Before you read this thesis watch the entire video that I share with you above. Watch it for the information about Facebook and social media, not because you dislike or like a politician, or for politically motivated reasons.
Observe this video from a marketing and social media engineering point of view. That is how the below thesis is posed. This is in no way a political statement. This is purely for observational purposes.
Thank you for reading in advance. Also, you can donate to keep my blog current, and the information relevant. Any amount helps, even a dollar. Click the donate button. You rock!
“Parscale attributed the success of his vast social media presence to using the assistance offered by companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Google. He said that because the Trump campaign intended to spend $100 million on social media, companies in that area were prepared to assist the campaign in using that money effectively.
“The campaign poured money into Facebook, sending thousands of versions of tweaked ads to maximize response. Then it won the presidency by a margin narrow enough that Parscale (and Facebook) can justifiably take credit.”
— Philip Bump, The Washington Post”
Link: Brad Parscale
The contentious 2016 United States Presidential Election may have been won with a $100 million dollars, a “secret weapon”, and Facebook when used together. Or it may have been won by any other boilerplate theory out there that can be backed by anyone, by any entity, with any statistics.
Either way, for all intents and purposes, the “secret weapon” in this theory is Brad Parscale, and his tool was/is Facebook.
Perhaps, I want to believe that the 2016 election was won honestly and fairly because I am a thoughtful American citizen and I have hope, but the more I look at the events, the more I see glaring inconsistencies in media stories of Russian Collusion and a general disbelief or ineffective attempt to look at the bigger picture objectively. Social media played a HUGE role in this particular election, perhaps, as much so, or more, as any outside forces.
I aver, when looking at possibilities, generally we must look at everything, even information that has been overlooked from 10/08/2017 about Brad Parscale’s use of Facebook’s data/advertising tools to amass a successful, though debated, campaign–one which basically won the presidency, putting his candidate in the White House.
Moreover, to me, the most concerning part of imagining, assessing, or thinking openly that Facebook et al. was used, with money, to command an election in such a way is that people still use the platform religiously every day without question as they cast blame/credit elsewhere. Perhaps this is being oblivious, or willfully blind. It can’t be Facebook, right?
Reality check: It definitely can be Facebook. The reality is an inordinate amount of people are plugged into something (social media) that they wholly do not understand (I am in that boat), and marketers, salespeople, and data analysts are taking full advantage of that reality. (Beknownst, unbeknownst to all.) And how they do that advantageous venture is with huge, huge sums of purposed money.
Perhaps, purposed money and novel strategy, with a “secret weapon”, is what won the 2016 presidential election, along with a special tool of course: Facebook (when utilized by Brad Parscale). Perhaps there are other entities pulling strings, but Parscale and his efforts warrant consideration, and notation.
Beyond Parscale and social media, the secondary key in this thesis is the $100 million dollars went to marketing–the unprecedentedly complex advertising itself, and the lack of the Clinton campaign to embed Facebook and other social media employees within their campaign offices, as the Trump campaign did. And this may have swayed the election. I consider this maneuver to be out of touch in the age of social media. That’s glaringly foolish, in my opinion.
It’s like going to the World Series and leaving all your big hitters on the bench, extremely odd for a veteran politician…
Now, after these events, it sounds obvious to have key workers from these social media entities within your organization. Have one of the most influential and most recognized companies on your side in the most important race on the planet, possibly. Don’t leave much to chance. That is not genius, that is obvious. It wasn’t to some, clearly.
Further, not having social media on your side on your account seems very out of touch with reality. Even if you despise Facebook and are not a member of the brand, you have to recognize that it is a powerful tool for connecting people everywhere. For example, I am not on Facebook anymore but I realize it’s marketing potential, (I also realize at Christmastime that my parents and in-laws like to connect with high school friends. I don’t know why… I use email).
Bringing it home, the video above is not only astonishing to me, because I am just learning about Brad Parscale, and because of the information it gives on the key marketing tactics used within social media to win an election and manipulate a demographic of people is vast and accurate, but this technology seems potentially dangerous. The scary part in any situation is that money seems to make that happen. If money wanted you to be a modern zombie or a group think solider it would already be happening. And maybe you wouldn’t know. You’d just go with it and update your status. Probably not though, you are smart. 🙂
Accordingly, maybe someday we can better predict the future of everything, that is my prediction for the future.
For what it’s worth, with much of the media linking Parscale to Russia and basically making him look like a Sith lord in article photos, I think he could certainly be a critical part of understanding the 2016 presidential election, and definitely to harnessing momentum in future elections. At least his methods are very straightforward, in appearance, and no-nonsense. Definitely they are of interest.
His use of social media tools to reach an audience with a campaign message has never been done before at such a level, and he has worked on “zero” elections before.
In general, that utilization of resources–if that is what it truly was, is progressive and inspiring to me. He has been overlooked; and he is right there in front of us. As is the power of social media, but we have other excuses. Russia is scary and influenced the election. Trump may have cheated, etc. Any narrative is believable. But look at how many people around you are on Facebook clicking around, social media, exposing themselves to it all. Marketing is more common than the other alleged threats. I hope you like this post.
What influence. What money and focused ideas can buy.