Around the same time Representative Weiner was dealing with the fallout of an apparent Twitter hack, Republican Ohio House Speaker William G. Batchelder also had a Twitter problem: an "unknown intruder" hacked into his official account. The hacker didn't post lewd photos of the 68-year-old politician, but the offender did engage in some pro-Democratic tweeting.
Batchelder's response? "Well, I won't do any more of this ... Twittering? We'll avoid that at all cost. I didn't know I had such a device."
For many politicians, Twitter represents a Rumsfeldian "known unknown," an expansive tundra of technology that simply exists and is filled with strange language, bizarre communication concepts, and millions of fans of some child named Justin Bieber. Nonetheless, campaigns have embraced the medium with varying degrees of success. Other Really Important People(TM) like journalists, communications staff and campaign advisors have also been tweeting up a storm since Twitter came online.
It's been fascinating to observe how Twitter has affected traditional communication strategy over the years. As campaigns have adapted to the medium, there have been epic fails as well as laudable successes.
Drawing from those examples, here are 10 Twitter tips for politicians and the other Really Important People who surround them. Enjoy.
Campaign staffers often have personal Twitter accounts that they update throughout the day in addition to the official Twitter accounts they maintain. It's a great way to get messaging out there that may not be the right tone for an official campaign account. Programs like TweetDeck and HootSuite allow users to add multiple Twitter accounts to a single interface to help seamlessly alternate posting between unofficial and official accounts. Sounds like a time-saver, right? That is, until your staffer tweets something like this to an official account:
"Ryan found two more 4 bottle packs of Dogfish Head's Midas Touch beer.... when we drink we do it right #gettngslizzerd."
That rogue tweet was posted to the American Red Cross Twitter account. The organization quickly deleted the tweet and responded with humor. It was a great example of how to respond to rogue tweets, but it also underscored how risky it is mingling accounts in a single Twitter client.
Rogue tweets are far more common than most people realize. They get deleted almost instantaneously (in the millisecond after a digital staffer has a heart attack but before the heavy feeling of doom sets in). Still, tweets are streamed and retweeted the second they're posted, so even the quickest hand can't undo the damage.
Some misplaced personal tweets can
cause major PR damage. Why risk it?
For example, the beltway got a giggle when President Obama (his account, that is) retweeted a promotion from a D.C. food truck. Recently, a Secret Service staffer accidently tweeted about how boring it was monitoring Fox News. A "ridiculously offensive" message was posted to Vodafone's account, and Chrysler's Twitter feed accidentally attacked all of Detroit for, of all things, driving skills.
One way to lessen the chance of such tweet crossover is to separate the personal and professional accounts in different programs. Banish one to TweetDeck and another to HootSuite and it's likely never the twain shall meet. Another smart option is to update official accounts through Twitter's website rather than an error-prone desktop client.
Speaking of keeping things separated, I'm a big fan of bifurcating campaign Twitter accounts for currently elected officials. Having a "personal" official account and a more general "campaign" account keeps things neat and minimizes risks. The candidate account can establish personality while the campaign can tweet away more aggressively on volunteer recruitment and donations. It also avoids mishaps like the one now Senator Kirk suffered. He endured a nasty news cycle when his allegedly "personal" twitter account (@MarkKirk) tweeted while he was on military duty. Separate Twitter accounts also prevent the embarrassing story of, say, a "candidate" asking for donations while they are at a hearing or on the floor in Congress.
As the old saying goes, you're known by the company you keep. Politicians have a threshold decision to make when joining Twitter: do they follow everyone back who follows them or are they more selective? For politicians who actually update their Twitter accounts themselves, following only a select few or no one at all is the best answer. For example, Senator McCaskill caused a stir by disclosing that her policy is not to follow anyone at all, but her reasoning about keeping her account "authentic" is sound.
The decision to either go "all in" with blanket follows or be more selective is a crucial one as the decision to go the latter route opens up any campaign to scrutiny. When an elected official chooses to follow a handful of people, it begs the question of "why them?" Representative Weiner is on the defensive for once following a porn star and a young girl who received the lewd tweet (he only follows some 200 people).
The route with the least liability? Stick with reciprocal follows for campaign accounts, or stay within the safe perimeter of other electeds and the D.C. cocktail circuit if you want a benign, low number of people to follow.
Tone doesn't translate well into 140 characters. Snark sometimes doesn't pop off the monitor (unless you're following our very own @KagroX, who has one of the snarkiest Twitter feeds around). Some politicians, like Representative Weiner or Cook County Commissioner John Fritchey have a reputation for their quick wit, so snarky tweets are expected on their accounts and are taken in stride. Yes, even tweets like this one from Mr. Fritchey on Election Day:
For most politicians who spend their days tweeting bland campaign updates, however, a jolt of misunderstood snark can cause a media firestorm. Such was the case with Shashi Tharoor, a member of India's Parliament who joked about flying "cattle class" with the "holy cows" on a flight. He apologized for the tweet.
If you're in public office and not known as a jokester, it's probably best to tag a snarky tweet (j/k, #justkidding, #snark, etc.) to avoid misunderstandings.
Once upon a time, we elected public officials based on a fairytale notion that we were selecting someone who represented us -- even a better version of us. Someone smarter. Someone with tons of commonsense. Someone who can solve big problems.
Thanks to Wonkette for eternally memorializing
the fact that sometimes Grassley doesn't sound
smarter than a 5th grader.
Expressing complex political ideas in 140 characters is a problem. Some solve it more eloquently than others.
Take @BarackObama, for example. His tweets are elegant, compact versions of his press releases or public appearances. They're fun size talking point treats: mini 140-calorie versions of his heavier stuff but still filled with tasty substance.
