Looking to YouTube, the disparity was even greater as the election neared. The BarackObamadotcom YouTube channel had over 20 million views, whereas the johnmccaindotcom channel had just over 2 million views.^[39] A year and a half prior to the election, a young and attractive girl released the "I have a crush on Barack Obama video." This girl (Amber Lee Ettinger) would later be nicknamed "Obama Girl" and appear on many national television shows and be included in Playboy magazine.

This was prior to "Obamamania" sweeping the country; in fact, it was items like this that helped fuel it. This video was viewed 11.5 million times in the months leading up to the election.^[40] In McCain's defense, his voting base skewed older, and they didn't use these types of tools so prevalently at the time, which meant a huge advantage for Obama. Obama used social media to his advantage in both the Democratic and National race to become the president of the United States.

This leveraging of peer-to-peer communication helped mitigate the violent swings that can be caused by traditional media and is one significant reason why Obama was able to overcome some controversial issues (e.g., Reverend Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers) during his campaign for the oval office.

"No one knows the impact of quasi-permanency on the Web yet, but it surely has changed the political world," said Allan Louden, a professor who teaches a course on digital politics at Wake Forest University. "The role of gatekeepers and archivists have been dispersed to everyone with Internet access."^[41]

Obama's team was also creative by providing their own original footage of events that the networks covet—behind-the-scenes moments. They were able to splice these together with decent, yet not too high-end, production quality. Even if they had the money, you wouldn't necessarily want top-level editing because that destroys the authenticity of the organic ambiance you are attempting to create and, more importantly, can increase the lag time to get the content in the hands of the socialmediorati (term for active social media users). Viewers are interested in timely information they can relate to—spending time and money on high-end production can often create distance between candidate and viewer. Viewers are interested in how a person acts when the lights of Hollywood aren't on—how does the candidate interact with his family and those closest to him on a day-to-day basis? That's why we see millions following Ashton Kutcher, Ellen DeGeneres, and Shaq on Twitter.

Social media user Lance Muller of Decatur, Georgia quipped, "I have been an Obama friend since his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. In social media, he actually virtually "pokes" me and sends memos and stuff. I don't know if it is really him, but it makes you feel more in touch with the process. His team is smart in utilizing social networks to reach people like me so that I feel connected personally."^[42]

Knowing that social media users rely on the general freedom afforded by the Web, the Obama camp was smart in appealing to their base by introducing a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) position to the president's cabinet; which was dependent on an Obama victory. Aneesh Chopra became the first CTO of the United States on August 7, 2009. The main role of the CTO is to "ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies, and services for the twenty-first century."^[43]

As we will discuss throughout this book, advertisers need to become providers of content. Obama's campaign did just that when they placed ads pushing an early voting message in EA video games, most prominently in a racing game called "Burnout Paradise." These games are socially interactive, with kids being able to compete with each other around the globe. Obama's objective for this particular campaign targeted players in ten battleground states. The key to this form of advertising is that it benefits the player of the game. The game appears more real-time with seamless and wireless updates to allow for such real-time product placement—in this case, the product placement was Obama with the specific message of early voting.

When you look at total views for Obama via YouTube, they accounted for 110 million views. This was estimated at 14.5 million hours of viewing on YouTube, according to Democratic political consultant Joe Trippi. He estimated that amount of time would have cost $47 million to purchase in commercial time.^[44]

"If not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president or even the democratic nominee," claimed Arianna Huffington of the liberal Huffington Post website.^[45] Overall blog mentions of "Obama" and "McCain" varied greatly during the election (and we can't delineate positive versus negative posts); close to 500 million blog postings mentioned Obama since the beginning of the conventions. During the same time period, only about 150 million blog posts mentioned McCain.^[46]

Obama's almost micropayment style approach to raising funds allowed him to outspend McCain nearly three-to-one, which was a testament to the capabilities of social media. By engaging constituents directly, they were able to raise a staggering $660 million in campaign contributions.^[47]

Close to 65 percent of the American population voted in the 2008 election, the highest turnout since the election of 1908.^[48] These results are telling: a Democrat had not won Virginia and Indiana since then, either. Obama captured both.

