5 ms·

An honest question: is there a rational reason to get upset about this but not about other State Dept. marketing/PR efforts? This number is a small fraction of

by jmduke 13y ago

An honest question: is there a rational reason to get upset about this but not about other State Dept. marketing/PR efforts? This number is a small fraction of the State Department's overall budget and it increased their engagement from 100,000 likes to 2 million. I feel like the title invites a kneejerk reaction, but its entirely possible this was the best way the State Department had to increase their accessibility.

joejohnson 13y ago
Give me $600,000 and I'll double that 2 million likes to 4 million likes. Does that add any value for end users of the State Dept. (i.e. taxpayers)?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  end users of the State Dept. (i.e. taxpayers Given that the State Department is the authority that issues visas for travel to the US, operates embassies and so on, a lot of the end users are not taxpayers.
  - anaptdemise 13y ago
    Who else is paying them to promote themselves? It isn't the immigrants. So yes, that makes the tax payer the benefactor of their operations. So how does the State Department benefit tax payers by having friends on FB? Why does anyone care about fans/friends on facebook. Such a waste of our societies capitol.
MikeCapone 13y ago
"I feel like the title invites a kneejerk reaction, but its entirely possible this was the best way the State Department had to increase their accessibility." Developing a presence on social media, sure. Buying "likes"..? I'd need to see a convincing case that this helps in any way. To me it sounds like a way of 'juking the stats', as they would say in The Wire. A way for the people who created the social media program to report to the higher-ups that "things are working really well, see, we have millions of people liking us and using our pages!"
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  That's not an accurate characterization. It's not that they were buying fake 'Likes' on, say, Facebook: After the 2011 reorganization, the coordinator initiated a push to expand the bureau's presence on social media and other digital platforms. IIP started or expanded English-language Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and blogs aimed directly at foreign audiences. The bureau also started or expanded online activities in six foreign languages. The coordinator initiated two campaigns in 2011 and 2012, with the goal of building global outreach platforms for engagement with foreign audiences by increasing the number of fans on IIP's four thematic Facebook properties, primarily through advertising as well as through some page improvements. The bureau spent about $630,000 on the two campaigns and succeeded in increasing the fans of the English Facebook pages from about 100,000 to more than 2 million for each page. Advertising also helped increase interest in the foreign language pages; by March 2013, they ranged from 68,000 to more than 450,000 fans. Many in the bureau criticize the advertising campaigns as "buying fans" who may have once clicked on an ad or "liked" a photo but have no real interest in the topic and have never engaged further. Defenders of advertising point to the difficulty of finding a page on Facebook with a general search and the need to use ads to increase visibility.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Ooops - s/Facebook/eBay.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  You can't actually buy "likes" on Facebook. You can advertise to people on Facebook, and some percentage of the people who see your ads will choose to "like" your page. Advertising is a tried and true way to increase the visibility of a product or service.
danso 13y ago
Maybe because it smacks of "buying" love? It doesn't help that the thing here is called "Likes" and they are literally paying money to get people to "Like" them...so yes, your suspicion is right that some of this is connotation. On the other hand, I think most people here don't like the idea of PR/propaganda period and the fact that it's Facebook-powered propaganda makes it even more unpopular. But part of it just seems like a fool's plan. There's a sneaking suspicion (OK, from me, at least) that they've paid money for a lot of magic beans without any real way to measure ROI.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  This was part of their 'public diplomacy' mission, aimed at the rest of the world rather than the US.
  - joonix 13y ago
    They do a lot more stuff to improve America's "image" that costs a lot more. At my graduate school there were students from a central Asian country (a moderately wealthy and advanced one, too). They got full tuition to get a post-graduate law degree, free housing, free healthcare, free books, everything. What's the point of this? Spending $100,000+ per person? For what, so they can go back to their country and hopefully speak well of the US? And then our reputation improves there... so what? Maybe these programs are just bargaining chips as part of a larger trade negotiation that brings in far more for the US. I'm not sure of that. But I really question the extent of our foreign involvement -- is it really for the best interests of the American people? Or just the best interests of American corporations?
    - danso 13y ago
      Well, first of all, those are 5 to 6 people whose lives are immeasurably improved, regardless of what capacity they choose to serve the U.S. in....can we say that the 1 million "Likes" offered any improvement to the account holders? You could argue the long game, I guess, that the State Department, in those 1 million likes, will inspire at least 100 Facebook users to the delights of the State Department who may not have paid attention through other channels...and that's the argument you can make with any PR campaign. In the defense of Facebook spending, you can at least argue that the eyeballs-reached/engaged is quantifiable, which you can't with most forms of glorified PR campaigns.
chaz 13y ago
I find it hard to fault any organization for trying social media in 2012. In fact, I think it's actually worse for the head of marketing at any organization to not spend any money on social marketing and stick to just traditional media. Or at least have a good reason to have avoided it. Failed to get the right audience? Lack of clear goals? Wrong strategy? Unfortunately, par for the course in marketing ...
smokeyj 13y ago
Great question, why do we put up with any propaganda?

