Two advertisements were recently released by IL-5 candidates in their bid to win the Democratic primary. Interestingly, both candidates’ messages – overt and subliminal – say a lot about the candidates themselves.
First, let’s start with Charlie Wheelan. His latest political ad uses animation in an effort to really grab peoples’ attentions. That’s a good strategy because this elections’ ads thus far have been very typical of campaign ads. However, Wheelan has shown a willingness to take risks in his ads by pushing creativity, trying to be interesting and even seeming a little strange – in order to grab voters’ attention and hopefully their support. His first two ads, “Underwater” and “Upside Down” created some nice buzz in the local and national blogosphere.
Now, Wheelan’s campaign has taken political communications creativity a step further with a political animated short released yesterday via Facebook and Twitter and posted on the campaign website. Right now the campaign is only showing the trailer, with the hope of creating enough interest to draw people to a campaign event where the entire three-minute video will be aired.
The ad was produced by Bill Hillman’s agency, North Woods, responsible for Wheelan’s first two TV ads. The ad’s purpose though is definitely different than other political ads we’ve seen in this campaign. It’s unclear at the moment if a 30-second spot will be edited for a TV ad buy, meant to convince undecided voters in favor of Mr. Wheelan. Instead, the ad is hoped to be an online viral success, drawing people to Wheelan’s website who are already Wheelan supporters or semi-supporters. The campaign staff noted in an email that Wheelan’s website is much deeper in policy positions than his competitors and are confident that people who spend time on the site are sold on Wheelan’s depth.
I give kudos to Wheelan’s campaign for trying something daring. Video goes viral because the production is so creative, smart, funny or shocking. For a political campaign ad, Wheelan’s Dark Knight is solid (though a somewhat inaccurate, when at the outset the animated Blagojevich says that the Senate seat and Emanuel’s seat were up for sale. It was really only the Senate seat. Not that I defend Blago or anything. Just for being informationally accurate.) Wheelan is really shooting for the best viral outcome too in public affairs – offline action. I’ve said for a long time now that political social media and viral efforts are the most effective when offline actions follow.
Meanwhile, John Fritchey’s latest direct mail advertisement hearkens back to his campaign messages as a reformer who has a history of leading sensible legislation.
However, I can’t get over the irony inherent in the ad. Fritchey uses the subject of honesty – admitting he puts ketchup on hot dogs – and that sort of straight talk is what is needed in Congress. Using hot dogs, the ultimate sausage product, is ironic (and may piss off vegetarians) because Fritchey has been continuously tied to the “sausage-making” in Chicago’s legacy of corrupt political culture. After all, Fritchey has been put on the hot seat for his role as a zoning lobbyist for clients looking to get clearance to develop in Chicago. He’s also sought the support of the Northwest side Chicago Machine back in January. And, as Progress Illinois has covered in depth, Fritchey has no inclination of distancing himself to family members who exercise the type of insider clout that onlookers have continuously criticized as shady.
Maybe using a sausage wasn’t such a good idea after all. It represents Fritchey’s candidacy perfectly though. Nobody likes seeing sausage being made, but the end result is a pretty tasty product. Though with the Blagojevich and Burris scandals looming, maybe voters will actually care about Illinois sausage-making.
I wrote this post a few days ago, waiting to post it at the right time. Since writing it, Charlie Wheelan’s campaign has come out with a new TV ad. I still think my points below are valid.
Watching IL-5 candidate Charlie Wheelan’s interview with local public affairs talk show host Jeff Berkowitz on YouTube it occurred to me that online video can help bridge the gap between the Wheelan Campaign and IL-5 voters.
Charlie Wheelan, because of his role as professor and economics expert, has entered this race with a slew of online videos. This is important for two basic reasons. First, we know from empirical evidence reported by the Pew Center’s Internet & American Life Project that online is fast gaining prominence as the go-to source for political information. The only source deemed more important is TV. So, my extrapolation is that online video plays a unique role in communicating a campaign message, simply because people are more predisposed to receiving political information in a televised format. The other advantage is of course shareability.
The second Wheelan advantage going into this race is that the small library of video clips from his pre-candidate days gives Wheelan a leg up on the sheer number of online videos despite his competition serving from elected official serving for the past decade or more.
So, the question remains, how come the Wheelan campaign is not trying to drive traffic to Wheelan’s online video library and then ask people to share those videos with other IL-5 voters or Wheelan supporters? I’m perceiving one of Wheelan’s most profound built-in advantages ignored.
For example, the Jeff Berkowitz interview represents the longest and most issue-oriented videos I’ve seen on this campaign to date. Doesn’t Wheelan want people to see him explain his policy positions for themselves? Why didn’t the Wheelan Campaign push out the video on Twitter? How come the campaign didn’t splice up the video and use 2-3 minute segments to help explain Wheelan’s policy positions on his website to sit alongside the written narratives that web users may potentially not read?
Good branding recognizes their candidate’s (or product, service, company, etc.) inherent strengths. Charlie Wheelan, for an upstart candidate, comes off as maybe smoother, more confident and as articulate as any of the more “experienced” candidates in this race. In other words, Wheelan is naturally good for TV/online video. Plus, as I’ve mentioned, there is already ample video that the campaign can use. Putting everything other advertising tactic aside, online video has to be more central to this campaign.