Support came from everywhere for Obama during his historic and meteoric political run. Some help came from unexpected places. The famous Budweiser "Whassup" commercials, which debuted in 1999, immediately helped sell millions of Bud Lights. The ad became a part of U.S. pop culture following its exposure during the 2000 Super Bowl. Could this same whassup idea be resurrected to help Obama's cause for change? You bet.

The parody used the same characters from the original spots and opened in the exact same fashion, but instead of a guy comfortably relaxing on a couch, he was sitting on a foldout chair in a boxed-up apartment as a subtle hint at the housing crisis that was sweeping the country in 2008.

From there, the spoof segued into a series of whassup conversations in conference call fashion. The characters ranged from one friend stationed in Iraq, another fighting a hurricane, someone looking for help to pay for pain medication because of a broken arm, and the star of the original commercials, "Dookie," stealing the show again as he contemplates hanging himself after seeing his entire stock portfolio go essentially down to zero. Dookie, being overweight, pulls the entire ceiling fan down; hence, it keeps its original light tone while at the same time connects with the audience and sends a strong message. At the end of the video one of the characters asks again, "Whassup?" And the main character replies, "Change. Change, that's whassup," from his boxed-up apartment as he watches TV images of Senator Obama and his wife.

"It's a great juxtaposition of the original ads. It shows how the lives of these characters have dramatically changed in the past eight years—going from carefree and relaxed beer buddies to being confronted by a shift in global dynamics, an economic collapse, and all in all an unbelievable amount of personal challenge and difficulty. Being able to identify with the characters is what makes this video so strong, and they never once say or state Obama's name, rather it's a subtle glimpse of Barack and Michelle Obama on the television that the main character is watching at the end of the spot with a huge smile on this face. The short video ending with the word 'Change,' just like in the 1999 commercials that were followed by the word 'True,' was both powerful and brilliant," said author and political campaign expert Brian Reich.^[49]

Reich was a key member of the Howard Dean interactive team largely recognized as the originators of many of the political Internet tactics that Obama successfully leveraged.

Charles Stone III, who was the idea man behind the original Budweiser ads, created this satire. The ad was posted on October 24, 2008, on YouTube a little over a week prior to the election, and received over 4.8 million views along with 14,891 user comments. Also, 21,746 viewers took the time to rate the video and it received the difficult-to-achieve 5-star rating.^[50]

Stone was paid roughly $37,000 by Anheuser-Busch and Omnicom Group's DDB Chicago for the rights to license the concept for five years. Stone had originally created a "whassup" film that had caught Omnicom's attention. The fact that neither Anheuser-Busch nor their agency owned the rights to the concept is unusual in the advertising business, but in this instance, it allowed Stone to make his popular and effective parody. Stone appears in both the original and satire ads with his friends—who also happen to be African American. Stone felt that he could use the same concept to "make a difference" for a politician he believes in.^[51]

In this instance, the brand is Obama. The Obama camp could have asked Stone to remove the video out of concern that the "hanging scene" and "soldier in Iraq" may have pushed the line too far. A traditional brand would have probably stopped this and diluted its viral power. Obama did not do this; instead, he allowed someone (Stone) outside of his camp to take ownership of the brand and promote it. As a result, he exposed his message to 4.8 million people right before the election without spending one penny or lifting one finger. That is the power of social media for brands.

However, it's important to not underestimate the potential bumps in the road when your supporters are a little too aggressive with your brand. This was the case with another video that was in support of Obama. This one was aptly named "Politics as Usual" and was produced by famous hip-hop artist Ludacris. One of the lines was "Obama would paint the White House black." This was tame in comparison to dismissing Hillary Clinton as a potential vice presidential running mate—"that bitch is irrelevant." Attacking the Republicans, Ludacris stated that John McCain should only be able to sit in the "big chair" if he is paralyzed. Prior to the election, this rap video received over a million views on YouTube.^[52]

It was a tough spot for Obama to be in because he still wanted the support of the influential hip-hop community, but he also needed to avoid the controversy that these lyrics stirred. In the end he took corrective action, quickly and publicly denouncing it, calling the music video "outrageously offensive."

"While Ludacris is a talented individual, he should be ashamed of these lyrics," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in an e-mail statement.