by jmduke 13y ago

joejohnson 13y ago

Give me $600,000 and I'll double that 2 million likes to 4 million likes. Does that add any value for end users of the State Dept. (i.e. taxpayers)?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 13y ago
end users of the State Dept. (i.e. taxpayers Given that the State Department is the authority that issues visas for travel to the US, operates embassies and so on, a lot of the end users are not taxpayers.
- anaptdemise 13y ago
  Who else is paying them to promote themselves? It isn't the immigrants. So yes, that makes the tax payer the benefactor of their operations. So how does the State Department benefit tax payers by having friends on FB? Why does anyone care about fans/friends on facebook. Such a waste of our societies capitol.

MikeCapone 13y ago

"I feel like the title invites a kneejerk reaction, but its entirely possible this was the best way the State Department had to increase their accessibility." Developing a presence on social media, sure. Buying "likes"..? I'd need to see a convincing case that this helps in any way. To me it sounds like a way of 'juking the stats', as they would say in The Wire. A way for the people who created the social media program to report to the higher-ups that "things are working really well, see, we have millions of people liking us and using our pages!"

anigbrowl 13y ago
That's not an accurate characterization. It's not that they were buying fake 'Likes' on, say, Facebook: After the 2011 reorganization, the coordinator initiated a push to expand the bureau's presence on social media and other digital platforms. IIP started or expanded English-language Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and blogs aimed directly at foreign audiences. The bureau also started or expanded online activities in six foreign languages. The coordinator initiated two campaigns in 2011 and 2012, with the goal of building global outreach platforms for engagement with foreign audiences by increasing the number of fans on IIP's four thematic Facebook properties, primarily through advertising as well as through some page improvements. The bureau spent about $630,000 on the two campaigns and succeeded in increasing the fans of the English Facebook pages from about 100,000 to more than 2 million for each page. Advertising also helped increase interest in the foreign language pages; by March 2013, they ranged from 68,000 to more than 450,000 fans. Many in the bureau criticize the advertising campaigns as "buying fans" who may have once clicked on an ad or "liked" a photo but have no real interest in the topic and have never engaged further. Defenders of advertising point to the difficulty of finding a page on Facebook with a general search and the need to use ads to increase visibility.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Ooops - s/Facebook/eBay.
snowwrestler 13y ago
You can't actually buy "likes" on Facebook. You can advertise to people on Facebook, and some percentage of the people who see your ads will choose to "like" your page. Advertising is a tried and true way to increase the visibility of a product or service.

danso 13y ago

Maybe because it smacks of "buying" love? It doesn't help that the thing here is called "Likes" and they are literally paying money to get people to "Like" them...so yes, your suspicion is right that some of this is connotation. On the other hand, I think most people here don't like the idea of PR/propaganda period and the fact that it's Facebook-powered propaganda makes it even more unpopular. But part of it just seems like a fool's plan. There's a sneaking suspicion (OK, from me, at least) that they've paid money for a lot of magic beans without any real way to measure ROI.

anigbrowl 13y ago
This was part of their 'public diplomacy' mission, aimed at the rest of the world rather than the US.
- joonix 13y ago
  They do a lot more stuff to improve America's "image" that costs a lot more. At my graduate school there were students from a central Asian country (a moderately wealthy and advanced one, too). They got full tuition to get a post-graduate law degree, free housing, free healthcare, free books, everything. What's the point of this? Spending $100,000+ per person? For what, so they can go back to their country and hopefully speak well of the US? And then our reputation improves there... so what? Maybe these programs are just bargaining chips as part of a larger trade negotiation that brings in far more for the US. I'm not sure of that. But I really question the extent of our foreign involvement -- is it really for the best interests of the American people? Or just the best interests of American corporations?
  - danso 13y ago
    Well, first of all, those are 5 to 6 people whose lives are immeasurably improved, regardless of what capacity they choose to serve the U.S. in....can we say that the 1 million "Likes" offered any improvement to the account holders? You could argue the long game, I guess, that the State Department, in those 1 million likes, will inspire at least 100 Facebook users to the delights of the State Department who may not have paid attention through other channels...and that's the argument you can make with any PR campaign. In the defense of Facebook spending, you can at least argue that the eyeballs-reached/engaged is quantifiable, which you can't with most forms of glorified PR campaigns.

chaz 13y ago

I find it hard to fault any organization for trying social media in 2012. In fact, I think it's actually worse for the head of marketing at any organization to not spend any money on social marketing and stick to just traditional media. Or at least have a good reason to have avoided it. Failed to get the right audience? Lack of clear goals? Wrong strategy? Unfortunately, par for the course in marketing ...

smokeyj 13y ago

Great question, why do we put up with any propaganda?