blog

While most of the discussion of video used by the Presidential campaigns this cycle has focused on Obama and Clinton’s effective use of video to share speeches and ads with users (see this post on how Obama uses YouTube to bypass the culture of sound bytes while this post discusses how both he and Clinton make good use of their raw footage), there’s also been an undercurrent of parody videos that’s designerd to be forwarded, even if it’s less influential.

Prompting this post was a video combining two of the more well-known (at least online) figures in the battle for the Democratic nomination: Mike Gravel and Obama Girl. While one is an pre-packaged phenomenon nearly universally loathed by Democrats and Republicans alike (see this study - 51% of Democrats were irritated by the videos while 41% were embarrassed) and the other is a former senator who shared the stage for several early debates, they actually have a lot in common.

Both trade not on serious policy issues or even trivial gaffes, but on being different enough to break out from pack. Both also make use of pop culture as a segue to promote their own videos - while Gravel’s is often several decades removed (see this video), Obama Girl draws source material from other YouTube celebs.

Their latest video was a collaboration between the two - check it out:

Now, I don’t see videos like this really moving votes. Unlike relatively clever parodies done by the major campaigns (one of Hillary’s best videos pokes fun at herself, Bill and Tom Vilsack), Gravel’s videos are mostly just a way to get attention for a campaign that otherwise would have been forgotten, while Obama Girl is mostly there to sell stuff on her website.

But despite their similarities, I’m far more amicable to Gravel than to Obama Girl. It’s probably not because he’s a candidate - I don’t watch a ton of candidate videos, particularly from the minor candidates. Instead, it’s probably that they’re just plain fun to watch. As I commented to a colleague today, I really like Senator Gravel because he’ll do his own parodies. Whether it’s dumping a rock in the pond, remaking schoolhouse rock, or telling Obama that the election is now down to the two of them, he gets his message out while being entertaining.

Obama Girl, on the other hand, is a joke that may have been funny when she first came out, but now is just sorta creepy. She’s too slick, and her videos just try too hard, plus it’s the same basic premise every time - we get it: you have a crush on Obama. Her videos seem so commercial, while Gravel’s feel so grassrootsy. Plus she pushes the sex angle way too far for my taste - it’s just not something I’d really pass around the office.

So as the nomination contest wraps up, we’ll hopefully see a lot more user-generated parody video this election. While it may not be as vital as Obama’s full-length speeches or the DSCC’s web ads, it’s an important element to get the rank and file engaged and talking about the election. Plus it’s just fun to send around on a Friday afternoon.

Some of my favorite Gravel Ads below the fold, and to see more of Beaconfire staff favorite videos, check out this post.

(more…)

I 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.

(more…)

Today’s election day in Wisconsin, where most of my Facebook network resides. I’ve been watching my mini-feed in fascination as various friends update their status with who they’re voting for. Could Facebook be the secret weapon that’s turning out the youth and creative class vote this year?

In particular, watching status updates come in today show that in some ways, Facebook’s core functionality is more effective in reaching other users than any application: it’s word of mouth, plain and simple, except that it’s delivered to networks of people at a reach and speed that no mere "I voted" sticker can manage. To say nothing of the fact that few of said stickers indicate for whom you voted, an endorsement that can have more meaning for young people than all the Kennedy’s in Massachusetts.

Just looking at my own feed today, here are some of the status updates I saw (names blurred out for privacy reasons):

Could Facebook, because of it’s natural ability to broadcast messages, addictive nature, and near ubiquity be a stronger mover of votes than offline social affiliations, like unions or churches? Based on the results we’ve seen from youth turnout this year, along with the growth potential as these networks age, more members of the creative class already post-college begin adopting it, and the number of people attending college increases, I’m betting that that’s the trend we’re going to see in this election and the ones that follow.

And it’s a trend that that I, for one, welcome.

Google ads are just the latest front in the escalating online war fought between the campaigns this election season. While adwords were still maturing last cycle, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how they’ve evolved in an era of search engine marketing consultants and near ubiquity of online advertising.

First, the ground rules: last month, Google posted on their policy blog about their guidelines for political ads:

• Editorial Guidelines. Like all AdWords ads, political ads must follow our editorial and content policies (including our trademark policies)…

• Fairness. We permit political advertisements regardless of the political views they represent, and apply our policies equally…
• No attacks on an individual’s personal life. Stating disagreement with or campaigning against a candidate[…] is generally permissible. However, political ads must not include accusations or attacks relating to an individual’s personal life, nor can they advocate against a protected group.
• Donations. If you’re soliciting political donations, your ad’s landing page must clearly state that the donations are non-tax-deductible.
• No misleading ads. As with all AdWords advertisements, political ads should not mislead users.