"Of course, Obama and his people have to condemn the rap, because it does say some vulgar things. If you're running for president, you're supposed to be an upstanding individual," said John McWhorter, author of All About the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can't Save Black America.^[53] Many companies and politicians make the mistake of stopping there, but Obama went the extra mile to have a private meeting with the rap star. Rapper Ludacris said Barack Obama disapproved of the song he wrote because it insulted his rivals.

"The song was my artistic expression and was meant to get people who weren't involved in the political process involved. Being as though it was the first mix tape to reach the United States government, it was a bit overwhelming," said Ludacris. He indicated that when he met with Obama, they didn't just discuss the song. "What myself and the president spoke about is confidential, but I took it upon myself to not speak about the song."^[54] By acting quickly and decisively, Obama was able to turn a negative into a positive, for he kept the support of Ludacris' fan base while distancing himself from the controversial content.

In the early part of this century, Yahoo! started to leverage the search data that was flowing into its data centers. At the time, Yahoo! was the world's preeminent search engine. They were noticing that they could predict some pop-culture trends, often six weeks in advance. They actually leveraged this data for one of their biggest advertising clients at the time, Pepsi-Cola. They identified through their buzz index that searches for an up-and-coming pop star by the name of Britney Spears were indexing high and rising rapidly. As a perk to their important client, Yahoo! disclosed this information, and Pepsi seized the opportunity. With little investment, Pepsi was able to sign Spears to a relatively cheap endorsement contract a few months before she became one of the music industry's biggest and brightest stars.

Fast forward to the present. Because of the transparency that social media demands, search engines don't hold this data hostage anymore. Much of the search data is open for public consumption. While the data is in aggregate (meaning privacy policies are upheld since you can't identify an individual) and the data isn't absolute (meaning there are indexes rather than the actual number of searches—otherwise financial analysts could extrapolate data to predict quarterly financial performance for the search engines), it is very helpful for many reasons.

It appears that people make the habit of entering phrases like "flu symptoms" or "flu remedies" into search engines prior to actually going in for a doctor's visit. When you multiply this across millions of searches around the globe, you have something like a neighborhood watch for fast-spreading flu outbreaks.

Google flu trends is a service provided by the company's philanthropic arm (Google.org), released to do just exactly that. Historically, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) based in Atlanta, Georgia, was the only source for tracking spikes in viruses like the flu. Comparing the CDC data to Google's data showed that Google's insight was roughly two weeks ahead of the CDC. The CDC data is inherently slow as a result of its dependence on data being supplied and analyzed from thousands of sources (e.g., doctors, labs, health insurance).

Search and social data is powerful stuff that can help stifle the spread of disease and ultimately save lives. Google is able to combine flu search data with their robust mapping tools to quickly showcase where the disease is spreading across the world. The potential doesn't stop at influenza, but can be used for all forms of disease and outbreak. The CDC data and other data can also be combined with search data to make it even more accurate. "Most forecasting is basically trend extrapolation," said Hal Varian, Google's chief economist. "This works remarkably well, but tends to miss turning points, times when the data changes direction. Our hope is that Google data might help with this problem."^[55] The key is that the data has always existed and in some instances was being used (e.g., Pepsi and Britney Spears), but Socialnomics has been a main driver behind it being shared for such beneficial causes.

In 2009, Prabhakar Raghavan, the head of Yahoo! Labs said search data could be valuable for forecasters and scientists, but privacy concerns had generally stopped Yahoo! Labs from sharing it with outside academics. "I think we are just scratching the surface of what's possible with collective intelligence,"^[56] said Thomas W. Malone, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT. For business and politics it is very intriguing: Do more people search: "cheap travel" or "travel"? "Coke" or "Pepsi"? "Obama" or "McCain"?

This last one was particularly intriguing. Could search data help predict the next president of the United States?

