A quick observation. No is outspending Yes by an *inordinate* degree in digital. It's an order of magnitude more. We're still weeks away.
Remember those Protect the 8th pre-roll ads I tweeted about a week ago? They were 200k views. Now 700k views. That's quite a spend on pre-roll.
That account has 3 subscribers btw, from 3 videos. How's Together for Yes doing on YouTube? Bar the recent celebrity video (67k), all their ads barely break 100 views. So no ad spend and one viral?
Turn to all the No side display ads covering essentially every website I visit these days... Yes side ads...*tumbleweed* . Do the ads matter? I'd say they do.
Digital campaign ads amount to hammering people over the head with the same message over and over. Particularly easy in binary polls like referenda.
They don't have to work for everyone. They have to work for some people. If you've a massive budget, a binary poll and a deadline, you just ramp it to polling day. Perception shaped towards "consensus" also.
Last week I said the Yes side should be fundraising and ramping spend. In 8 days since then, I've seen essentially nothing. Focus seems to be ground game w/ little digital. IMHO this is a mistake.
My two cents; the polls are wrong. No is ahead. Voter registration notwithstanding the result will be extremely tight, and No will edge it. But still weeks to go.
Call me crazy. But Yes is not at the races online from what I see. Has Yes decided it's not a priority? If so, why? No has tighter and clearer messaging and is going in €€€.
Yes can complain about lack of money till the cows come home. Are they asking? Spending? Consistently? With core messaging? I can hear the gnashing of teeth come the count.
FB and YouTube ads amount to digital door knocking while being able to quantify better what interest the voter has or not, without interrupting them watching Corrie. Also just saturate. "I voted no because I saw more No ads, and their message was more effective"
Happy to listen to people who think this assessment incorrect. But saying "why don't you give advice etc" is partly, well, late. These plans needed to be in place months ago. Budgets, fundraising, etc. I'm just not seeing evidence of *a plan*.
Let's take some examples from the No side. This video was posted on April 18. It's currently running as an ad on FB. Approaching 1m views. 
Same page, different ad. Posted April 13, 266k views. That's 1.2m views for one page, two videos. Lest I remind you of the size of the Irish voting population. Some dissenting views in comments, but ads are being bought.
Here's another one. 170k views. That's 1.4m views on three videos, all also currently running ads.
And if you're thinking those views are organic? Nope. The page has 1,574 fans. Each video gets never more than 1k shares (in many cases far less).
This is like a parody. It's like I'm caught in a web of denial and/or inability to accept honest questioning of what I'm seeing, or naivete around impact of social media on voters. Either there's a problem, or there isn't. I'm saying there is.
Arguments that won't sway me from *what I'm seeing* (or *maybe*, what's actually happening):
1. "Well why aren't you contributing?"
2. "We have no money or no clear plan to raise it; No has more cash"
3. "Social media is a bubble anyway"
4. "It's different on the ground"
1. "Well why aren't you contributing?"
2. "We have no money or no clear plan to raise it; No has more cash"
3. "Social media is a bubble anyway"
4. "It's different on the ground"
So either Yes thinks
a) Nah, digital isn't important, ground game will win
b) Digital is important, but we got no cash compared to No
So which is it? If it's a) then carry on as you are. If it's b) then execute a plan to raise money, as has been successfully done before.
a) Nah, digital isn't important, ground game will win
b) Digital is important, but we got no cash compared to No
So which is it? If it's a) then carry on as you are. If it's b) then execute a plan to raise money, as has been successfully done before.
Of course it can be a mix of the above. But evidence right now suggests a mix is not being explored. It is either a) or b) I'm seeing right now. Perhaps the Yes side is planning a massive ad campaign in next 2 weeks. Just not seeing hints of it.
And lastly; it is concerning how defensive some of Yes are being when shown evidence of how well No are doing on digital. And, sure, I might be wrong too. But are Yes prepared to take that risk? Hm.
