The party of the Ferragnez.

I see a lot of excitement regarding the fact that the Ferragnez have bought a domain. Considering the average cost of a domain, in terms of CRM (I have already talked about it) I would say that the investment has already been overpaid.

Attention, because if it works so well, the day they open a site like LaFerragniPerLanticristo.net a mess will happen. I would say that the relationship between expenditure and revenue was amazing.

It seems to be the hot topic, because at the end of the day it is said that the number of followers of the Ferragnez is enormous. And it's true.

But that's only half the truth.

The problem is not that the number of followers of Ferragnez is high.

The problem is that the number of "useful" followers of the parties is low.

So, there are 46 million voters. Of these, 16 million (ISTAT data) are retired. It may seem irrelevant to you, but retirees don't work.

It means that they are not the people you find in the office, the people who drive in traffic in the morning, the people you find behind the counter in the shop, in short, the active people.

About 30 million people out of 60 million remain. An absurd demographic deficit. Now the Lega arrives and tells me it has about 20%. We are about 6 million voters, of which on average only half are active, the rest are retired. (assuming a standard distribution: in my opinion the pensioners among the league's voters are even more, otherwise they would not be fixed with Fornero).

But what does this mean? That if you don't go around breaking down doors in retirees' homes, your chances of meeting a real-life Northern League player in real life are LOW.

In a nutshell: the League has an electoral impact of something around 20%, while it has a social impact that is around 7/8%.

I gave the example of the League but I could give any other example with a random party. They are the masters of politics, but the nobles of royal society.

If we put Meloni and Salvini together, apparently 40% of people are behind them. But in personal interactions, and in the average behavior of the population they weigh much less: the flops of their manifestations are evident. This is due to an electoral system that has a monstrous democracy deficit and shows a far more right-wing society than it really is.

the audience of an influencer like Ferragni is much more "neutral", but at the same time it is very much concentrated among the ACTIVE population today, and in the active TOMORROW population, that is, minors with cell phones.

Which are represented very little by parties, and even less by right-wing parties.

Do you remember the first Berlusconi? He managed to pass himself off as the party of entrepreneurs, who instead did not vote for him, while it was mainly a party of pensioners and television housewives. (it was not for nothing that the unions hated him: his pensioners had marched off).

The result was that the entrepreneurs did not behave as he wanted, never took on the million jobs, and so on.

Because there is a problem: the active population votes more than once:

• when you vote
• when it spends
• when it invests
• when it acts on a daily basis

all these behaviors make up "society" as we live it every day. The political representation, on the other hand, is mendacious because it takes into account electoral results that take into account the inactive pensioner and (especially in Italy) alone. And if I also included abstention it would be even worse: parties no longer weigh in society, they only weigh in politics, and only with a distorting electoral system.

The problem is that this does not happen to influencers or to big brands. They know very well who they talk to. They know well that Facebook is the social of the old and the TV has an audience of old and inactive housewives, while Instagram and TikTok represent the most active part of the population.

What is virtual, not real, is politics today.

This is the reason the Ferragnez are scary.

They are more real than politics, because to make REAL money they have to talk to those who really have it. To influence behavior, they need to talk to the person who behaves, not the elderly person who stays at home all day.

Let's understand: the Ferragni of the pensioner who has € 600 of spending power doesn't give a damn. She doesn't call him the numbers he wants. Ferragni's follower has spending power, works, often invests and spends.

The problem, the reason why the idea of ​​a political blog by Fedez is scary, is that it affects the working population. It is not the electoral impact, but the SOCIAL impact.

Parties are only big in a political sense. If we transfer them to the social dimension, they are dwarves compared to influencers and brands.

let's try to understand why it weighs. Let's take the case of a Brand: Barilla.

In 2013, to pursue the Northern League and populist delirium, Barilla launched into a League-type homophobic campaign, with statements such as “but we only advertise with traditional families, without gay families”. Retirees and the Northern League right liked it very much.

The reaction of the active company was such that Barilla was forced to capitulate, they fired the communications manager and already in 2015 it became the company with the most Gay Friendly communications in the country. Because'?

Obviously, because at the marketing level they realized that the active company, their client, was tremendously different from the political landscape.

A communication that would have earned Salvini votes made Barilla lose customers.

This is the point.

The parties do not represent the real society, which is guided and shaped ONLY (or mainly) by the ACTIVE population: who works, has children, opens companies, spends, invests, is with others for a football, etc.

When a political party clashes with this fact, it usually speaks of a "gay lobby" or a "gender lobby", but in the end they simply clashed with the TREMENDO GAP that passes between the political representation of society (the vote) and the real society, where many voters (retirees) vote only in the polls, but not on the market and rarely in everyday life.

A party like the Lega, or like the PD, lives in a virtual world made up of ballot papers. They truly believe their electoral rate is the real impact they have on real society.

They do not realize that it is at least halved by the number of retirees, and incomplete due to the number of young non-voters.

The disaster comes when, in the conflict, to justify the defeat they find themselves inventing lobbies. If you observe the two parties convinced that they have an impact of 40% on the active society, every time they clash with the real society (when the novax demonstrations and strikes fail, when the gay pride fills the streets and their counter-demonstration makes four cats, when their speeches are empty) they always say the same things:

• it's the conspiracy of the gay lobby
• it is the conspiracy of the communist lobby
• it is the conspiracy of the elites
• it is the conspiracy of the big pharma
• it's the XYZ conspiracy.

and the reason why they repeat to exhaustion to represent the real country, to say what everyone says, is that things are exactly the opposite, and to make believe a lie it must be repeated to exhaustion, said Goebbels.

Here is the problem of the ferragnez: to make real money they are rooted in the real society that has this money. While the parties, to make votes, have taken root among the pensioners and the inactive in general (unemployed and others).

The clash between the active and inactive populations is always won by the active population, as in the case of Barilla.

And the ferragnez are scary not so much because they are popular, but because they could ignite the confrontation.

Because socially speaking there are few types of people who offend / beat up gays in the streets today.

• the unemployed
• the precati
• retirees

but if we ask any economic power and any brand how much they like these two categories, the answer is frightening. And they don't have real power because they only vote once.

A political message that earns Salvini and Meloni votes makes companies lose customers.

This is the point that the Northern League (unable to understand the difference between society and politics) attribute to the "gay lobbies" or the "X lobbies" every time they clash with this economic reality.

In politics, votes count. In reality, paying customers count. A fight with an influencer like the Ferragnez pits customers against voters.

And who wins, we know.

If Fedez only opened a political blog, without forming a party, it could trigger the clash between active Italy and political Italy.

And this makes them shit: because the King is naked, the parties do not say "what everyone says" and do not speak "in the name of the people". For a shit. This is their narrative, but it only works with old people.

And there is the risk that an influencer will point it out.

Political parties are now zombies. Like zombies, they don't die. But like zombies, they're no longer alive.