These policies seem remarkable even-minded and fair, as people have come to expect from Google. With these guidelines in mind, follow me below the fold for an analysis of the search engine marketing strategies of the 2008 presidential campaigns…

(more…)

Editor’s note: Each week, we do a survey of Beaconfire staff to get impressions on a variety of non-profit technology issues. All opinions expressed here are solely those of their authors. This week, in honor of super Tuesday, we asked: What lessons should non-profits take from the online Presidential campaign in 2008?

Michael, Principal Consultant: #1 lesson so far: Take your message and actions to the where the people are, everywhere they are. Socnets aren’t just hip - they are essential seeding grounds for support.

#2 lesson: Social media matters. Social media done well is the killer app for influencing decision to engage.

#3 lesson: Build the network, inspire the network and then the money will follow.

John Brian, Marketing Consultant: Direct mail folks, take notice: the dominance of online campaign fundraising is here (which means it’s still a couple years out for the non-profit sector, but still…). Obama and Clinton both had record-shattering months in January, with Obama raising $28 million out of $32 million online. And in the last 36 hours, Clinton’s brought in another $4 million online while Obama’s supporters have delivered $7.5 million more. Direct mail just can’t work fast enough to respond to events with the speed that email and social network fundraising - by the time something is written, designed, approved, printed, mailed, opened, responded to, mailed back and deposited, the next round of events will have come and gone. Plus these donations have come in virtually cost free.

The biggest surprise was that it looks like The Producers was right: you can make more money with a flop than with a hit. The day after he won Iowa, Barack Obama brought in quite the haul online. But it was eclipsed by the contributions he received after he lost New Hampshire. Makes me wonder if non-profit advocacy groups should make a pitch to their members after they lose a vote about "Don’t let this happen again." Of course, this could encourage development departments to ask their legislative folks not to work too hard….

Jennifer, Project Manager: A best practice in web design is to know thy audience and help them see themselves in your web site. For any public-serving or customer-centric organization, the logical strategy to match this design principle is to focus not on what your constituents can do for you but on what you do and can do for your constituents.

The presidential campaign sites tend to be all about me, the candidate. Branding and helping voters get to know them is important, but at the end of the day they are campaigning to serve the public and should speak to the people and the issues that they care about. All the sites address the issues in one way or another. Clinton’s site is particularly effective in helping visitors know her position on the issues by scanning the labels without even having to click through. Most of the campaign sites also have clear calls to action and community features to get people involved, but you have to dig below the surface to get a sense of whose interests they are campaigning for. There are a few exceptions. The Ron Paul campaign site includes a People label in the top level navigation, but it focuses too narrowly on niche audiences (gun owners, home schoolers, students and veterans). Fred Thompson’s site is another example of highlighting very niche coalitions — lawyers, veterans, students, young professionals –  that only represent pieces of the Republican base.  McCain’s site has a great top level navigation label – Undecided? - but the landing page could do a better job, for example, of swaying the left-of-center undecided voter. By contrast, Obama’s site is noteworthy for its “People” navigation which does a good job of representing the core Democratic constituency. As he continues to campaign for the Democratic nomination and gets closer to the general election, he might want to round it out with any key audiences who can’t see themselves in his list.

Kate, Administrative Assistant: This may be pretty basic, but for me, what stood out the most were the websites with an immediate and clear call to action. This worked best when the website was easy to navigate, and we were easily able to find the additional information we sought. For example: “Make History! [by giving me money! Press this Donate button!]” It easily gives me the option to say, “Oh, that’s a great idea; I’ll give you money now,” or “Hmm, I see what you’re after, but let me click on these well-organized tabs to see if I agree with your positions on the issues that are important to me.” And, another seeming no-brainer, but one that wasn’t necessarily followed by all candidates, is that the effective sites didn’t lead us away from the homepage with their links. We were kept within reach of the reminder to give them money.

Beaconfire doesn’t work on political candidates’ sites directly, but a variety of our clients are involved with this election, including NPCA (who has their very own Presidential candidate!), AFSCME, and NARAL Pro Choice America. Be sure to join us next week when we ask Beaconfire staff what they think about marketing causes to minors.

Last month, I posted on a few online tools that people can use to get involved politically. One tool I didn’t review in depth, but could have, was the official Facebook US Politics application, co-sponsored by Facebook and ABC News.

