Vous pouvez ajouter des informations de localisation à vos Tweets, comme votre ville ou votre localisation précise, depuis le Web et via des applications tierces. Vous avez toujours la possibilité de supprimer l'historique de localisation de vos Tweets. En savoir plus
How does Trump win? That’s what I tackled in my talk to the Business Insider Trends conference in Warsaw today. Trump is a horrible person, with many terrible flaws. Yet he won. Partly because some of his communications are very effective.
The science of persuasion has taught us a lot about how to persuade people. But because humans are complicated, it’s not always obvious which trigger works best. Digital marketers on the other hand have often reverse engineered the same triggers,
...simply based on what works for them. I’ve spent my career straddling the corporate digital marketing world and politics – so Trump fascinates, and horrifies, me. So for my client Best for Britain, during the 2017 General Election...
..., we could test two identical adverts on the same audiences. The best ad outperformed the worst ad by 47%, just by changing a few wordspic.twitter.com/tCAsc6F0eW
We could see that celebrities drove lots of traffic to our website. But only if they tweeted a link. We could see that YouTube and Facebook advertising worked, but Twitter didn’t. And we could measure how quickly people went from signing up to an email list to donating money.pic.twitter.com/RqJecA3y6o
And this is possible in the corporate world too. Do people buy toothpaste after seeing a TV ad? Does a Facebook post make them like a brand better ? That is how we can understand what makes Donald Trump effective.
Donald Trump is an effective communicator. Because despite huge failings, he became President. And he has a good chance of getting elected again. Businesses can learn from this. Trump has three smart mind tricks. Firstly the power of simplicity.
He uses simple words. Short words. Short sentences. And lots of repetition. A child can understand him. Why is this good? Well our brains get confused. They confuse easy with good. A trick you may have seen with Apple. Consider this:pic.twitter.com/L6JPuDVKVa
Ask people which is true. Tests show that people choose the first. Why? Because it’s easier to read. [Both are lies incidentally]
What about long words? Well consider this academic study: Which shows that long words make you look less clever. So armed with science I looked at a Donald Trump speech. And I compared it to a Hillary Clinton speech .pic.twitter.com/VNFgkN7Arf
Source materials here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10MoQGrH51sl6NX64-GxTp3xz3u2v8lBFKzDa64eqFII/edit?usp=sharing … You only need to be 11 years old to understand the Trump speech. You need to be 15 years old to understand the Clinton speech. Still pretty good.pic.twitter.com/1CqMly7m3P
Or consider their sentence lengths. Trump’s typical sentence has 8 words. Clinton’s 17. You only need to be 11 years old to understand a Trump speech. And because of that, you don’t need to pay much attention to him.pic.twitter.com/0QpkL8jpJ1
What does it have? Short words. Short sentences. And lots of repetition. Lots of repetition. Repetition. Lots of it. Look at this speech:pic.twitter.com/KbhagVcB9j
What would Hillary Clinton say? Probably something like this:pic.twitter.com/6og2eZ1AXi
Same information. But not as effective. Our brains confuse simple and easy to understand with true. And we remember it more.pic.twitter.com/r52TRdVYi1
Short words win. Repeat things to win. Short words mean that people like you. Short words mean that people remember you. And short words help online too. Better written stuff does better in Google searches.
Anyone serious about SEO now edits their content for maximum readability. I have run tests on readability. Making text easier to read often leads to increases in open or click rates on emails of over 20%.
And if you want to get good at readability here’s something you can do today. Try and get good at Twitter. 180 characters forces you to use short words and simple ideas. So simple works. What else?
Grab people’s attention Trump dominates debate. When he’s absurd, you can’t ignore him. And you can’t attack him when everybody is talking about whatever he’s said today. Take this tweet. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/728297587418247168?lang=en …
Absurd. Ridiculous. Patronising. But seizes the attention. In the 2016 Presidential election Clinton spent double what Trump did on advertising. $800m to his $400m But Trump got over $5bn of free media coverage on TV, in print, radio and in social media....
Measured this way people heard Trump one third more space than Clinton. One third more space in people’s heads. Constantly grabbing people by the brain works. Firstly it makes Trump more familiar. Psychologists have a phrase: The ‘mere exposure effect’.
In other words the more familiar something is, the more we like it. On average. Secondly it frames the debate. People knew what Trump was talking about because time is limited on TV and radio.
And because attention is limited in people’s brains, that meant they knew less about what Clinton was talking about. That meant Trump could fight battles on his pitch. This pulled people’s attention towards Trump’s issues.pic.twitter.com/Fh9utN5Zlu
Trump could make sure the election was fought about issues he was strong on. By the end of the campaign the public’s top issues looked like this - with the Republicans winning the red ones.pic.twitter.com/oRRLU8Gi5W
So Trump got to fight on issues where people prefer the Republicans. He didn’t win on every top issue – but he did better than he would have. And how does contantly grabbing attention work online? Well it turns out that social networks do the work for him.
If you say something nasty then people talk about it. They share it. They comment on it. They like it. Or dislike it. And the social networks have a problem. A fight looks like good content. Facebook sees that babies get lots of likes, shares and comments.pic.twitter.com/sSh9DUnMQE
But it also sees that Donald Trump gets lots of likes, shares and comments. The social networks know they have this problem. But, they haven’t solved it. I did an experiment on this in 2017. By accident.
I wrote a sensible article about Brexit (with @mrianleslie)
We were careful.
We were polite.
We were reasonable.pic.twitter.com/QpIgXkwihi
But the New Statesman put this photo at the top of my article. It could be worse. When I posted it on Facebook and paid for some advertising it got attention straight away. People started fighting in the comments They shared it with friends. Hundreds liked it.pic.twitter.com/DPSD09vc4x
People fought so much that Facebook told me it was the best advert I’d ever done. And every social network does this. They make fights more visible. And this is great for Trump. Because he is great at starting fights. Free reach. Cheaper advertising. Grabbing attention.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.