At 231 page views since January 20th, I think Wheelan’s interview with Jeff Berkowitz on YouTube is highly underwatched in the midst of this congressional race.
The grumblings this week from John Fritchey and Mike Quigley over Sara Feigenholtz’s questionable polling ethics has caught the attention of traditional media. The Sun-Times reported today that Fritchey is fighting back, calling out Feigenholtz, whose name appeared on “clout lists” in an attempt to secure jobs for two women.
The latest in this sullying saga points to two interesting facets of this campaign. First, traditional media seems less interested in covering the issues and candidates in this race, despite a crowded and talented field. Rather, traditional media is regularly focusing on the bickering and political insidership between the leading candidates.
This has started a probably unwelcome situation for the likes of Feigenholtz, Fritchey and Quigley. Every time traditional media comes to their campaigns for reactions to attacks that one candidate made on the other, the ensuing stories run in contrast to the images these three are trying to put out – Feigenholtz as a progressive, and Fritchey and Quigley as good government reformers. Instead, the constant attacks and low-balling are a reminder that Chicago-style politics is guiding this election game.
While the candidates with the most name recognition clobber each other and diminish their arguments that they are different than the Blagojeviches and Strogers of Illinois politics, candidates like Charlie Wheelan, Victor Forys and Tom Geoghegan stand in a good position to benefit. Those three candidates are out of the political “mainstream.” And, if the 2008 Presidential Election proved anything, it was that the non-entrenched politicians can move the grassroots enough to propel their campaign to victory.
The big question remains, which unsung candidate is going to benefit from the early front-runners’ cut-throat tactics?
So far, Wheelan, Forys and Geoghegan are filling the traditional media void intelligently by using new media they create and sharing it with those interested in the race. Wheelan is pushing a clever video that has garnered over 4,800 views in three days, while Geoghegan’s popularity with a narrowly liberal online community has created plenty of digital good-will, as reported by Illinoize. By the way be sure to check out Illinoize excellent coverage of the week in IL-5 action.
Why is new media and self-publishing so important? Because candidates have complete control over the content and messages they share without traditional media doing it for them. Again, it is crucial that these candidates define themselves, especially in light of the leading candidates drawing attention away from their own strengths.
Tomorrow will be a big day for candidates as they gather for the first Democratic debate at the DePaul Student Center. I’ll be live blogging starting at 1:00 PM, so stay tuned.
Erick Schonfeld over at Techcrunch insightfully posted about YouTube’s effort to scale Congressional and Senatorial videos by creating stand-alone pages.
As Erick points out, traffic is slow. At the time of writing this blog, only 50 subcribers signed up for the Senate page and 67 signed up for the Congessional page.
Erick writes:
“Nobody was watching these videos before. Putting them altogether in their own channel is not going to make them more popular. If Senators and Congressman want to use YouTube as a direct channel to the electorate, that’s great. But can someone teach these folks a little about Web video production values? They come across as little more than commercials.”
The moral of this story is that just because YouTube is another destination to post content does not mean people will visit or engage with that content if it is not tailored to the medium.
In other words, our members of Congress seem to be recycling their made-for-TV spots and communications culture and posting it to YouTube. But, YouTube calls for something different. It calls for taking down the barriers to the electorate. Stop communicating to people and start communicating with people.
The strength of online communication in public affairs is the ability to make a call to action and see it through by working with and alongside the electorate. That means taking the time to answer questions, updating posts and speaking to people like they were sitting with them in your living room – not on a TV set in their living room.
I’m curious to see who will get this and utilize this opportunity.
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 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.
Silverman’s video was financed by the Jewish Council for Education and Research, a PAC. But I have to believe the content was Sarah’s genuine feelings about the election put in her very own special way. I say that because I would bet that Silverman would not agree to be scripted by an outside institution.
What was so good about it? I think above all else, it’s authenticity. Sarah put her own style, career and personality out on the line to make a point. Some could argue that they don’t agree with her style, but that’s not the point I’m making. The fact that she was so authentic made her viewers feel like she was talking directly to them. So many younger Jews have grandparents in Florida, and even though she pushes the envelope on acceptability, many can relate to her.
Not to be outdone, two days later I get the response to Silverman’s call for convincing Jews’ elders residing in Florida to vote for Obama that voting for Obama is not in American Jews’ best interest. The messenger?…Jackie Mason.
Now, I like Jackie Mason, just like I like Sarah Silverman. Mason’s video was sponsorsed by Republican Jewish Coalition. But Jackie wasn’t able to pull off Sarah’s viral effort that has been over 7 million times in two weeks.
Why? I believe that trying to plan a viral video response to an already viral video has fallen flat time and time again. Look at all the McCain supporters’ answers to the Obama supporters’ viral successes, like Obama Girl and the “Yes we Can” video. None of those attempts at a viral response went anywhere.
Let’s return to the Jackie Mason video. The result? A very bland and not very memorable video. Let’s put it this way, people in my office were talking about Sarah Silverman this morning, not Jackie Mason.
The lesson here is authenticity is key. Things take off because the message is real and it resonates with people. Video response that hope to go viral don’t have that authenticity and they don’t have a voice of their own.
You can’t plan to have your marketing be viral. You can do the best you can to ensure it is easily shareable. But, we can’t lose track that good content and speaking directly to your audience in a way they understand is a key public affairs and communications strategy to success.
