We all know of famous cases of Internet-fueled flaps that brought down both candidates and Congressmen alike. There was Trent Lott's race-tinged speech at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, or George Allen's unfortunate "Macaca moment" during the leadup to the 2006 midterms. During this primary cycle, videos of Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright stirred up a controversy that resulted in what some call the most importantspeech on race in America in over half a century.
Now, we may have another smoking gun clip on our hands. This time, the issue at hand is the seating of Florida's delegates at the Democratic National Convention. Supporters of plans to rescind threats to not seat the state's delegation claim that, among other things, the Florida Democrats were essential bystanders, wringing their hands on the sidelines as their Republican counterparts hatched a dastardly scheme to push up the primary (comment 219 on the New York Times link sums up their case pretty well).
Then, this happened:
DailyKos has all the discussion you need, but I gotta ask: where's the anger towards the state party (the rightful target, if there is such a thing), and how long before this gets picked up outside the blogosphere?
As TechPresident's Joshua Levy pointed out yesterday, this next video is so meta, it hurts. And I love it.
I'm telling you, man. It's all about user-generated content. I mean, name the last memorable online political video or advertisement you saw that was paid for or developed by a campaign itself? The Mike Huckabee/Chuck Norris video comes to mind, I guess, but that was memorable precisely because it played upon the DIY/meme culture inherent to the Internet. Other than that, though, nothing comes to mind.
Certainly, people have tried. You might've seen "Hillary and the Band", Hillary Clinton's grab at the youth vote from a few weeks ago. It has all the hallmarks of what the kids like, right? Ironic Photoshopping! Rock and Roll! The Blogs! Right. It's about as inspiring and/or entertaining as it sounds. Witness:
Clearly, strategists and campaigns have witnessed the power of the Internet as a content delivery system. Why they haven't been able to replicate the success found by other, independent sources is a question whose answer is going to make someone very rich someday. My guess? It all goes back to authenticity. Commercialization be damned, the Internet is still a populist place. Netizens (*cringe*) have finely tuned bullshit meters, and can sniff out pandering from miles away. Huckabee's video worked because his campaign demonstrated familiarity with this fact and decided to play along. Clinton's video failed because hers didn't.
A quick programming update before I hop the next train back to Washington. Wednesday night, after the no doubt farcical exchanges of the Republican YouTube debates, CNN will actually air a program I'm interested in for once. Entitled "Campaign Killers", the show is a part of CNN's Broken Government series. This particular episode deals with negative campaigning and its effect on the American political process. While I'm not exactly sure what bases they'll cover over the course of an hour, a press release from earlier this month promises some interesting coverage:
The documentary examines political mudslinging, the history of negative advertisements and the role of the Internet as a viral weapon in politics today.
Nice to hear the Internet mentioned in the same breath with important political discourse that doesn't primarily involve fundraising. One of the most interesting media developments in the last couple of election cycles has been the ease with which individual citizen can personally affect a candidate's campaign. Before this, voicing your opinion required organization; even as late as the 2004 presidential election, the major sources of ads and media, outside of the campaigns themselves, were PACs and other interest groups. Now, anyone who has access to a camera and an opinion can, with a little talent, a few well-placed connections, and some luck, produce a video that can garner national attention over night. While this kind of impact seems like a logical step towards greater political freedom, it remains to be seen how the candidates and their campaigns can exploit this new communication tool.
Sadly, the good old days.
One obvious double-edged sword in all of this is the potential for responsibility-free negative campaigning. Traditionally, campaign ads have an easily-traceable origin point. While people can debate the intentions and validity of groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they remain an identifiable group. Placing the advertising online at sites like YouTube makes that kind of background check almost impossible. Candidates could, conceivably, run a proxy smear campaign online with much less chance of immediate repercussions than they could using the Internet's broadcast-style predecessors. Though the people have more power, they also have a higher chance of attracting focused manipulation on the part of the candidates.
How do we deal with this?
Or this?
The political world has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to internet campaigning. At worst, the focus on user-generated campaign materials signals a potential excuse for laziness on the part of the political strategists. After all, why would they spend valuable campaign dollars on internet marketing when we have supporters who will do a decent job for free? However, that kind of attitude risks ignoring the innovations possible when investment dollars and talented minds collide. So far, this election has shown that the internet isn't going away. Whether or not a candidate can exploit the true potential of internet organizing and advertising in the next 12 months, however, remains to be seen.
