I’ve admired Russ Feingold ever since I was an undergrad at UW-Madison (though I interned for Sen. Herb Kohl). He’s one of the few political figures that carries ethics to the highest standard and who is not afraid to say and do what he believes is right, many times crossing party lines. Sure, lots of political leaders say that but many don’t act on it.
Sen. Feingold is the leader of the U.S. progressive movement, particularly appropriate since he comes from the state that prodced the founder of the Progessive Party led by Bob La Follete.
Bill Moyers interviewed the Wisconsin senator this week.. Though I am not a huge Moyers fan, I think Russ Feingold was vintage Russ Feingold. After a period of remaining out of the spotlight due to the election, Feingold reminded me of the integrity and vision political leaders ought to have guiding them through service.
In particular, I admire Russ for “walking his talk.” He has been a consistent advocate on important issues, such as election reform, protecting the Constitution and foreign affairs. I don’t agree with all of the senator’s positions. But, in a political climate that often demands horse-trading and reshuffling positions, Sen. Feingold has been remarkably true to his brand.
He was the lone vote against the Patriot Act, opposed the Iraq War, sponsored the McCain-Feingold election reform legislation and sponsored a motion to censure President Bush for illegal wiretapping. His instincts to act swiftly and for what is right is almost unparalleled in Washington.
In the Moyers’ interview, Sen. Feingold is asked about the progressive movement. He states:
But we also have a commitment to clean government, to open government. That’s what “Fighting Bob” La Follette was all about. And some of the major reforms in the history of the country in terms of ethics, in terms of unemployment compensation, in terms of child safety laws, were all part of that great progressive movement that was started in the late 19th century and early 20th century in Wisconsin. And by the way, progressivism in Wisconsin also means fiscal responsibility. So it’s an interesting twist. But that is sort of some of the things that have gone into this belief, that we don’t like government to be involved unless it has to be. We believe in people’s liberties and their freedom. But sometimes, government has to step in, in order to make sure the community is working together.
This reminds me a lot of the modern libertarian movement and moderate Republican and moderate Democratic positions. It’s interesting that this platform is referred to as progressive. I think the attractiveness of progressivism, as Feingold defines it, is ironically the reasoned and moderate positions that govern its ideology. More so, because Feingold identifies with this “progressive camp,” he is less burdened with political games that so often influence political decisions at the highest levels of government.
As an aside, I’ve observed many political candidates espousing far left political positions that call themselves progressives. Knowing Russ Feingold’s positions, it is unfortunate that the word progressive has been hijacked so many times to mean something other than its original intent. But, more on this topic for a future post.
Now in terms of social media, I think Sen. Feingold is quite good but has some room for improvement.
He maintains a blog, which is great, but those posts are all recycled articles that he’s published elsewhere and is reposting on his blog. It’s ok to recycle material, but sometimes he simply must use his blog to comment on important political issues and speak directly to the public. He can’t just use media releases to do that.
Next, Sen. Feingold must get on Twitter. This social network is becoming such an important place for conversation and information exchange, that for him to be left out of this space, he is missing a huge opportunity.
Looking through my Twitter feed I came across a post that turned me on to PitchEngine.com. As someone who works in public affairs and has to pitch traditional media more often than I’d like (rather than helping clients publish themselves), I’m interested in ways that make traditional PR pitching a better process.
PitchEngine is trying to bring together PR pros, brands, and journalists. The PitchEngine software then allows these groups to build their personal profiles and manage contacts, just like in any other online community. PitchEngine goes a step further though by simplifying the process of sending the release with various attached media (pics, video, etc.) and has a well-organized, simple interface.
Oh, and the PR pros and brands (not sure about journalists) have to pay a fee for joining and using the services.
Not that there’s anything wrong with a fee based network, I just question PitchEngine’s ability to truly make PR pitching a better process.
I’m quickly finding out in public affairs that the strength of any good pitch has more to do with the story being pitched than any other factor. In other words, if the story’s good, interesting and timely, it will get play. Does it help to have relationships with journalists to help get published? Of course. But, then again, good relationships don’t guarantee publishing, it just increases the likelihood that your pitch gets read.
That’s why I look at PitchEngine and caution against PR pros looking to sign up and think their pitching will be that much more effective. The same basics that would make someone successful using PitchEngine makes that PR pro a success without it. Traits like, telling a good story (even when it’s uninteresting), knowing the audience you’re pitching to and brevity, are still foundational to good pitching.
I think handling media relations is best done through the PR person’s personal contacts and through social media activity. Using email, Twit pitching, building relationships via Facebook and LinkedIn, and following/commenting on blogs are the right set of tools for an effective PR pro in today’s media environment.
We have the social media tools to allow us to succeed. We just have to use them well and remember that there are no shortcuts. It’s an old adage but true.
I’m skeptical of PitchEngine. If anyone else can prove to me otherwise, I don’t see the benefit in it.