On the other side of the aisle, we have celebrities like Sarah Palin or politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley. Chuck Grassley is a prolific tweeter. He whittles his ideas down to the required 140 characters, but sometimes, he tries to jam too many ideas into that tiny space ands ends up sounding like an texting teenager (he's gotten much better over the last several months).
And then there's celebrity Sarah Palin. Enough said.
In politics as in Hollywood, a lot of things are fake. Or quasi-real. Constituent or donor thank you letters are signed by staff that has perfected a politician's signature and seemingly "personal" email accounts are actually managed by staff (really, Oprah, you have the patience to manage oprah@oprah.com?). Heck, even bills are signed by AutoPen. It's not surprising then that the same faux authenticity has seeped into online communications as well. Some electeds are brave enough and savvy enough to manage their own Twitter accounts. Most have the accounts managed by staff.
That's all well and good, but if you're going to fake the "personal" account, do it well. Give followers a real picture, a snapshot of authenticity. That means avoiding referring to "yourself" in the third person (I'm looking at you, Mitt Romney). A lot of campaigns avoid the weirdness of self-referential tweets by making it clear when it's staff writing in the third person versus the candidate (see @SenatorReid or @RussFeingold for examples). Still, third person use on Twitter has echoes of the archaic Facebook "is" status ("Georgia is...").
People follow politicians, pundits and others because they are genuinely interested in what that person has to say. Don't ruin the suspension of disbelief by jarring followers with awkward third-person references. Keep language as colloquial as possible and try to capture a candidate's personality -- even if you are just "pretending" to be a Senator or Congressman for your job.
"RT does not equal endorsement." It's a standard disclaimer in many Twitter bios, especially those of journalists and bloggers. Yet even the best of disclaimers can't protect a politician from a bad news cycle because of an ill-advised retweet. Earlier this year, Sarah Palin retweeted an anti-DADT tweet, prompting questions about whether she really agreed with the substance of the original tweet. Journalists and bloggers can get away with retweeting controversial tweets without attaching the presumption that they agree with the substance. For politicians, it's a much trickier terrain that demands much caution.
The Google alert is already a standard weapon in any decent press shop arsenal, but too many campaigns ignore Twitter monitoring at their own peril. Real-time social media monitoring is a crucial part of any modern communications and rapid response strategy. It can give you a heads up on upcoming scandals and give you time to prep. It can also instantaneously flag a hacking so you can minimize the damage. In short, it can mean the difference between a PR hiccup and a PR massacre.
Whether an elected is in the middle of a campaign or not, safe seat or top-tier race, they should monitor their name on Twitter with all the gusto of a skilled opposition researcher. Because you can bet the other side sure is doing the exact same thing.
From the look of many political Twitter accounts, you'd think TomTom secretly installed a GPS tracking device in campaign BlackBerrys and iPhones. "Just left the Summer Festival in [enter name of swing county], met so many inspiring people." "On my way to a business roundtable in [enter name of remote town to show you're 'on the trail'].' "At the annual fundraiser for [enter name of universally laudable organization], so many people working for such a great cause."
Strategically broadcasting an appearance at community events is a key part of a digital communications strategy. But it can't be the core part of it. The most successful political Twitter accounts contain an attention-keeping blend of location-based tweets as well as more substantive tweets on policy or politics. For fantastic examples of how to use location based tweets in moderation, check out the leadership accounts on both sides of the aisle.
The takeaway? Twitter isn't Foursquare. It's Twitter. Appreciate the difference.
Think of Twitter like a newborn baby. You give the swaddled little bundle of joy to its grandma to hold and it's all good. You hand your precious infant to your five-year-old niece to hold "just for a minute" and your heart pounds until you get her back "safe" in your arms.
Experience matters.
Twitter is a delicate, vulnerable mode of communication. Aside from actual campaign events, it is the most public-facing of campaign interaction. Every tweet, every hashtag, everything is exposed and open to scrutiny. Electeds need to baby their Twitter accounts. Be overprotective. Give access only to those who have the discretion and skill set to minimize risks and liabilities.
"Social media gurus" and "brand evangelists" are a dime a dozen. Just because an intern knows how to use Facebook and Twitter doesn't mean they should be given the keys to an online press shop. There's no lack of brilliant digital minds out there. I had the honor of working with some of the nation's best during the 2010 cycle, and 2012 is sure to bring a renewed focus on staffing up digital talent. A well-experienced digital strategist can use Twitter to raise money, persuade voters and influence media narratives. They're well worth the investment.
Let's call it the Weiner Rule. Whatever the truth is in that saga, the fact remains that direct messages on Twitter are dangerous and should be avoided by electeds at all costs. With mass campaign accounts that follow all supporters, it's ok to DM a pro forma campaign welcome. But if a politician controls his or her own account, using Twitter's direct message feature unnecessarily exposes them (no Weiner pun intended) to possible drama.
It's not just that direct messages on Twitter used to be easily publishable or that they may be accessible by third-party apps. It's not just that most Twitter clients make it pretty easy to screw up and accidentally send a direct message to the entire world. It's that the ramifications of a misdirected direct message can be painfully embarrassing: one little slip up can change your reputation (and your campaign) forever.
Think the lewd photo sent on Weiner's account was bad? In March, a Dutch politician mistakenly sent a very explicit erotic tweet to his followers (link, if you dare). He laughed it off, and his 200 or so followers didn't seem to mind. But most direct messaging mistakes aren't so easy on a politician's reputation.
There is no constituent or voter outreach and no journalist banter worth the risk. So politicians, please, use email. Use instant messaging. Use snail mail. Use carrier pigeons. Anything is better than putting yourself directly in the line of fire with Twitter direct messages.
Do you have your own best practices for Twitter or other social media? Share them in the comment section below.