We compared U.S. search trends in April 2008 for the terms "Clinton," "McCain," and "Obama." Total searches for Obama far exceeded those of Clinton. For every Clinton search, there were 1.60 Obama searches. Yet, for every Clinton search, there were only 0.48 McCain searches.^[57]

This makes sense, given the Democrats' heated primary. What's interesting is that Obama had so many more searches than Clinton. Keep in mind that Clinton is artificially inflated by the fact that it contains searches having nothing to do with Hillary (e.g., people looking for Bill, Clinton Township). Obama is a unique term, so it has less statistical noise. Also, the data doesn't factor in searches done for "Barack." So, Obama's 1.60:1 ratio was most likely even higher than the numbers indicated. It's important to note here that if you are launching a new product or brand, the more unique the name, the easier it is to crawl and collect data digitally. For example, Puma (shoes, jungle cat, purse, older female, etc.) has a much more difficult time crawling for data than adidas.

Google Insights data also pointed out that in April of 2008, searches for Obama in the state of Indiana greatly exceeded those of Clinton. It would've been easy to predict that Obama was closing the gap on Hillary in that state. After all, if the voters had already decided to vote for Hillary, there wouldn't be a need to search for information on Obama. Obama was supposed to lose handily in Indiana; but just as the data predicted, he closed the gap, narrowly lost the state, but was well on his way to achieving the nomination afterward.

Data from Google Insights also gave a strong indication that Obama would defeat John McCain in the presidential election. Thirty days prior to the election, Obama searches outperformed McCain almost 3:1 even though McCain had gained 11 percent in search volume over the same time period. Predictably, U.S. allies (Canada, United Kingdom, etc.) seemed the most interested in the election, judging by their search behavior. Global searches indexed even higher for Obama over McCain by a 4:1 ratio, indicating that the world was also ready for a change. In the United States, not surprisingly, most searches for Obama and McCain came from those living in Washington, DC, and the same held true for college towns Austin, Texas, and Raleigh, North Carolina, which indexed within the top 10, primarily due to the younger voters being so involved in this election.^[58]

McCain and Obama each tried to build up their respective brands in the eyes of voters. They used search data to answer questions such as: Is it better to print "Obama" or "Barack" on promotional posters. There were 3.5 more searches done on "Obama" than "Barack."^[59] Pretty helpful information.

Just like in the political race, search data can also be used in the world of business to help guide companies in making strategic decisions. Should Coke use the term "soda pop" or "soda" to describe the products on its website? What regions in the world search for "Coke" more than "Pepsi"? In future decisions, such search data will be used more and more by all constituents.

Even more than search, social media tools like Twitter are becoming extremely instrumental in predicting trends from flu outbreaks to the spread of natural disasters like forest fires. In one celebrated case in March of 2010, celebrity Demi Moore's Twitter account played a vital role in stopping a teen from committing suicide. Moore's alias on Twitter is @mrskutcher and one man posted his intent to commit suicide. When Moore asked if he was serious and the reply was yes, another celebrity, Nia Vardalos (My Big Fat Greek Wedding) saw the post and called the Florida Police and the Suicide Prevention Hotline. Vardalos stayed on the phone with the police until she knew the man was okay and was taken to the hospital. Hundreds of others also tweeted their support.

In a text message sent to supporters on the eve of the election, Obama reaffirmed that they would be part of the presidency: "We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next."

Obama was diligent in not abandoning social media once he took over as president. He realized that the people who elected him to office wanted to stay connected, and he also knew this would be key to success while in office. Just as users are willing to take ownership of brands when given the chance, if they believe it is their government and not Obama's, then there really is a true chance for change; change comes from within, not externally.

Social media allows for this two-way conversation. The U.S. president, for the first time, can cultivate grassroots communities directly, where people discover, create, and share information online. Obama has pledged to involve Americans in his decision-making, by giving them five days to comment online on any non-emergency legislation before he signs it. Whether he delivers on this promise remains to be seen.

To help with this conversation, Obama has resurrected the principles of FDR's fireside radio chats; only this time, the chats will be on YouTube or other online video format, which allows for commentary, posts, rebuttals, and ongoing dialog. His cabinet members are committed to having their own chats as well. The goal is to make the political process more transparent and give an identity to the White House. This is exactly the same strategy that good brands employ; transparency and having people connect and identify with the brand because the brand helps define them. Good companies put customers' needs first and foremost.

Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or member of the Bull Moose Party, you can't deny the power of real-world community relations combined with the reach and engagement of online social communities and networks to change politics as usual. It's important to note that this isn't about using the latest shiny new toy out there. The key resides in the ability to identify and internalize issues that help precipitate change. Action earns support, not merely words.

