As I write this, in the aftermath of the UK’s first General Election live TV debate, a few of things are becoming apparent. Firstly the debate was FAR more interesting with twitter tuned in. Secondly that our knowledge and affection for leaders has been manicured by media and spin. And finally, a minority audience such as AdLand’s Twittering classes report a vocal Yellow persuasion. As an Art Director spending large amounts of my working and social day on digital spaces, I was interested to see if online conversations could be indicative of true offline persuasion.
Firstly let’s not forget that a tiny percentage use Twitter compared to the 10 million people who tuned in live to watch. But what Twitter did do was add live commentary and allowed live debate for millions who couldn’t be there to debate it on TV. So the apparent outcome was that our socially and technologically aware industry seem keen to seek a change. Nothing new there – Art Directors always ask for change – but what if this persuasion is skewed by social spaces filled with liberally thinking modern thinkers? Do the ‘real’ voters not actually wish to risk change? After all, ours is a world well used to embracing change, we thrive on it. Many do not.
But will all this affection for Cleggy translate into votes? Come to think of it, it’s not unlike the familiar advertising pitch this whole TV debate: What appears to have gone well and delivered perfectly, may not turn out to mean you’ve won the pitch and bagged the big account: Number 10.
Well apparently it wasn’t a skewed view. The subsequent polls conducted both on and offline show Nick Clegg as the clear winner of our first Live Election Debate. Perhaps demonstrating an attitude like social media itself: We’re not afraid of trying something new. In fact, let’s give change a fair chance – we’ll prove it’ll work.
Vote Lib Dem, don’t be Labservative.