Post by account_disabled on Dec 20, 2023 4:15:46 GMT -5
Drown or burn? Clinton or Trump? If you have a dilemma about what to wear in the morning, you wouldn't put this on. How to convince someone via social media for one or the other option? Watch how they tried it on French fries. Since the end of the summer, when the American presidential campaign was at its peak in our media, your feed could resemble a virtual tour of the Zoo. Candidates and their election staffs took social media hostage, but this time they at least gave them something to drink. image Trump or Clinton? Drown or burn? Presidential campaigns in the US are known for their unique, one could almost say refined, work with data in the sense of targeting and segmentation.
This also gives C Level Executive List campaigns on social networks, not only in terms of targeting, a completely different dimension. Socky about the election... Since the last election, the importance of communication on social networks during the campaign has increased even more, and not only thanks to the spread of smartphones. Yes, this is also a tool to involve American voters in the events. The interest in the American elections on social networks is also proven by the fact that within 10 months, 109 million Americans engaged in communication related to the elections in the form of 5.3 billion comments, shares and "likes" of the post (sci-tech-today.com) . However, the loss-making Twitter, which can be described as the star of the American elections, came to prominence, right after the plastic surgeon of the future first lady of the USA.
But how did social networks really affect the outcome of the election? Who was more visible and who had better spotlights? In numbers... Popularity, not only in a good sense of the word, is proven by the numbers of followers on the candidates' networks. Let's skip the pre-Clinton-Trump tedium and get straight to the point. In terms of the number of followers, Trump had the lead on FB, boasting 12 million, in contrast to Clinton's 8 million. Even Twitter belonged to "that gentleman from Home Alone". At the time of the election, Trump's Twitter account was followed by 1 million more users than his FB. Yes, people in America probably really use Twitter. A little over 10 million followers had to be enough for Clinton. But there is a fact that breaks the theory - the more followers, the more interactions under the posts, which you console yourself by looking at the photos of your more popular friends.
This also gives C Level Executive List campaigns on social networks, not only in terms of targeting, a completely different dimension. Socky about the election... Since the last election, the importance of communication on social networks during the campaign has increased even more, and not only thanks to the spread of smartphones. Yes, this is also a tool to involve American voters in the events. The interest in the American elections on social networks is also proven by the fact that within 10 months, 109 million Americans engaged in communication related to the elections in the form of 5.3 billion comments, shares and "likes" of the post (sci-tech-today.com) . However, the loss-making Twitter, which can be described as the star of the American elections, came to prominence, right after the plastic surgeon of the future first lady of the USA.
But how did social networks really affect the outcome of the election? Who was more visible and who had better spotlights? In numbers... Popularity, not only in a good sense of the word, is proven by the numbers of followers on the candidates' networks. Let's skip the pre-Clinton-Trump tedium and get straight to the point. In terms of the number of followers, Trump had the lead on FB, boasting 12 million, in contrast to Clinton's 8 million. Even Twitter belonged to "that gentleman from Home Alone". At the time of the election, Trump's Twitter account was followed by 1 million more users than his FB. Yes, people in America probably really use Twitter. A little over 10 million followers had to be enough for Clinton. But there is a fact that breaks the theory - the more followers, the more interactions under the posts, which you console yourself by looking at the photos of your more popular friends.