Now that the election is behind us, how well did the candidates do in the social media race?
South Side-based Eyeflow Internet Marketing
, a specialist in search engine optimization (SEO), has tallied how each candidate did in on the Internet in terms of SEO data, Google Trends (a tool that records how often a term or phrase is entered into Google), Pay-per-Click data and more.
, while mixed, are interesting.
One of the biggest takeaways is that Mitt Romney, compared to previous presidential candidates, hasn’t been that well researched online, says Phil Laboon, president and CEO of Eyeflow.
After the debates, however, the numbers went up. Google Trends showed Romney had five times as many searches as Obama.
“You would expect with the debate there would have been more user searches,” he says. “Either people already knew who they wanted to vote for, or they are using other sources.”
The following takeaways were based on searches and stats from the past 90 days, the final days of the campaign except where noted:
· Romney has been searched an average of 2.2 million times in the past 12 months compared to Barack Obama who has been searched an average of 1.8 million times.
· In September 2012, Mitt Romney.com generated more backlinks than the previous 6 months combined.
· While Obama’s numbers over the year haven’t changed much, Romney went from 65,000 hits in October 2011 to 502,00 in October 2012.
· President Obama had nearly triple the amount of Facebook likes, approximately 32 million compared to Romney’s approximate 12 million.
· On Twitter, President Obama overwhelmed Romney with approximately 21.7 million followers compared to Romney’s meager 1.7 million followers.
In comparison, Internet interest in the presidential candidates was lower than that of the iPhone 5, which was released in September. The iPhone 5 was searched more than both candidates combined.
Laboon believes that neither campaign utilized the Internet to its highest potential. He would like to see the presidential campaigns using this kind of data to make strategic changes based upon their findings.
“It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a great thing to be Googled,” says Laboon. “Really, it can be interpreted so many ways.”
Writer: Deb Smit
and Emily Shields
Source: Phil Laboon, Eyeflow