and on the record?

I think candidates should be comfortable in a medium first.  I’ll be the first to admit that Mike isn’t very familiar with twitter, so he won’t be tweeting anytime soon, though we may do an interview via twitter later.  There are some risks, as your readers might be familiar with a Republican Congressman who tweeted to the public a visit to Iraq when he wasn’t authorized to talk about it by the Pentagon.  So, I don’t know if people unfamiliar with the medium should be tweeting.

To your second question, we try and incorporate people into the campaign in ways they feel they can be most effective.  Again, in a world where we’re having two way conversations, I think readers are somewhat forgiving if there are mistakes made by campaigns.  Especially if they fess up, take their lumps and try not to do it again.

How important do you rate Twitter as a campaign communications tool in comparison to other advertising like direct mail, TV, print, banner ads, etc.?

I’m a data driven guy, so we don’t know yet because we don’t know how many twitterers (sp?) are registered voters, their propensity to vote in primaries, etc.  So, I think it’s great as a resource to engage people if it doesn’t take significant amounts of time and attention away from tried and communication techniques.

If it’s during a break as part of your 14-hour day, then why not?

Jesse Greenberg

To: Thomas C. Bowen

Tom,

This is fantastic.  I appreciate the candid answers from a campaign’s perspective.

One follow up question to your last answer – how measurable is direct mail or TV for that matter?  Aren’t those measurements more qualitative than online measurements?

Jesse

Thomas C. Bowen

To: Jesse Greenberg

They’re both very measurable; we’d never spend so much on them if they weren’t.  Market research (polls) informs your spending decisions and after doing many races, the team you put together will likely be versed in what works and what doesn’t.  The internet is still a very immature medium by which to measure results.  I think even big advertisers will agree with that.  Plus, it’s not a captive medium, so the advertising serves a different purpose.

Case in point: I’ve seen banner ads to get me to click on a movie trailer.  You ever watched a TV commercial to get you to watch another one?

But one day soon, you’ll be able to measure exactly what your communication is doing to each voter.  That will be a glorious day because campaigns will be much less expensive and money won’t be as influential as it is now.