Of course it does, but in terms of influencing public opinion or the extent to which it dictates decision-making, probably less than we think.
In his book about Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2003-04, Joe Trippi recounts how he felt following a car crash interview by Dean on Meet the Press: demoralised and sure their campaign was over. It was the first major political campaign to truly harness online grassroots mobilisation and fundraising, yet at that moment, Trippi, who managed the campaign, was guided by an outmoded paradigm: one in which blowing it on Meet the Press meant you’d get lampooned in every other media outlet and you could no longer possibly win an election.
What actually happened? Dean supporters were enraged: they thought the Republican interviewer had been unduly tough and proceeded to increase activity in support of their candidate. Result? Poll numbers and donations went up the week following the interview. Apparently this was the moment in which Trippi realised beyond any doubt that real people could trump traditional networks of influence.
What’s more, this took place more than 10 years ago, before the advent of social networks or ubiquitous and speedy internet access.
What are, still now, the lessons for communicators or campaigners? Not that we should ignore traditional media, but rather, that:
- We should be channel agnostic.
- We should be more meticulous in our study of opinion formation. Influence is infinitely more diluted than it was when everyone followed the lead set by parents or neighbours. What really makes people tick?
- Obviously, we should re-assess influencers. Network analysis done properly can help us define who really carries clout within a constituency or other community.
- We should measure impact, not reach. Dean’s Meet the Press interview probably reached far more people than any other single piece of content that week, but its impact on poll numbers was the opposite of what most people would have deducted from mere reach.