The New York Times this week produced a very good analysis of the way Obama used the Internet to rise from relative obscurity to President-elect in an amazingly short period, illustrating how the senator grasped the power of Web 2.0 just as Thomas Jefferson “got” the power of the newspaper, Roosevelt the radio and John F. Kennedy television.

A few months back, during his battle with Hillary Clinton in the primaries, I thought that if he gained the nomination this would be the first proof of a seismic shift of power away from traditional media to the Internet. That shift can no longer be doubted. Where other candidates rely on phone banks, journalists, voter lists and direct mail, the Obama campaign relied on direct spread through social networks and opt-in emailing lists. From a purely business point of view, Obama’s fundraising record was phenomenal, but the ability of a campaign to mobilise support was if anything even more impressive.

The New York Times article also suggests that Obama’s use of social networking platforms, which he has indicated will be an integral part of this government, is a two-way street, entailing commitments to supporters as well as help from them. He seems to be anticipating this quite happily using his change.gov to encourage participation. This certainly seems to be a healthy antidote to being led by special interest groups. Increased internet influence will no doubt scare some, but, though it might be a little idealistic to say so, the whole story seems to affirm the power of the Internet to harness the common sense of the masses. Election smears that would have sunk as junior a candidate as Obama in any other election were quickly rebutted on the web, supporting the old adage that you can’t fool all the people all the time.

Now it would be very easy to say that what Obama’s supporters achieved applies just to political campaigns, and perhaps to business-to-consumer markets. But it’s important to be very critical of that attitude: after all, it’s not so different from the attitude that Republican party and the Clintons had. The fact is that there are now just many more ways to communicate and collaborate, and the greening of technology will probably accelerate this as it becomes less acceptable to pile on the business miles (there is already speculation about how this will affect telecom sector in the US under an Obama presidency). Even in specialized markets, there is likely to be some impact from these new modes of communication.

Perhaps I’m being a bit forward, but I think we will already be moving towards “Web 3.0” by the time of the next presidential race, given the speed the development of apps on mobile platforms, increases in connection speed, and more intelligent and interoperable software. It will be interesting to see which politicians, in the US and in other democracies, will be ready for that, and whether the Obama initiative will still be setting the agenda. And, of course, which companies learn from his strategies.

US marketing and branding company Cone Inc. has just published a survey on using social media to promote businesses, with pretty dramatic findings. According to the survey, 93 percent of Americans believe a company should have a presence in social media, while an overwhelming 85 percent believe a company should not only be present but also interact with its consumers via social media. In fact, 56 percent of American consumers feel both a stronger connection with and better served by companies when they can interact with them in a social media environment.

When asked about specific types of interactions, Americans believe:

• Companies should use social networks to solve my problems (43%)
• Companies should solicit feedback on their products and services (41%)
• Companies should develop new ways for consumers to interact with their brand (37%)
• Companies should market to consumers (25%)
  

Cone also point out that this is a marketing lifeline for desirable but elusive prospects such as men in general, particularly, young men, and wealthy households. I think anyone would say these figures are high, but a little thought suggests they shouldn’t really be so surprising. In online marketing, the classic AIDA rules, Attention, Interest, Desire, Action, are more like:

• Get attention
• Drive to your website
• Encourage interaction
• Move to action

The middle two points can be weak points in the chain, and this is where I think social media make marketing more effective.

Why "driving to your website" is hard

People come online with a view formed already of where they want to go. Particularly, I suspect, men. Most men I know like to (in theory at least) do their shopping with a kind of military attitude – decide on the shop/s, what they’ll buy, how much they’ll pay, and what time they’ll be home again. If we imagine them transferring that mentality to the web, diverting them is going to be much harder than interacting with them where they are, and much easier if you have already started the interaction there.

Really encourage interaction!

People like the feeling that they are the one holding the remote control. No matter how friendly your website is, users don’t normally get that sense, because you decide the content and the rules. Social media offers a “home space”. If users can interact with you there, they don’t relinquish control.

In Europe, too?

Social media sites, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, Facebook etc, are doing pretty well in Europe. Facebook is apparently having difficulty getting the numbers in Germany, and actually hiring students to introduce them, but I think this reflects their being a little slow to localize, and maybe a preference for local rather than US sites. So with younger people social media are important, and the US experience is definitely relevant. For the rest of the market, we may still be a few years behind the US in using web features, so perhaps there is time to let this develop. But there’s no disadvantage to being on the scene early.