As addressed in our preventative and braggadocian behavior sections of this book, it is important for the president to be transparent by showing the behind-the-scenes inner workings of the White House without sacrificing national security. It is irrelevant whether you like the transparent demands of social media or not; the fact is that society has drastically changed as a result of social media—this isn't just a nice perk for the president to use, it is something the public now demands.

This is an opportunity for government to meet demands by using new and influential channels to address voters' needs and win people over, one citizen at a time.

The office of the president will never be able to satisfy everyone, but if social media is utilized correctly, it will supply the ideas, insights, support, concerns, and satisfaction of the American public. It allows for a government to be more in tune with the country and to truly run as a democracy by stripping away the politics and getting to the core of what matters. Sometimes the best advisors are those who voted against the elected in the first place. Mr. Obama offered this message to his supporters during his closing arguments at a Democratic campaign rally in Canton, Ohio:

In 2008, the Gartner Group hypothesized that social media would complement and even replace some functions of the government. For some people, this may seem laughable, but isn't that what the U.S. government is supposed to be about—a government of the people, for the people, and by the people? This will become even more prevalent with Obama's successors, whether they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent. As the 2008 presidential campaign's reliance on social media to persuade voters indicates, this will become an integral part of every candidate's campaign in the years to come, particularly considering that this election's online campaigns will be scrutinized more than any before. "There's going to be a lot of analysis of the campaign online this time around," Borrell's VP of Research Kip Cassino told ClickZ News. "This is absolutely a groundbreaking election for digital marketing and the candidates, and it's not just the money involved. It's the techniques that were developed and the knowledge that was gained."^[61]

Of course, everything wasn't all roses for Obama and his pioneering ways. Days after the election, a decision had to be made on whether Obama could keep his BlackBerry, something that he, like many others, had become dependent on in his daily life. In fact, in one White House meeting, everyone was asked to put their BlackBerry in the middle of the table to ensure each person was paying attention. This was something new for Washington, but not for businesses where the device's addictive ways has earned an apt nickname—crackberry.

The reason for the discussion about whether Obama would need to relinquish his BlackBerry did not center on overuse. Rather, it revolved around the fact that his text messaging, tweets, status updates, and e-mails would be a part of public record. When George Bush entered the White House, he had to give up his AOL account ([email protected]) for this exact reason. So, Obama's friendly joshing and side-kick conversations with his friends about the latest Bears playoff game would be public record. However, relating back to our discussion on preventative and braggadocian behavior, has Obama been around social media long enough to have established the correct behavior and fail-safes associated with it?

Perhaps so, which then allows for the use of such devices as a BlackBerry to transform information into an asset. Rick Sanchez of CNN used Twitter to grow his user base. He raised his CNN program to number three in the ratings, behind only Fox News's O'Reilly Factor and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's Countdown. Because of Sanchez's success, viewers' microblog posts became a part of almost every CNN broadcast.

Does a president's transparency become an enormous asset? Can he go from one million followers on Twitter to 100 million? As president of the United States, his public record may be quite different from that of Joe the Plumber's, but the reasons for utilizing it are the same—to openly communicate with many. People are using these mechanisms as a public record. There are no secrets; we are living in a world of glass houses. That is why Obama is the first president to keep his BlackBerry or have the first presidential laptop computer. We know the positive impact of these tools, and one of the most powerful people in the world should still have the option to use them.

To Sarah Palin's credit, she seemed to be practicing correct preventative behavior. When her Yahoo! e-mail was hacked, there was not much dirt to be found, despite these being private conversations; it was not a social media forum. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom agreed that for national politics, the Obama campaign used social media to an unprecedented level. "Now I'm more concerned with what it means when we can use this unfiltered conversation with people. How will it help construct public policy?" he asked.^[62]

While Obama benefited enormously from the power of social media, there are still social media detractors. A Facebook group was formed prior to Obama even taking office with several hundred members called "Impeach Barack Obama." Social media has the good, the bad, and the ugly for everyone to see. When it comes to politics, isn't that the true beauty of social media? Its power speaks for itself; before social media, Obama would not have won his own party's nomination, let alone become the 44th president of the United States.

