Recently, I reviewed the websites of the top six presidential candidates, to see what small business owners could learn from them.
What I found surprised me in ways I did not expect.
My review of the Presidential websites is published over at SmallBizTechnology.com where I cover such points as:
- which website has a hard-to-remember URL and why;
- how some websites use design elements to signify what the candidate stands for (law and order; military and country; family values);
- the surprising and glaring absence of any economic platform on one candidate’s website;
- which candidates have done a stellar job embracing social media sites like MySpace and YouTube;
- how all the candidates have blogs, but one blog stands out as the best; and
- the one single improvement that all of the candidate websites could use.
Read: Presidential Candidate Web Sites – What Small Businesses Can Learn
Chris
I agree with your comments about Rudy Giuliani’s site and, personally, I found Hilary’s the most impressive. I do like the way that many of them are making use of social media sites like MySpace and YouTube.
It’s smart that Rudy Giuliani’s front page includes a form that visitors can fill out to get involved, but I was just about ready to exit the site, thinking I had to register to view the content. The “skip this” link should be more prominent in this specific case.
I can see why social networking is a good idea, but to me, a candidate posting a profile on MySpace doesn’t seem that serious. It might be the wrong demographic. Most people on MySpace are interested in sending messages to their friends and listening to new bands and whatnot. A more mature social network would be a better approach.
Anita Campbell
Hi Mila, you raise a really interesting point about MySpace.
My thinking is that it’s important to reach out to people on places like MySpace, but if I were a candidate I would not confuse that with votes. The MySpace crowd may be noticeable online. But I suspect most of them will disappear into thin air come election day.
Still, even though I doubt that MySpace will result in many votes for the candidates, it says something about a candidate who seems to want to LISTEN TO the people, by making it easy for people to show their support online, get involved and participate in a community, write blog posts, etc. In today’s participative world, that tends to be more expected than a walled-off attitude of a candidate who just wants to TALK AT the people.
But what do the rest of you think?
When a candidate sets up a page on MySpace or Facebook, is it sending the wrong message about the candidate’s seriousness?
Best,
Anita
Amanda
I completely understand that the candidates want to reach an array of potential voters. I like that they want to reach younger generations on MySpace but I don’t think they will find many serious voters there. It in no way reflects on their seriousness to me.
I think this next election is very important. It’s up to the public to pick a candidate with which we agree with their views on issues. I think all of the candidates need to make it perfectly clear on where they stand. There is lots of “fancy stuff” on their home pages, but I think that’s where they should be featuring their strong election points of view.
All of the sites are well made but I liked Hillary Clinton’s the best. The home page is easy to navigate and not too congested.