As the former National Director of Special Events for Mr Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaign in 2008, Mr Roger Fisk had a key role in developing its mobilisation of social media, which was instrumental to Mr Obama’s election victories in both 2008 and 2012. Mr Obama was seen as the underdog going into both elections.

The 2008 campaign strategy revolutionised modern political fund-raising — it not only saw the unprecedented use of new media and support of low-dollar donors, but also built the largest donor base in United States history. The campaign raised US$100 million (S$124.8 million) in 11 months.

Last week, Mr Fisk was in Singapore to share lessons, tools and organisational strategies from the Obama campaigns’ successes at the Singapore Media Academy’s Transmedia SG 2013 event.

Besides speaking on the innovative use of social and new media to create and enhance relationships, he shared the creative approaches to reach new customers and clients, as well as new ways to leverage the value of traditional media.

In an interview with TODAY, Mr Fisk, who is now with the London SpeakerBureau, shared his thoughts on how politicians can use social media effectively in their campaigns — from avoiding the pitfalls of scattering their presence too wide and not maintaining their online relationships, to the need to adapt to an empowered electorate.

How effective is the use of social media as a means of reaching out to candidates and political parties during elections, as compared to the use of traditional media?

Mr Fisk: Social media is incredibly effective for reaching out to individuals in a personal way. However, the potential of both old and new media is greatly enhanced when all work together. Neither approach, when done alone, will generate anywhere near the results that you can get when you harmonise social media, free or earned media, and traditional media like advertising, direct mail and television.

What are the challenges and pitfalls of using social media for

electoral campaigns?

I think they are the same pitfalls as (what) the private sector faces; for some, there is a tendency to establish a social media presence and then think the job is done, when in fact (social media) has to be looked at like a relationship or a muscle. It requires constant exercise and activity if it is to be at all meaningful, so organisations really have to commit themselves to using social media to create and enhance relationships. If they just want to post some tools on their Web page and check the box in terms of having a Twitter or Facebook presence, the results will be minimal. In a similar vein, organisations must want to hear from people. If you do not care what consumers or voters think, then any social media exercise will not only be hollow, but will reflect that lack of appetite for an exchange. The leadership must want to have that conversation with individuals, and we certainly did want that engagement in the two Obama campaigns.

How can politicians effectively tap on social media to reach out to their constituents?

They must decide on the leadership/management level (on which) they actually want to have an exchange with people and hear their views. I would recommend looking at eight to 10 different platforms and choosing two to three and focusing on doing them and doing them well. It is also very easy for organisations to scatter their online presence too wide; engage in so many tools that they don’t maximise any one of them. Pick a few (platforms) and prioritise them.

Do you think the social media platform is inherently suited to the younger electorate?

Social media is a more comfortable exercise for younger voters, but they also vote less, so it is a balance. Once engaged … they will consume a lot of information online and really use that to help generate their decisions. I saw one statistic recently that almost every car purchase in the US involved some Web research, so even the older people, once engaged, are willing to absorb information and be persuaded. That being said, since social media is changing so rapidly it will always be young people who adapt better because many will come of age with each technological advance and will naturally regard the most recent tools as how it has always been.

Do you think social media has an intrinsic anti-establishment slant?

Social media is like a hammer or a phone. It only means something once someone picks it up and starts using it. It is inherently populist, which is broader in sociological terms than just political, since it empowers individuals to access information from a wider spectrum then traditional outlets. When I was kid, there were three TV networks and if you missed the news at 6pm, you were out of luck. Now news and information is always on tap, ready and available for every person’s schedule and preference. That is the biggest change for politics and advertising; the decentralisation of information distribution.

In light of President Obama’s re-election campaign, how should incumbent governments or candidates approach the social media platform?

My advice to corporate and government leaders is to accept that we have crossed into a world where individuals are far more empowered then they were even five years ago. Even two years ago! The difference in people’s online lives between the first and second Obama campaigns is immeasurable and we had to adapt ... People’s online life became more portable and were no longer tethered to and defined by a desk computer. It made for much different habits in terms of how and when they consumed news and conducted their online lives. Social media has to be looked at like the wheel or the automobile; it is here now, and it is never going away and mature, confident organisations will roll up their sleeves and find that there is a lot of value and benefit in this new engagement.