American two-party politics is defined by coalitions that keep the Democrats and Republicans as functioning (or malfunctioning) parties able to gain the necessary votes to win elections. I’ve written before about the Republican Party retooling after their 2008 loss and efforts like RebuildtheParty.com to bring conservative ideas matched with an effective social media strategy.
The big missing piece to this puzzle is who the Republican leader will be in 2012 to win their party’s coalitions’ support and challenge the Obama presidency. The recent Republican Governor’s Association meeting featured several prominent party leaders that could vie for the next presidential nomination, including: Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty and Charlie Crist.
On the elliptical machine this morning, I saw former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee speak about his new book, Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That’s Bringing Common Sense Back to America, on C-Span.
It dawned on me that Huckabee understands what Sarah Palin doesn’t, and maybe others too: after the Obama election, it has become evident that a candidate needs to:
Have a message that resonates with the different parts of party’s coalition
Can mobilize a movement of grass roots supporters and forgo a top-down organizing model
Understands the social web and can communicate and organize through that medium
Recalling the Republican primary campaign, Huckabee was positioned as the social conservative’s choice candidate. Maybe that was due to his own communication strategy and understanding the candidate field was without a social conservative leader. Or, maybe it was because the media and blogosphere labeled him that. Either way, Huckabee has emerged or is positioning himself as a candidate with Obama characteristics – unifying people, appealing to what people can agree on and not what divides them, communicating the message to all the important components of the party’s coalition.
Even when talking about abortion, Huckabee’s argument was not the typical pro-life argument but rather couched in a way that attempted to appeal to a moderate or liberal’s inclination to civil rights and human dignity. I’m sure he’ll continue that sort of “bridging” message going forward.
Most importantly, and what the other 2012 Republican presidential contenders don’t have to the same degree as Huckabee, is the online netroots.
Huckabee lasted in the Republican primary as long as he did because of his netroots. He inspired a large amount of people to advocate and mobilize on behalf of his candidacy. He blogged and Facebooked better than other candidates. Plus, a small bunch of his supporters started HucksArmy.com, a highly independent social network that inspired offline actions much like Obama’s mybarackobama.com.
Huckabee continues to communicate to those in Huck’s Army and keeping them top of mind moving away from 2008 and into 2012. Plus, he set up HuckPAC, to support candidates on issues he supports, has spot on FOX TV and ABC radio. His book doesn’t hurt either.
His message, plus his medium and his social networks are going to propel Huckabee to the top of the 2012 contender list. Let’s watch.
Three recent blog posts caught my attention and prompted me to think about the direction media is moving. While I’ve blogged before about the slow-to-change nature of traditional (especially print) media, there is evidence that change is on the horizon.
Each of the following case studies present a different picture of how media is changing:
1. The New York Times recently profiled Voices of San Diego. This in an interesting publication where veteran journalists have banded together to provide investigative stories about local issues. The market niche is clear – these journalists are offering something unique in their coverage that other local papers do not. Plus, other sister publications doing the same sort of journalism are popping up in cities across America. Soon, the Times reports, these independent sites will join together in an association.
Image Credit: Flickr, mynameispiet
2. Chris Brogan recently blogged about his visit to Gannet’s headquarters. The publisher of USA Today and scores of other papers brought Chris to speak with company leadership on the direction of new media and exchange ideas about Gannet’s attempts to change with the times. They might be on to something, as Chris suggests.
In short, media is at somewhat of a crossroads, and has been for a while. Some publications, like the Chicago papers, are finding out that futilely trying to do what they’ve always done is not getting them anywhere (while ceasing to do some of the things that were actually good journalism). Others, like USA Today and the New York Times, are experimenting and making changes, trying to figure out the balance between professional journalism and new media.
The ones who recognize, as Chris Brogan and Eric Schmidt point out, that their business is information sharing and not newspaper publishing, they will be able to adapt to the business model that works and carries them forward.
The blogosphere is buzzing with speculation and suggestions for President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team to take its netroots into the White House. Many who see social media as increasing democracy and participation in public affairs are afraid that the Obama victory will be the ironic end to political opennes his campaign helped build.
Joe Flood, writing for e-politics, gives an apt description of the regulations restricting government 2.0 taking place. He lists the following challenges for social media’s place in the White House:
Limited use of cookies
Bans on PHP
Bans on certain operating systems.
Firewalls
Thank you, Joe for laying out the legal and cultural challenges laying ahead for the Obama administration.
Brian Solis, writing for Techcrunch, makes the argument for an Obama administration to carry on social media practices in the White House and supplies some suggestions for making this a success. Brian calls this the “two way street” where “people shouldn’t only have a voice during an election time; listening and responding should be an ongoing practice and process of any office.”
Some suggestions Brian provides:
Presidential address on YouTube
Creating a social network, Change.gov
Complimenting weekly radio addresses on BlogTalkRadio
I recommend reading the full post to see all of Brian’s suggestions.
In short, the Obama presidency provides an amazing opportunity to make politics 2.0 a priority in governing, not just campaigning. The Obama campaign set up a wonderful promise of giving people access to his campaign, message and inspiring the netroots to take action on his behalf. If that does not continue, there will be a tremendous backlash against the Obama team – and a return to political disillusionment for many – if Obama defaults on his promise of change. In short, the culture of openness and transparency must continue in the White House. This change governing cultured enabled by the social web is the new one of Obama’s greatest promises.
