Skip to main content

Trump And Twitter


The people who are always wrong are convinced that to a significant extent Trump's victory was the result of his masterful use of Twitter.

According to an article in the the NY Times in which reporters in the bubble ask marketers in the bubble why people in the bubble got it wrong....
"...the chief executive of the public relations company Edelman, said Mr. Trump’s use of Twitter — which he often used to forcefully attack Mrs. Clinton and the news media — and reduced reliance on traditional TV ads showed the power of “peer-to-peer” communication."
Horseshit.

As usual, the people who do marketing by selfie-stick think that everyone is like them. According to a study in the UK, an advertising person is almost 7 times as likely to have a Twitter account as a real person.

Here are the facts:
  • Only 20% of adults have a Twitter account.
  • Only 15% of rural adults (heavy Trump backers) use Twitter.
  • Only 11% of people over 50 (the most likely voters) use Twitter.
In fact, if Trump's tweeting had a significant effect it was because of television's obsessive coverage of his tweets. Take away newspaper and, especially, television coverage of his tweets and they would have been dust in the wind.

Think about it. Where did you see Trump's tweets? On Twitter or on television?

Trump is a television creation. Do you think he'd be president if The Apprentice was a fucking webinar?

If you want to have a stroke, read this bullshit about the election from marketing experts.

There is no way in the world Trump should have won this election. But he did. And the reason he did had very little to do with data or social media or any of the other nonsense we're hearing. It was primarily because he had a simple, clear message that was popular with a lot of people -- "Fuck You, Washington."

And the reason Clinton lost was that she had no message. Period. Exclamation point. End of story.

My favorite quote in the Times article referenced above was from the ceo of DDB (apparently a Clinton advisor) translating the lessons of Trump's victory into brand babble... 
“Brands can shape culture, so I think in that sense brands have a responsibility to represent their values and talk about them...And if you’re an inclusive brand — there’s nothing more democratic to me than inclusion.”
I'm sure there's a language in which that horseshit means something, but I'll be damned if I know what it is.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What's There To Laugh About?

Laughing@Advertising is my new book. Yes, this time I've gone too far. It's a collection of my most irresponsible and inappropriate blog posts, essays, and cave drawings. You might say it's 200 pages of insults, wise-cracks, cheap shots, and dirty words. In other words, fun for the whole family! I'm out to disrupt the disruptors -- those somber, imperious souls who have made marketing and advertising such an earnest and humorless endeavor. I am hoping this is the silliest, most injudicious book about our industry you've read. And in some unwholesome, subversive way, the truest and funniest. It is on sale now at Amazon. It is only available in paperback. There ain't gonna be no ebook. Why? Pixels aren't funny. At $6.99 the paperback is cheaper than most of the stupid-ass marketing ebooks you buy anyway. So quit whining and click here .   And don't say I didn't warn you. Update : Huge thanks to everyone. It launched yesterday and it immediately becam...
Post a Comment
Read more

Facebook's Dangerous Ad Model

People sometimes ask me some version of the following question: "Why are you so down on political ads on Facebook and not on TV?" It's a reasonable question. The answer has 3 parts: 1. Television advertising is obviously advertising. When we see a TV spot, we know exactly what it is. No one ever mistook a TV spot for a news broadcast. Ads on Facebook, however, look exactly like "content." It is hard to differentiate an ad from a post or a post from a news item. Consequently, political ads on Facebook often serve as fake news even if they are not intended to be such. 2. On television (and radio) political ads are required to be identified as such. Not on Facebook. Facebook maintains the absurd position that it is not a media company. In fact, it is the largest media company in the history of the world. By saying they are a "platform" or a "tech company" or some other obfuscation, they have exempted themselves from the adult responsibilit...
Post a Comment
Read more

Digital First Equals Me First

"Digital first" is the philosophy of imbeciles who know the answer before they know the question. They know the treatment before they know the condition. They know what tool to use before they know what's broken. Imagine a doctor whose philosophy is "appendectomy first." He knows the cure before he knows the disease. There is no other industry that would accept such manifest stupidity. But it is not just alive in our industry, it is commonplace. There are a few reasons why this idiocy exists. First, and most understandable, is that it's what some people were taught. They learned it in school and have sought to learn nothing new since. They have made a practice of interpreting the world through its myopic lens. Believing in the rapidly decomposing digital fantasy ( see this and this , ) they never bothered to acquire any other advertising or marketing knowledge. If the only tool you have is a hammer...well, you know the rest. These people are ignorant, but i...
Post a Comment
Read more