The 2010 oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico also showcased how social media can provide political pressure as well as raise money for a good cause. Some creative minds took out the Twitter account BPGlobalPR and posted such snarky tweets as: "If you find any oil in the Gulf of Mexico please return it because it's ours" and "We don't forbid our workers from wearing respirators because it looks bad in photos, we just want to see their smiling faces." This parody account had over 120,000 followers only weeks after it launched. Greenpeace utilized the social sharing site Flickr to run a BP Parody Logo campaign. One of the better ones submitted by Russ A had an image of the Twitter Fail Wail being lifted out of the Gulf ensconced in oil with the tagline BP Fail. You could order these logos on T-shirts and the campaign helped raise thousands of dollars to aid the Gulf. Most importantly, these social outlets applied political pressure on BP and Obama's cabinet to increase efforts to resolve the issue.

Starbucks, Ben & Jerry's, and others gave freebies on Election Day—did it work? Remember the free pancake breakfast you used to get as a kid down at the fire station? Of course it wasn't free; your parents would pay a donation to help out the firefighters, but it seemed like it was free, didn't it? Your parents likely donated more than they would have paid at the local Denny's for a Grand Slam breakfast, yet they too felt it was free—probably better than free.

This is the sense of community that human beings long for, and it is something that is strengthened with social media. In fact, it is part of the reason for social media's meteoric ascendancy in our lives. Face-to-face interaction still can't be beat on certain levels, but social media does help you feel as though you are part of a community. Social media can help a national or global item feel intimate. Once again, a good example of this was the 2008 U.S. presidential election; let's take a look

In year's past, there have been many campaigns that attempted to increase voter turnout (e.g., MTV's Rock the Vote) but few have seemed to work. In 2008, voter turnout was predicted to be strong for many reasons, but as a friendly reminder and incentive, several companies gave away freebies on Election Day. Generally, most marketers steer clear of anything political, but in this case the brand marketers wanted to be a part of a community, and the community in this instance, thanks to social media, was the American community.

Some of the more high-profile giveaways included a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A, a tall cup of coffee from Starbucks, a free scoop of ice cream from Ben & Jerry's, and a star-shaped doughnut with patriotic sprinkles (i.e., red, white, and blue) from Krispy Kreme. Along with many other factors, these freebies helped drive the highest voter turnout since 1908.^[63]

For users to get their freebies they had to show their "I Voted" sticker, but in most cases they could simply say they voted. (After all, isn't community all about trust?) One entity that doesn't believe in trust was the government; it almost rained on this feel-good parade by highlighting a federal law that stipulates you can't give incentives to encourage people to vote. Fortunately, several companies didn't let this hurdle stop them and were able to work within it.

That is another example of the changes we are seeing with the advent of Socialnomics—it's a new way of thinking. In the past, large multi-nationals would have been shrinking violets and would have let their well-paid legal counsel pontificate on doomsday scenarios and suck the life out of the marketing and public relations departments until they gave up on the idea.

Today we are seeing less of this, partially due to the intense competition forcing companies to adopt the mantra: If we don't do this, someone else will. Part of competition is coming from foreign entities that don't have the same legal requirements as U.S.-based entities. Most of all, though, we are seeing companies and people within companies with the conviction to drive what they believe is best for the company even if it clashes with the opinion of legal counsel. If companies have confidence in what they are doing, then they will overcome the hurdles that formerly may have stopped them.

Contributing to this, in part, is the flexibility and real-time nature of social media. In the past, if Ben & Jerry's was going to promote a free giveaway via the expensive development of television, radio, and print advertising, they would have to think twice about the concerns of the law shutting down their good intentions, because it would be quite costly. However, given that the primary push for the Ben & Jerry's promotion was sending an alert to the followers on their Facebook fan page, there were few upfront costs, and the action of taking down the promotion was roughly only 20 to 30 minutes of work.

The variable cost of how many people actually show up for the freebies remains a factor, but it is the fixed costs of print and production of advertising that causes marketers to think twice about a promotion if there is a chance that it would be shut down for legal reasons. Social media helps mitigate these concerns because the upfront costs are so minimal that if a legal issue shuts down the program at the last minute, so be it. Also, social media allows things to be shut down in a few minutes, and for word to travel just as quickly. In this instance, if Ben & Jerry's needed to shut down, they would simply inform their 285,000 Facebook fans and let them spread the word virally.

