State Department bureau spent $630,000 on Facebook 'likes'
washingtonexaminer.com
washingtonexaminer.com
https://www.facebook.com/democracychallenge
There's definitely engagement happening on here. 2 percent of 2 million people is still 40,000 regularly engaged people. And on top of that, the algorithms probably had an effect on their engagement—they regularly had posts that gained 5,000+ likes as of last year, though the number has slowed down significantly. The question is, was it worth the cost as far as exposure and marketing goes? Did it reach the audience it was looking to reach?
It may have, at least for a while. Based on this 2011 press release that trumpets its 80% user base under the age of 24, they were clearly trying to reach young adults, no matter what the IG says in his report:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/03/159381.htm
It may not have been worth it in the end, but I get wary when I see standard-issue "government waste" stories like this, because what often happens is that the truth is somewhere in-between.
In the private sector, how many companies have spent millions trying to figure out how to make social media work for their businesses before finding an approach that delivers results? If government doesn't have the same flexibility to experiment, it will never figure out how to harness some of these new tools and will end up being relegated even more than it already is to using obsolete approaches and technologies.
Ideally government would have the ability to rapidly try new, small dollar projects with the expectation that many efforts would fail but a few would succeed and end up contributing to a new way of doing business. Unfortunately the institutional bias towards big, safe, and old-fashioned approaches is reinforced each time an innovative attempt at something new is perceived as falling short.
But when you dig a little deeper, the scooplets at times don't tend to stand up to scrutiny. (An example of this from a couple of years ago, involving a "$16 muffin": http://sfbne.ws/122aqOr )
In this case, the two-percent engagement number is a huge tell, because if you were to say 40,000 users or whatever it is, it wouldn't sound nearly as much like a waste of money.
And if you were to put this in context of what other marketing companies pay to get on Facebook, as well as the per-user costs they were paying, especially compared to other marketing venues, you might find that this is actually the most effective form of marketing for them. (How much did they spend on TV/magazine/other forms of outreach in the past? And what was their success rate?)
I'm not saying that this isn't a huge waste of money or time—it may still turn out to be, and a big one at that—but we aren't being given all of the variables here, and being asked to base this entire story on one side of the claims.
Remember—in D.C. political media, sometimes you won't hear the other side of the story, so being skeptical and not taking things at face value is probably for the best.
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.
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.
Why does anyone care about fans/friends on facebook. Such a waste of our societies capitol.
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!"
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.
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.
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?
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.
Failed to get the right audience? Lack of clear goals? Wrong strategy? Unfortunately, par for the course in marketing ...
Does this frivolous spending of tax payer money get categorized under marketing expenses or operating losses? [sarcasm]
[0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297934/IRS-apologiz...
And, frankly, without reading the actual report (which the OP doesn't link to) it's hard to know if you're getting the whole story here. The Washington Examiner is a right wing publication, so it's not hard to see where they might selectively present details to paint this in a negative light. Not saying that they are distorting things, but absent a review of the original document, it's something to keep in mind.
The Examiner does tend to cherry-pick, and it's definitely worth reviewing the document. I searched the doc for "facebook" and it looks to me like the broader goal was engagement, not "likes" as an end-all. They were working off the assumption that more likes meant more engagement, and during that campaign, people started to realize and point out that it wasn't happening. And to that end it appears to be a waste of $630k.
But it's not the case that they just blindly wanted more likes because it feels good. (The article doesn't say that, but a lot of people think about "likes" that way). Facebook and Twitter are legit ways to reach international audiences, for example, to disseminate propaganda / information (depending on how you lean).
It's not accidental: their PR departments are filled with slackers and their budget needs to be spent. They're going for the lowest-common-denominator with the cheapest cost and the least amount of effort, which is par the course for non-essential government spending.