Rush Fire

It is tempting to look at the recent dust up around Rush Limbaugh’s insulting name-calling of a law school student as merely another instance in a right vs. left battle in this country. Many times, commentators will mention that people on the left are equally capable of inflammatory comments as they go on to skewer Rush.  Some on the right, sensing it is a partisan issue, have defended Rush, even some women.

Although I have a strong opinion on the subject from both a political as well as a propriety view, there's something that a lot of people are missing about this incident: the rising political power of social media and, just as importantly, the dominating use of social media by women.

In a nut shell, Rush used fighting words against a woman, and women are fighting back and winning.

Proflowers Facebook page

~6K Likes, ~8K comments

And the tools they are using are social media.  But, strangely, the traditional media is blind to that.  Take the first article I linked to in this blog post, from "The Week".  Where does it mention the intense conversation taking place on Facebook? The websites devoted to tracking the advertisers to Rush's show and barraging them with demands to stop advertising?  Nowhere.  If you were to just read the article, you would think that the advertisers acted out of moral indignity, not in response to pressure from the (female) public.

Nearly 300,000 people Liked Planned Parenthood,

about a third of those who like Rush.  You might be

tempted to think the Social Media audience is male

and conservative.  That is a dangerous assumption.

But let's look at the ways social media worked to rally a response to Rush Limbaugh.  First is the obvious channel of Facebook.  There are all sorts of friend to friend sharing of outrage, although it's hard for anyone to see much of that given the general privacy settings on Facebook.  But we can see some of the effects nonetheless.

Rush is getting a lot of traffic on his Facebook page, pro and con:

Nearly 20k comments on Rush's Page

And there's a whole bunch of Boycott Rush groups on Facebook, including this one:

This is pushing people to write to advertisers, asking them to drop support for Rush's show.  For example, take a look at Lifelock's page on Facebook:

And 2000 more on another post

You might say this is a tempest in a Facebook teapot, but have a look at what's going on out on the Internet. One example is "boycottrush.org"which redirects to "leftaction.com".  Let's look at its traffic (courtesy of Alexa):

It has gone from being nothing to being somewhere around the 14,000th most visited site on the web.  That seems insignificant until you drill down and discover that about 1.5 million visitors have stopped by this page since the start of the Rush fire. (see footnotes)  This is a lot of visitors.

And these visitors are mostly female and aged 45 and up.  These are not the people most associate with savvy internet users, but that assumption is clearly wrong (as an aside, these are the people who tend to vote).  Perhaps not too surprisingly, many of these are women who are veterans of the women's liberation movement.  They obviously haven't lost their fervor, and they're taking it online.

This group is well organized, maintaining a web-collaboration based spreadsheet in of advertisers (former and current) with contact information which they are keeping current with every show:

And Rush has been a popular topic on Twitter all of a sudden, to no surprise:

Sadly, there is no sentiment tracking that would help us differentiate the pro-rush vs. anti-rush tweets.  But given the other activity on the internet, it's safe assumption that a lot of it is anti.

I also find it amusing that there seems to be a bit of a gender divide in the analysis of what's going on. My observation is that male reporters seem more blind to the social media power that is being brought to bear and are quicker to focus on the partisan or free-speech aspects of the situation rather than the misogyny that women respond to.  It would appear that if it's not your ox that's being gored it's easier to be dispassionate.

Coming on the heels of the Susan G. Komen situation, it's clear that women are starting to find that they have a real power they can exercise through social media.  (For us men, it would be best if we pay attention to it!)

You might think that this topic is far afield from the core of enterprise technology, but keep this in mind.  Rush Limbaugh is not just a man, but a very large business undertaking.  It is easy to say it's just him, but the problems that cropped up have affected his business and his scores of partners.  Any business which is  in the public eye can have a problem like this.

Rush himself seems to have gone days before he noticed the firestorm he started, and as a result made a situation much worse before he issued his apology.  Had he been more aware, and apologized sooner, it would have better diffused the situation.  It seems to me that a company (and Rush is a company) that notices a mistake quickly and reacts to it looks much better than one that lets things drag on.  The former seems like a company that cares, while the latter seems only like a company that didn't realize it had been caught until too late.

The advertisers have adopted a different strategy, which is to lay low mostly.  Regardless of whether they stay or go, their communications tend to be as succinct and under the radar as possible.  Everyone knows the risks of offending one side or the other, and many seem intent on saying as little as possible, probably hoping it will all blow over eventually.  Whether you can hide in this era of social media is an open question; perhaps for the partners they can, but certainly Rush cannot.

In the end, neither Rush nor most of his advertisers were attune to the signals that were coming from the social media. Your CEO may not call a college student a slut in front of millions of people, but it's just as easy to unwittingly commit some other faux pas that triggers a massive response.  And if you are an advertiser, you have to contend with the perception that your advertising is an endorsement of the person you are sponsoring; now you have to worry about partner reputations as well.

To be fair, most uninvolved people (read: men) didn't pay a whole lot of attention to social media initially.  But the situation shows that businesses cannot afford to turn a deaf ear to the voices being raised on the internet. The only questions left now are how to listen and how to respond.


Footnotes:

Estimate of 1.5 million visitors to leftaction.com:

http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm estimates total internet population at 2.3 billion users 

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/leftaction.com# estimates daily traffic since the start of the Rush fire on average of .014% of the total internet population.  This also gives demographics of the visitors. 

That works out to about 300K daily visitors, or 1.5 million for the 5 days of the Rush fire tracked by Alexa at the time of this writing.