As we will constantly reiterate within social media, it's not how cool Ben & Jerry's is that matters. Rather, the concern is whether they can give their loyal fans something to pass on that makes them (loyal fans) look cool. "I didn't know about the B&J free ice cream giveaway until my friend Stephen in Texas pushed it my way on Facebook. It was good to know he was thinking about me, and I felt like I owed him a scoop of ice cream," said Kim (Nashville, Tennessee).^[64] During the promotion, Ben & Jerry's added over 100,000 fans to their Facebook fan page, resulting in a total of 385,000 fans.^[65]

Starbucks promoted their coffee giveaway almost exclusively via social media mechanisms. They ran only one ad on SNL, which was primarily viral during the time because of the success of the Tina Fey-Sarah Palin spoofs (more than 50 percent of the views were within social media). They also ran 30 TV spots on Hulu and displayed placements on Facebook. The spots took advantage of the well-known Starbucks recycled paper brown coffee sleeve to animate and script a quick message helping to convey two salient points—we care about the environment and we care about the country. The message was: "What if we cared so much every day about these things?" In a rare instance, it covered off-branding (what Starbucks stands for) and also gave a call to action (come to our store). It is estimated that Starbucks spent less than $400,000 for this promotion, which Oprah quickly paid back by giving it some major coverage on her show, as did every other media outlet (including this book). On YouTube alone, the promotion received 386,000 views.

One measure that tracks this type of viral buzz (the amount of people that are talking or writing about your brand) indicated that Starbucks' buzz increased 26 percent as a result of this effort.^[66] Starbucks would not disclose how much coffee was given away, but in some stores it was plenty: one Chicago franchise handed out 300 steaming cups of java and goodwill.^[67] Facebook users also started downloading the application "Which Drink Is Meant for You?" resulting in almost 100,000 active monthly users, driving the Starbucks fan page to nearly 200,000 fans.^[68] In order for companies to truly benefit from social media, they have to become part of the community. Is your company serving up fresh pancakes or stale messaging?

To help assuage concerns about long lines due to record voter turnout, a Twitter Vote Report was established. Voters who were at the polls could use the microblogging tool to help supply real-time data on polling conditions. These messages and alerts were aggregated and applied to a Google Mapping tool so that people could see any voting issues in their area in the hopes of avoiding crowds and hassles. It was very simple to send in reports using your mobile device:

Users who didn't use Twitter could also send text messages to #voterreport, to 66, or could call an automated hotline. Hashtags or # are very convenient when using microblogging tools or text messaging, as they allow items to be easily tagged and categorized—which has been a dramatic part of the social media revolution. Convenient items like this contributed to the 2008 election having the highest voter turnout in 100 years.^[69] Higher voter turnout is, therefore, one positive influence that social media has had on society. Moving forward, mobile geo-location tools like Foursquare, Gowalla, and Google Latitude will make it even easier to share this type of information.

If the political use of social media accelerates in the future, what new and exciting tactics can we expect? One thing that is surely inevitable is the introduction of online voting. Having the capability to easily cast votes via online mechanisms makes too much sense for it not to become a reality. For those who have always screamed that online voting is less secure than offline voting, you possibly do not understand the current offline process to obtain an absentee ballot. Let me explain.

For the 2008 presidential election, for the state of Florida, which one could argue should have the tightest system after the difficulties the state experienced in the 2000 election, the offline security was less than tight. For example, prospective voters were required to know their: (1) birth date and (2) address number—not the entire address, just the mailbox number! If you had these two relatively easy-to-access pieces of information, the state of Florida was happy to send you an absentee ballot to any address that you specified.

If you were a legitimate absentee voter and dutifully filled out your form, you proceeded to drop it in the mail. The outside of the envelope boldly proclaims ABSENTEE BALLOT, and it also bears your authorized signature. Anywhere along the way this ballot could be conveniently lost or stolen by numerous people. That doesn't sound nearly as secure as an online process that has point-to-point encryption, with only those two points having the proper access key.