The application has become about as ubiquitous as any Facebook app not installed by default can hope to be - more than a quarter of my friends have it, and during the weeks leading up to the New Hampshire primary, I saw more updates by it than any other module.

While the module had a lot of promise, and showed off some cool features early, in my opinion it failed to live up to its potential for a simple reason: on the most politically engaged social network in history, the US Politics application is neither social nor network-y.

Why do I say this? Follow me below the fold…

(more…)

Remember when your email address, when given to a campaign or non-profit, was considered private? Even groups that engage in list swaps with their snail mail lists wouldn’t think of doing the same with their email - the most they might consider is sending an appeal pitching a colleague or ally, but the list remains firmly in their hands.

Unfortunately, one political campaign has gone a step worse than a swap: they’ve put your email address up for grabs by the repo man. According to an article in the politico:

When John McCain’s presidential campaign all but went broke, it borrowed money from its bank using its fundraising list as collateral.

Problem: McCain’s own privacy policy promises donors he won’t sell their information.

That seems to put the Republican senator’s campaign in a pickle; either it pledged to its bank proceeds from something it can’t sell, or it offered to violate its own promise to donors.[h/t: Daily Kos]

The McCain privacy policy is pretty clear here, and it’s not too different from what most organizations have:

We will not sell your personal information. John McCain 2008, will not sell your information to third parties or any commercial entities.

Will this make McCain an accessory to spam? I discuss what value these addresses could have, and why this kind of practice is extremely dangerous, below the fold…

(more…)

Elections are taxing. On the candidates, who end up saying goofy stuff, on the voters, who get figuratively buried in direct mail and robocalls, and on the campaign staff, who are so busy working on the campaign up to the election that they often forget that they’ll be unemployed starting the day after. But this year, it could be our email boxes that are strained to the point of breaking.

I’m subscribed to the list of all three major Democratic candidates. Since the new year began, I’ve received no less than 4 messages from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Barack Obama, and his surrogates have sent me 3 messages. But the king of bacn award goes to the Edwards camp, who sent me 9 messages since the 1^st, including 3 on the 6^th. They also sent me 20 messages in the month of December, compared to 9 for Clinton and 14 for Obama.

Where’s the point of diminishing returns? At what point does one more message break the camel’s back (or at least Gmail’s server)? I explore this question below the fold…

(more…)

With the Iowa Caucuses today, I thought it might be good to do a quick roundup of interesting tools that the Presidential Candidates have put together to get out the vote. As happened in 2004, many of these tools will probably trickle into the non-profit sector over the coming year, as we see what works and what doesn’t.

First, I’ve got to say that I love Mitt Romney’s Varitalk. I remember when Snakes on a Plane used this same technology to put together calls from Samuel L. Jackson - my office spent several good hours sending calls to each other. Now you can have robo-Mitt call your friends, address them by name and holiday of choice, and tell them why he’s right for their most important issue, along with a reminder to vote in their own state. It also shows on caller ID as being from a phone number of your choice, and Mitt mentions that it comes from you.

Of course, there’s potential for abuse in applications like this, but that’s going to be true in any voter-generated content application - it’s really no more risky than a simple "Tell a Friend" form. I did find it odd, though, that there was such a limited selection of names Mitt could say. While I’m not surprised that "John Brian" wasn’t in his repertoire, I was saddened that he couldn’t call "Marissa" or "Taylor" by name, and I guess referring to the other guys in the field as "my opponent" has left him unable to say "Rudy" or "Duncan." Seems pretty closed-minded for a guy named "Mitt" who named his son "Tagg" (neither of which he can say, incidentally). But I did appreciate the option to make a contribution and get a real call, or at least a better robo-call (I didn’t make a donation to find out - I’m pretty sure I need my $25 more than Mitt).

Two more big things that impressed me, and a bunch more that I don’t have room to review in depth, below the fold…

(more…)

A lot has changed in the 20 years since the last potent protests in Myanmar (formerly Burma). For one, Internet access and digital cameras have placed media production in the hands of common citizens. So when blogs, images and streaming video capturing the recent protest in Myanmar began making their way around the world, authorities moved quickly to pull the plug on Internet access.

Myanmar bloggers already plagued with intermittent Internet access became more muffled as the government reportedly jammed satellite, SMS and mobile phones, and the country’s leading ISPs became “down for maintenance”. Internet cafes which serve a majority of this poor nation’s Web surfers were sabotaged by curfews which kept their patrons away. Alas, the saffron revolution was quieted and its coverage limited to AP reports.

So what could have helped Myanmar bloggers during this shutdown? (more…)