It was a great pleasure to speak on a panel last night sponsored by the Medill Alumni Club and Google’s Chicago office (held at Google). The topic was Politics 2.0: Exploring the Impact of Digital Media on the Presidential Election.
The presenters, Peter Greenberger from Google and Lee Brenner of MySpace Impact, gave some great insight into how their companies’ products are enagaging the electorate and changing political races.
Given the expertise and national stature of these presenters, I decided to focus on the local angle. I gave an overview and somewhat of an analysis of my experience as a digital strategist for Daniel Biss‘ Illinois State Assembly campaign.
Something kept hitting me over the head the last two days that’s compelling me to share it now. First, I came across the custom publishing company, Imagination Publishing in Chicago. They’re an interesting company because their leadership saw the writing on the wall. They knew that to continue simply to publish printed materials for an assortment of clients would not cut it in the age of new media. No, media was changing and they astutely adapted by diversifying their delivery methods and bringing more value to target audiences.
Then, this evening, I attended an interesting lecture by Chicago author and journalist, Alex Kotlowtiz. Alex wrote the acclaimed, There are No Children Here, in 1991. If you haven’t read this book, you should. It’s a fascinating story/journalistic account of two young boys growing up in Chicago public housing, the neighborhoods they live in and the daily challenges they face.
There Are No Children Here
Alex’s lecture was compelling. He said good journalism is nothing more than storytelling. And good storytelling means putting the reader into the eyes, ears, shoes and emotions of the subjects.
What Imagination Publishing and Alex Kotlowitz have in common, is what Imagination asserts: “content is king.” That never seemed more true than today. There are so many examples of social media being used in smart and creative ways. At the same time, it’s very easy to use these social media tools. What then makes some ideas remembered and some forgotten? Good writing. Content is indeed king.
The irony is amidst this always-changing media environment, the one thing that won’t change – ever – is good writing and compelling content will always be key in getting your message remembered…and talked about.
No, I’m bot talking about the Tribune. I’m certainly not talking about the Sun-Times.
I’m talking about the Chicago Reader. I’ve been a fan for many years. They’re such a good place to let me know what’s happening in this city from a multitude of perspectives. Plus, it says it in an intelligent way…which I interpret as a way of telling readers it respects their intelligence. (BTW, Ben Joravsky is an awesome reporter).
Until tonight though I never really looked to connect to them online outside of their website. But I’m so glad that the Reader asked people on their front page to check out their Flickr group. I found a mecca of artistic and professional-level pictures of Chicago, covering all sorts of subject matter.
Image from lauren*o on Reader's Flickr Group
It certainly made me feel like I was sharing an experience with the people who posted those photos and wiyh others that are viewing them. Plus, I felt like the quality and range of pictures – from postcard shots to the nitty gritty of Chicago neighborhood life – really fits perfectly with the style of writing and coverage of Chicago by the Reader itself.
The two big papers in Chicago have been on their way down for years. Both seem to be victim of the changing media industry. Why have they been so vulnerable? Well, maybe because the foundation of their papers weren’t that solid to begin with. But more importantly, the value they bring current readers is little to none.
The Reader is interesting though. They’ve held this unique position as a city-wide paper that has a great understanding of local life, that is of course reflected in their coverage. And Flickr is such a perfect social media tool to enable the Reader to “walk” their brand’s “walk.”
The results, unscientifically of course, is a readership that is loyal and happy. You can count on the weekly Reader to deliver on their promise to tell me what’s happening, give the Chicagoans’ local angle, and bring me stories that I effects my life.
Twitter, Tagged and Ning were the fastest-growing social networking sites in September, according to Nielsen Online. Starting from a base of less than 1 million visitors a year ago, each has at least tripled U.S. traffic since then.
Micro-blogging site Twitter has grown almost fourfold from 533,000 to 2.4 million visitors.
Among more established social networks, LinkedIn was the fastest-growing–nearly tripling its audience to 11.9 million. That growth rate helped the site for professionals this week close another $22.7 million in venture capital. In June, it raised $53 million.
Facebook continued to grow at a healthy clip, more than doubling its traffic from 18 million a year ago to 39 million. MySpace remained the largest social network with an audience of 59.3 million, but its traffic has been essentially flat, increasing only 1%.–Mark Walsh
In what is a very under-reported national story, the Sarah Silverman-led Great Schlep may have achieved moving votes over to Obama in highly contested Florida. This election is going to be very close. Florida, like in 2000, will be key. Here’s the updated poll numbers of the Jewish vote by Quinnipiac University:
Florida
Among those who say they already have voted in Florida, Obama gets 48 percent to McCain’s 44 percent, a statistical tie in this smaller subgroup. .
Looking at all Florida likely voters, men split with 46 percent for Obama and 45 percent for McCain. Women back Obama 51 – 42 percent. The Republican leads 52 – 41 percent among white voters, 71 – 23 percent among evangelical Christians and 51 – 40 percent among Catholics. Obama leads 49 – 39 percent among Hispanics and 77 – 20 percent among Jews.
If Obama wins Florida, he’ll have a lot of Jewish grandchildren to thank.
A call to action is the point of the viral campaign, such as selling product or, in this case, getting people to sign a petition. The difference between a viral stunt and a measurable word of mouth marketing campaign is a clear marketing objective that can be tracked.
I would also add two more features needed for vial success achieved here. First, for anything to be viral, it has to be entertaining. Just like OfficeMax’s Elf Yourself campaign last holiday season, in addition to it being very personal, it was also entertaining. AARP’s video does the same here.