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.
I was involved in a race for state representative here in suburban Chicago a while back where the campaign was not sold on the merits of starting a blog. If you read my blog, you know which side of the fence I stood on. The other side wasn’t against blogging because they thought blogging didn’t make sense or wasn’t worth it. Rather, those against blogging were more concerned the candidate would not have time to write posts to keep the blog fresh and updated.
For several reasons, I thought they were misguided. In a local race, often information about candidates is hard to come because big city media only pays attention to the largest races and/or national issues. Candidates or elected officials’ websites and their blogs, are the best sources of information in the absence of media coverage.
For a local or state race blogs offer the advantage of:
sustaining conversation with constituents or voters where paid or earned media offers only one-way communications
putting the candidate on record on important issues so community members fully know where the candidate stands
blog posts are shareable, meaning if you are “word of mouth worthy,” your blog visitors are empowered to share what they believe is meaningful with others
regular blog updates (which don’t have to be long-winded essays) are great tools to build community and sustain momentum in a long campaign
Looking back on my “to blog or not to blog” discussions with members of the this campaign for state office, the argument “not to blog” because the candidate would be too busy, actually presented a huge opportunity for others close to the campaign to fill in. What better way to outreach than to give supporters, volunteers or donors the opportunity to guest blog on a candidate or elected official’s website?
We all know that journalism has changed drastically over the last ten years. In turn, the way stories are pitched, created and read have been turned on its head. There’s a great slideshow from slideshare.net that I wanted to post here for people to view:
I really like the new models of journalism that this presentation features as well as the new sort of jobs a journalist can have. The main point I have is linking. In this world, public affairs and news coverage is all about integration. The more information links to each other the greater the possibility it is for news to found by readers.
Big journalism may be decrying that their business model is damaged beyond repair. It’s also interesting to see how the big papers are clinging on to model of writing and publishing.
Here in Chicago, the Tribune and the Sun-Times are threatened. It’s conceivable that Chicago will be without a major newspaper in the future. That being said, what can these papers do?
One thing they’ve done is integrating more video with articles. Another approach has seen the both papers focus much more on celebrity gossip rather than the hard-core new and public affairs that these publications were founded and built a brand on. I think this new approach in particular has made both papers much less appealing to the point where I hate reading either of them.
Maybe it’s time to begin linking? That would mean hotlinking other stories and blogs outside their websites. Sure, it would draw readers away from their websites in the short turn, but it would create more interesting reading and greater community that would build readership in the long term.
If they don’t start changing business as usual, watch out Chicago, our big papers may go away and new paper could usher the city’s new journalism.
I think a serious challenge for non-profits or political organizations is the ability to feature events after they happen. Already, tools like Facebook, email or other public venues allows for event notices and invitations to be shared. These are great was to get people to attend events. But what happens after the event?
I came across a great tool that allows picture slide shows to be posted on websites from slide.com. The best part of it though, is slide.com’s ability to be placed on a host of social networking sites. That sort of integratability (is that a word?) is key to helping your message get out and that your events live on after they happen. Slideshows are a great tool to show visitors what people are involved in, what an organization’s mission is and what kind of work an organization does. Even better, these slide shows can be picked up and posted on peoples’ individual social networking pages.
Shareability is a key feature to slide.com’s tools. It allows pictures and events to be easy moved from friend to friend. A core strength of an organization is its supporters. Therefore, the better tools an organization can place into its supporters hands, the better advocates of that organization they may become.
I recently received an email from Sen. John McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis asking me check out the new McCain campaign video, “Fan Club.” This 30-second spot mocks Sen. Barack Obama’s status as celebrity while sarcastically asking you to support Obama’s positions that would increase taxes and placing your faith in an inexperienced leader.
There are several problems with this approach. First, McCain has defined some of his opponents flaw but offers little (or nothing) in the way of his own ideas or policies. So, we walk away from this video knowing what McCain isn’t about…but not what he is about. In other words viewers are left asking, what are McCain’s brand attributes?
Second, pushing out the campaign’s newest 30-second spot reminds me a lot of the failed Giuliani primary campaign that used social media to broadcast, rather than engage his target audiences. The video’s landing page has no room for commenting, nor does it offer users to forward the video to a friend. All it does offer is for the user to sign-up. And even the most basic online user knows this simply leads to more one-way emails.
It appears McCain’s campaign team is ready to employ their own marketing tactics without first recognizing their brand. McCain has created the persona of independent-minded politics, doing what’s right – even it’s not popular – and having a clean image (campaign finance). Where are the tactics using these brand attributes?
The McCain team had better take a lesson from CPGs. Once they start competing on price, products become a commodity. Consumers will move on to the next product.
The good news for McCain is that there’s still enough time coming out of the conventions to get back in touch with the brand McCain has built over his Senatorial tenure.
