Share and share a ‘like’ shapes as election theme

racial prejudice.

This eventually became a big problem, so in recent years evolutionists have scrambled to introduce the ‘‘Out-of-Africa’’ model which purportedly extricates them from the unacceptable stain of racism. Remember ‘‘the worm?’’. It’s a tool hated by politicians that is supposed to track the mood of undecided voters during a political debate.

With the explosion in social media, it’s on the endangered list.

What use is the worm when you’ve got Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Snap Chat to track the public mood?

That moment when a fly landed on Hillary’s face (#HillaryFly), ‘‘bad hombres’’ memes, Trump sniffles. We’ve called so many elections the social media election it’s long lost its surprise value. But then someone finds a new way to use it that nobody was expecting.

Like the Trump camp’s livestream of Thursday’s debate through the Republican candidate’s Facebook page, complete with an alternative commentary team. Whatever you see there, expect here. In 2014 it was the selfie election – 2017 will be our first Facebook campaign.

It’s not just a race for the best viral video or dank memes. It’s about the unparalleled access social media offers to voters’ hearts and minds and ‘‘likes’’ through their Facebook feeds. Big brother is taking notes and we willingly opened the door.

So it was no surprise when Justice Minister Amy Adams sounded the death knell this week for the old Soviet-style party political broadcasts that traditionally air on TV and radio at the start of every election campaign.

For those who need a refresher, the party political broadcasts are up to 20-minute-long political statements. State radio and TV are obliged to allocate broadcast time and taxpayers put their hand in their pocket to pay for the production.

These broadcasts had their heyday when the National Party’s infamous Dancing Cossacks ad did the 1970s equivalent of ‘‘going viral’’. Thanks to a potent cocktail of spin, half-truths and a comical troupe of prancing Russians, it helped sweep the Labour government out of power.

But of course that was back in the day when we had only just got our second TV channel.

With MySky, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook and news at your fingertips these days,most voters probably would have missed it.

Audience numbers tell the story. The opening addresses in the 2014 election campaign were down 25 per cent on usual, probably because they screened opposite an All Blacks test on a Saturday night. (But then, TVNZ wouldn’t have shunted them to that time slot if they were a ratings winner.)

Surprisingly, given those figures, politicians have still managed to put a dollar figure on how much they reckon all that ‘‘free’’ advertising is worth to them – $750,000.

Rather than forgo it, they’ve reallocated it elsewhere, primarily for online advertising. Why give up a guaranteed (if shrinking) TV audience for one of those pesky online ads which people just swat away anyway?

Because it’s less about ads than likes, shares and engagement.

Take a look at Prime Minister John Key’s Facebook page and you’ll see why the politicians are so desperate to sink that money into digital, rather than a 20-minute-long party political broadcast.

A recent video of him poking around a special housing area got nearly 200,000 views and 271 shares. A message to mums for Mother’s Day got 52,000 views.

National woke up to the power of Facebook and social media when Key posted a video outlining his support for a new flag, the Silver Fern. It got nearly 2 million views, a figure that blew the strategists and media teams away.

The flag video also acts as a cautionary tale. Getting nearly two million views didn’t help Key win the argument to change the flag.

The power of the party political broadcast is not completely dead either – National’s advertisement depicting Opposition parties in a rowboat that went round in circles was devastatingly effective in 2014. But why not show it on Facebook rather than screen it on telly at a time when no one is watching?

Given the potentially millions of views on social media, it’s not a stretch to imagine political parties circumventing the cap on election advertising by contracting out attack ads under the guise of satire.

But Facebook also offers unparalleled ways of getting to the core of what drives voters. The social media giant doesn’t hide its intrusive powers under a bushel either.

In its pitch to politicians, it promises to help parties build email lists, raise money and activate people to support their campaigns. It also pitches its ability to track undecided voters and promises the ability to scale ‘‘your get out of the vote effort’’ by sending alerts reminding people to vote.

Other tools include the ability to target voters based on their ‘‘predicted political affinity’’, tap into the political conversation on Facebook by targeting those most likely to spread political information (the modern equivalent of talkback radio), and using Facebook profiling to tailor different messages to different audiences.

Thanks to website cookies it’s even possible to track people’s digital trail to other websites, so you can build a picture of their likes and interests, and even see what they buy, though our politicians are coy about the extent to which they can and do use these tools.

Much of Facebook’s marketing is pitched at the US market and our privacy laws may place some curbs. But given the private briefings offered by Google and Facebook to New Zealand MPs, maybe not much.

So don’t be surprised if your MP seems to know what you’re thinking next year even before you do.