This is analogous to when the Internet was first introduced to the masses as a place of commerce, aptly named e-commerce. It's hard to believe now, but at the time people were afraid to give out their credit card numbers online because of the false belief that it was unsafe to do so. Yet, these same people had no problem giving it to some random clerk along with their signature at the local convenience store. For now, let's assume that great minds are able to solve the major security holes in online voting (they will). Imagine the tremendous increase in voter participation when this occurs. In a SodaHead study, 79 percent of the respondents said they wouldn't wait an hour to vote during the 2008 presidential election.^[70]

People can argue that not everyone has a computer or mobile device that can access the Web. While this is true, there are more people who have the ability to access the Web than have voting machines in their homes. Those who don't have access to the Web can go to their local library or voting station just as they have done in the past. The cost savings associated with no longer dealing with paper, staffing, parking, administration, voting machines, police protection, and so on would be significant. The increase in productivity would also be mind-boggling.

Assuming the U.S. population is approximately 310 million, and according to the latest U.S. census bureau data, 68 percent are of voting age, this equates to 210 million possible voters.^[71] If the average hourly wage (factoring in white collar) is close to $16, and keeping in mind that the physical act of voting takes a rough estimate (very rough) of two hours (including drive time), the summation is startling. This is $6.7 billion in lost productivity (210 million × $16 per hour × 2 hours)! All that could be saved by a few simple clicks online.

The harder decisions aren't necessarily based on whether we introduce online voting or not, but rather on how it will function when it is introduced. There are several social behavioral pieces to keep in mind. Is early voting online a capability? It makes sense. In an online voting model, are the early results disclosed to the public so that everyone can see how the race is projecting? If someone has already cast his or her vote is that person allowed to go back and change it anytime before the election? In other words, how social would the government allow online voting to become? It would make sense to make it very social. For example—early voters could click on a radio button or have a form field for the main reason they selected or didn't select a certain candidate. Imagine, candidates could then address the concerns of the voting public during the election process itself. Sounds very democratic to me.

In an effort to relate with their desired target audience of 17- to 24-year-olds, the Army launched a tool called "Straight from Iraq." It was designed to allow potential recruits to get a better sense of what war is like from the people who know best. This is a long way from the days in Vietnam where television coverage was carefully screened. "Straight from Iraq" was historic because it was the first time candidates could ask direct questions of soldiers in combat.

"The goal is to provide those considering the Army—along with parents and others who influence their decisions—with verifiable information about what being a soldier is really like, what combat is really like," said Lt. Gen. Benjamin C. Freakley, commanding general of the Army Accessions Command in Fort Monroe, Virginia, overseeing recruitment at the time.^[72]

"The campaign was successful in conveying the benefits of 'Army strong'—the physical, emotional, and mental benefits," said Ed Walters, chief marketing officer for the Army at the Pentagon.

"We wanted to more clearly articulate that," he added, "through efforts like sharing with civilians the video clips of 'real soldiers' stories."^[73]

As we point out throughout the book, these types of open, social media conversations are much more effective than a unilateral communication to your audience. The best part, too, is that they are much more cost effective. In this example, while the Army couldn't disclose exact figures, it easily exceeded its recruiting goals for 2006 to 2008.^[74]

For cost effectiveness comparison, the Army spent roughly $170 million per year on such high-profile items as NASCAR sponsorships and Rodeos. I'm sure it's fun for the Army's Director of Marketing to watch his NASCAR automobile go around the track every Sunday, but how effective is this, and how accurately can you track such a thing? The average sponsorship cost for a NASCAR car is in the $15 to $20 million range. In comparison, the social media campaign costs between $200,000 and $300,000.

While the Army embraced Facebook and other social media tools, they also understood that some items probably weren't best for public consumption. In October of 2009, they launched milBook, which is essentially Facebook, but restricted to only military personnel. Keep in mind that when Facebook originally launched, it was restricted to Harvard students, and then only to those with a college e-mail address. With 20,000 users, milBook may be a sign that for certain niche markets there will be "invite only" or "velvet rope" clearance to be part of a particular network. milSuite is a combination of social media tools that includes milBook, milBlog, and milWiki.