Second, AARP answers the crucial, “what’s in it for me?” question. The ability to personalize the video, as Andy points out, definitely reaches the “me” component. Everybody likes to see themselves – picture or name – made public for something positive. AARP allows the user to do this very easily.
What about AARP’s strategic public affairs purpose to this video? While I think the video is a good tool to encourage people to vote, it hardly presents AARP’s positions on important issues. But, the video does get a lot of people engaged with the brand and while leaving their emails behind.
From this election and described in my previous post, we know the value of a network or community. AARP, through this video, is able to increase the all-important email list, so when a crucial moment comes where they need you to contact your member of congress, they have massive outreach potential. By the way, the fun and easy use of this viral video definitely builds brand equity with AARP, making the next time they ask the public for their support, more likely to acquiesce.
I’ve been feeling the chorus rise on the subject of whether a President Obama would follow through on his promise to institute a Chief Technology Officer at the cabinet level and who that person might be.
But the bigger question surrounds the fate this massive online social movement Obama has created.
His campaign has demonstrated the power of social media by involving so many people in the political process an undeniable legacy. The real litmus test of this legacy though is whether his netroots will die at the end of this campaign, or if it will live on through a cabinet level post or by other means.
I think the latter will occur. But, a LOT of questions remain unanswered. Questions such as:
What will be the CTO’s role in the White House?
Can a CTO make the White House more transparent?
How much access will a CTO and the department give to the electorate?
The potential impact on our democracy is both thrilling and troubling. On the thrilling side is the potential for a long standing increase in the engagement of people in politics– most notably, among the youngest voters, who have always been the least engaged. On the troubling side is the potential disintermediation of our (small r) republican institutions.
Essentially, Obama has used online social networks, as I’ve argued, to set the promise that peoples’ voices, dollars and energies are heard and make a difference. So far, that promise has been kept. The rewards have been manifold, least of which is the record-breaking September fundraising numbers.
But what happens, as David Lazer rightly points out, if in the White House Obama is not able to direct the energies and actions of this great network he has built? It very well could result in widespread disillusionment amongst new voters and young voters.
Clearly, Obama has built a movement. Let’s hope that he and his campaign understand and appreciate that this movement must live beyond this election – win or lose – for Obama’s legacy on American political life to be positive.
The question remains: How will Obama engage his network after Nov. 4th and will that network be engaged enought for them to be satisfied?
I recently posted about the difficulty in planning for a video to go viral. Sarah Silverman’s the Great Schlep is possibly one of the best viral efforts in recent public affairs memory NOT just because the video has been seen over 925,000 in three weeks, but because the video was part of a call to action that resulted in actually moving people to act.
Cute and comical…yes. But this effort is also a great example of how mixing Web 2.0 tools (web video, blogging and social network sites) and “boots on the ground” can play out in a major battleground state.
Let’s not forgot the slim 500+ vote margin of victory that propelled George W. Bush to victory over Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. That vote margin again could be the difference in 2008. And, the effort made possible by the Web 2.0 tools could actually be the difference for Obama in Florida.
The lesson here is the formula. Web 2.0 is best when coupled with a way to connect ideas to people and then people to people. Most importantly, if the people to people connection can be brought to real life, then the public affairs effort is a winner. It’s worked in local campaigns and now in this subset of the presidential campaign.
I’ve previously advocated the need for candidates to get blogging in a local election. The case is simple. Traditional media that many candidates target to deliver their message and their supporters, happens very little…or not at all. So why continue to look to traditional media to make the case?
Everybody is a publisher now and blogging is so pervasive and persuasive, that according to a new Technorati-sponsored poll, the “lines between blogging and mainstream media have disappeared.”
“Blogs are now mainstream media. We’ve certainly seen that with the number of professional, semiprofessional and passion/enthusiast bloggers who are creating real media experiences. At the same time, you’re also seeing mainstream media come the other direction to add blog content.”
For local candidates, or any local public affairs issue, this means that we have to look past traditional media as the ONLY medium to cover our story. Instead, blog. Make connections. Comment on other blogs. And have fun.
This is the way to build an audience using Web 2.0 technologies. And just watch, traditional media will come to you to cover your story.
It’s a phenomenon we’ve seen throughout 2008 – online success has translated into traditional media hits.
Recently, my father who lives in Illinois’ 17th State Assembly district, received a call from a campaign volunteer asking if he’d support the candidate and if he planned on voting early. The call didn’t bother him. But he did notice the caller’s area code entered on his caller ID was from South Carolina. When my father stopped by my home today, he complained that he felt this sort of campaigning was a form of carpetbagging.
Is he right? I think in local campaigns, it’s all about WOM and we know that WOM is validated by people “like us.” In a local campaign, that means a neighbor or friend telling me they support so-and-so. After all, they live in my district or even neighborhood and they face similar issues as I do. What kind of WOM validation does a campaign volunteer have for a local campaign?
I would argue little to none. In the presidential campaign, it’s a different story. The issues are national issues and the scale is much larger. It makes sense to have phone bankers volunteer from their home states and call out-of-state folks. Even though it isn’t optimal as having that call come from a neighbor, it is still acceptable for national races.
I think this national phonebanking for a local candidate signifies the political parties falling in love with campaign tactics and large, active netroots that has shaped nationally in 2008. But, without asking, “does this make sense for this election, for what we’re trying to accomplish?”, then good tactics could go sour.
