blog
Feel Free
February 28th, 2008 by John BrianI was perusing
the Presidential candidates’ blogs a couple weeks back, looking to see where they were headed in my old stomping grounds in Wisconsin, when I came across this item, at the bottom of a post about a supporter-created video:
You can create your own video ‘mashups’ too — feel free to download high resolution footage from our resource library today
Though I was annoyed that they put mashups in quotes (putting web 2.0 terms in quote marks, as if you’re not quite sure it’s a term yet, is almost up there with saying "online blogs"), I was fascinated by how open they were to releasing raw video footage to their supporters.
Looking around the internets, it looks like Obama’s campaign isn’t alone in releasing semi-raw video footage to supporters, but it’s a practice that hasn’t trickled down to non-profits yet. Below the jump, I explore the how this has paid off for some candidates, and why NPOs should join them.
While Obama’s campaign
may have made the most viable use of support-created video, it’s not the only one to give their supporters the freedom to create their own works. While not organized as well, the Clinton camp also posts links to quicktime .movs of their ads and speeches at the bottom some of their video player pages. I’m not sure why some videos have the links and some don’t; my bet, from having been the video guy for a campaign, is that it’s just a matter of not having enough staff time to do everything that they’d like to, which isn’t a criticism at all - that’s just life as a campaign internet staffer.
The choices of player are interesting as well - while Obama seems to favor a mix of YouTube and Brightcove, particularly on his blog, Clinton uses a custom proprietary player, though she uses the YouTube embed link to send videos around. Obama also seems more invested in his YouTube profile - while they both have respectable numbers of videos on the site (Clinton: 284, Obama 725), Obama also features a Google Checkout to allow people yet another door to make contributions, which none of the other remaining candidates use.
I’ve always been an advocate for just using YouTube or other existing services rather than creating propriety, share-proof players - why reinvent the wheel when nearly everyone online understands how to use YouTube for viewing, forwarding and embedding. Plus it saves money on development and bandwidth. It also has the advantage of creating buzz - the more views a given video gets on YouTube, the more likely it is to be featured on the homepage and in searches.
It’s not hard to see how Obama has benefited from letting users create their own video. In addition to the buzz created by the recent "Yes we can" video, there have been dozens of others that have been featured
on the Obama blog, which solves one of the chief problems of any blog: content creation. This is particularly the case with candidate blogs, which can only support so many "Here’s why you should vote for me" posts.
In addition to being a source of content and buzz, supporters who create content feel more invested in a cause or campaign. While 90% of the content submitted may not be of a quality that you want to run with it, the supporters who created it are forging an important connection that will make them want to tell their friends and be your evangelists. What’s more, even those supporters who can’t or don’t want to create their own content will see that you allow others to do it and appreciate your openness and people-powered values.
There’s also, of course, the chance that people could create something really and truly great - you may not have the exclusive monopoly on talent (even if you hire us!), and sometimes something user generated can be more viral than anything you could build or concept on your own.
None of the GOPers left in the race seem to have the same level of openness (though I was a confused wandering 
around Ron Paul’s video section - he seems to have three separate areas where video lives, and I’m not quite sure of the distinction. If I’m wrong here, please leave a comment and I’ll update the post). There were YouTube embeds and proprietary players to be found, but no "download this to make your own video" link.
This might be, in part, due to a conservative fear of video. After all, YouTube was the cause of George Allen’s self-inflicted killer sound byte in 2006 (a term I’m borrowing from the very funny Mark Katz), not to mention the fact that every time they try user-generated video, it ends up like one of Homer Simpson’s inventions: the latest two examples being Mitt Romney’s "make your own ad" event and the NRCC’s "Your Direction" contest.
In Romney’s contest, the contest was less about letting users create content as it was about letting them edit it - the Romney camp provided the only footage you could use, though you could come up with your own captions. This resulted in a pretty predicable set of ads, but that should be expected when instead of giving supporters clay, you gave them Lego blocks. What’s more, the only one to receive any sort of press was Bruce Reed’s hilarious entry, which received more than 3 times the views of the winner.
In the NRCC’s contest, 
which Chris Bowers refers to as a bellyflop, only five entries were submitted, including this one which was mysteriously left out of user voting. It’s no surprise that these experiences have left Republicans more than a little scared of user generated content, and video in particular.
I’m not sure why the GOP efforts at user generated video fail while Democratic efforts succeed, but progressive non-profits should consider that they have a base of users who’ve demonstrated a willingness to generate quality content in the past. All they need is the materials to work with. And that’s why you post your raw footage on the site, along with a little sign that says, "Feel free."
