If you're a pro athlete or in the entertainment business, you get used to seeing and reading people saying all sorts of nasty things about you. Even the Pope got criticized while visiting the United States. It comes with the territory.
The political battlefield, however, is an even more treacherous minefield, littered with an explosive array of dreadful comments even on a good day.
And social media puts it all in a political candidate's face 24/7.
So how thick does Hillary Clinton's skin have to be when she sees something like this while having her morning latte?
Or this?
Well maybe Hillary and Huma Abedin had a small chuckle over the fashion comparison - but then this is next in the stream:
Yeah - down in the polls AND an awful person - who's also a thief:
Currently on Twitter, Donald Trump doesn't get bashed so hard. There are references to many articles that try to express why he wouldn't be a good choice, but most of the chatter is similar to this:
And then there are Tweets from one candidate to another - here's one from Dr. Ben Carson showing in a nicely produced video of all the wonderful things one can do with Hillary's book - instead of actually reading it:
The constant stream of negative opinion goes back and forth, and social media empowers and enables it all to happen in an instant. And everyone can participate.
So how thick does a politician's skin have to be? Like a hippopotamus, or a Terminator, or the outer metal of a tank.
How Should a Campaign Manage their Candidate's Reputation on Social Media?
Many want to settle arguments in real time.
"I'm gonna pick up the phone, or send an email right now and tell them how I feel about this!!"
In social media, the candidate, or their team, can respond that way too. But is that beneficial?
Not always.
I've found that knee-jerk reactions are not best, both in life AND in social media politics.
Patience is a virtue. Use it. This is why...
Let's look at our two prime social media networks - Facebook and Twitter. On Facebook, part of a candidate's social strategy should be to build up their 'Likes' with followers that are part of their core contingent. This should start happening way in advance. Politicians who are household names aren't starting from scratch on this front, but there are many more elections besides the top level ones. Many candidates you might market may be starting on the ground floor and you have to lay the foundation to build up from there.
Campaigning lasts many months and every vote counts.
Local candidates know where the votes are - perhaps someone like this local NYS Supreme Court Judge can offer some 'boots on the ground' advice to the Presidential candidates about each and every vote. Perhaps Trump or Hillary can secure the win if they get just one more vote from attending the local Polka Hop.
Seriously Though...
Once you build up a core passionate following for a candidate, not only does it display social proof and credibility, but you need to take a step to the side and let them fight your social media engagement battles. You're the star pitcher on a baseball team when the benches clear and the two teams start to mix it up. Don't get your fingers, hands, arms, and shoulders compromised in the fight. Be cool and let others stick up for you.
In my experience managing digital marketing for politicians and political issues, I've learned to never underestimate the power of your own core contingent that have aligned with you on social media. The more reach your social posts start to have, the more likelihood of snarky, nasty comments being placed by those affiliated with the opposition. Your candidate will cringe and often seek immediate response, however this has two negative drawbacks. One - it stoops the candidate down to that level, responding directly to some stranger who quite possibly has all day to fester and perpetuate their opinions. And two - it could get worse. It's not like a brand having a customer that had a product or service issue, where you can gently request that the conversation is taken offline to rectify. A politician is not going to get an opposition or other party member to switch sides as the result of an exchange on social media.
Your engaged and passionate followers are in a different position. Just be patient, watch what happens. Your people will engage with the negative commentary, and most likely it'll be a great response. Subsequently, Mr. or Ms. Negative will get pumped up, and say more - and this is generally where their premise will be exposed. Here is where I've observed, time and time again, that they'll cross a line and display that they're just a hot heat - misinformed, obscene, or just plain stupid. Once they make their next move in their follow-up comment, it'll unleash the wrath of your followers, slapping them upside the head. At that point they'll consider it fruitless to continue, and if they decide to do otherwise, whatever they say will be totally neutralized by giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
Your core following will police your social networks.
Of course if a major line is crossed - and the comment placer is plain old offensive - then it is when you jump in (on networks like Facebook) and delete their comment and ban them from future engagement. They'll go away and find other things to do.
Confidence in YOUR Recommendations
One of the biggest challenges to a digital strategist in politics is gaining the confidence of the candidate, their campaign manager and their key advisors. Remember, they might know politics, but they don't know social media like you do. Social media participants operate within a whole different culture. You know what that is, and your experience AND your instincts will guide you to make the best political candidate marketing decisions.
The digital marketers with the best intuitive sense will have the best success in getting political candidates elected.
Tune in next month for more social politics as the unpredictable 2016 elections tick closer to the finish line.