Brodigan suggests how we political operators can take a lesson from the WWE (the wrestling company) to use the internet, social networking, to improve relationships and results with potential voters.

They connect to their audience on a personal level,
and the audience is more engaged as a result. That translates into more
revenue through merchandise, PPV’s, ticket sales, etc.  The WWE has
effectively taken social media and turned it into a living 24/7 focus
group. They instantly know what works and what doesn’t, what their fans
are in to and what they can sell to advertisers. They rarely ever don’t
know what their viewers are thinking.  
Apply this to politics. Think of the WWE as your
state GOP and all the elected officials as the wrestlers, or even as
candidate and their staff/trusted supporters.  Following the WWE’s model
and taking the time to seriously build a network and develop content
(and not just set up x to automatically update to y), you can have a
constant flow of information: what issues are most important to voters
that week, what messaging works and what doesn’t, what
candidates/officials are connecting with voters and which ones should
consider doing something else with themselves (very important for the
GOP), etc. 
Now all and all I still believe it to be odd to support a company that lost to the World Wildlife Fund, the WWF, the Panda People, over the right to use its own name and logo!  So the World Wrestling Federation is now WWE.
That
said, Brodigan is correct. Especially since unlike other entertainment
companies they release new product on a continuous weekly basis, and
maintain quality despite that real life human events can quickly
interfere with well-laid plans.

That sounds a lot like politics, doesn’t it?