That said, have a personal question about negative campaigning: why are the Democrats so bad at it, especially in the general election? My friend Lisa and I talked about this last week, and we couldn't figure it out. During the primaries, the knives come out, and the vitriol spews. Just ask Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Once the nomination is sewn up, though, a strange thing happens: everyone becomes nice. All of the anger and frustration that the candidates aimed at each other disappears once the real opponent enters the room. What's the deal? Is it a moral highroad issue? Are Republicans just meaner? What's behind the Democrats' lack of teeth when it comes to advertising?
One thing that I've been really rotten about when it comes to this whole blog assignment is actually keeping up with the mandatory postings. For instance, did you all know that I've been charged with weekly book reviews? No hands? I'm not surprised. Well, in the interests of catching up, here's the first of four belated book reviews.
Today's book is Seth Godin's much-lauded Unleashing the Ideavirus. When I first started reading this examination of the new start of marketing in the 21st century, I was expecting something akin to the starry-eyed proclamations usually reserved for something Scott McCloud dreamed up after reading old Katzenjammer Kids strips backwards while double-fisting purple drank. That is, something revolutionary in its unreality. However, Godin's ideas remain firmly grounded in the implementable, and, though sometimes colored by a little irrational exhuberance, remain solid strategies for marketing in a new landscape.
One of the ideas that really struck a chord with me was Godin's thoughts on access in relation to products and ideas. He notes early on that "one of the dumbest things marketers do is put artificial barriers in the way of trial". While it seems like common sense to say that, in order to become popular, a given object or idea has to be available to the right people at the right time, we don't have to look very far to see that companies still haven't quite grasped this inevitability, especially in the digital marketplace. From the recording industry to Major League Baseball, old-school organizations continue to frustrate users and drive down sales through the use of antiquated, protectionist DRM schemes. Instead of protecting the integrity and pocketbooks of the artists and corporations who use them, these obstructions of use and ownership are simply fueling a consumer-led backlash. Why buy from iTunes when you can slip over to eMusic and get mp3s that are actually yours?
Where have we heard that before?
As Godin point out in his book, digital media, when freely distributed, is one of the best ways to get people hooked on not just a song, but a band's entire output. This kind of loyalty is exactly the type of behavior that Godin looks for in taste-makers from all venues, people that he refers to as "sneezers":
Music execs know that you’ll pay nothing to hear a song on the radio, but if you like it, you’ll gladly pay $15 for the CD. And that if you love the CD, you’re more likely to pay $40 for tickets to the local concert, where you might be converted to a raving sneezer, much more likely to infect your friends and neighbors with raves about the band, the song, even the souvenirs!
Now that I have some of that DRM-rage out of my system, I'd like to turn my focus onto how all of this applies to politics. Now, I think it's safe to say that, generally speaking at least, creating and maintaining the same kind of ideavirus that Godin talks about is harder to do in the world of politics than it is in the world of product marketing. As an example, here are videos from two memorable viral videos that have emerged in the political world over the past few years: the "Hillary 1984" clip, George Allen's "Macaca moment", and
Clearly, these clips had some impact: the 1984 clip generated some serious buzz and cost its creator, Phillip de Vellis, his job at Blue State Digital, while Allen's slip was used deftly by his opponent, Jim Webb, to sway voters in Virgina's ultra-close Senate race (which Allen went on to lose by a razor-thin margin). What made both of these videos so powerful was precisely the thing that is the hardest to recreate: spontaneity. No one scripted the macaca comments, and no one hired de Vellis to make his commercial. Both events occurred outside the realm of planned marketing/image-making, a world which was then forced to respond. While examining the strategies that each campaign employed after the release of the videos may be telling, it ignores the most important part of the equation: the lightning-in-a-bottle nature of most videos.
Godin tells us that, when marketers beat people over the head with ads and come-ons, they tend to be ignored. However, in national politics, a land of ideas and heavy scrutiny, there isn't much room for developing secret campaigns. If you're not found out and laid bare to begin with, chances are good that your plan will be identified strongly enough with marketing strategies that many people will be turned off. For a viral video to really work in politics, it has to come from someplace outside of "the system". Fortunately, as citizens become savvier with net video technology, more and more of these homebrewed political commentary clips will pop up. Of course, it then becomes an issue of weeding out the good from the bad, but the blogosphere hasn't had much of a problem so far, so it's unlikely it'll develop one out of thin air.
Take that, Andrew Keen.
The real problem comes when they people don't want to talk about the same things that you want to talk about, or when the wrong people are doing the talking. Going back to some of Godin's ideas, it's fine when a candidate has the support of influential sneezers who are out there taking their message to the streets, but what about candidates who are on the outside looking in? How does a campaign drum up grassroots support (and content) without creating a little of its own first? I don't know the answer, exactly, but that's why I'm not the one writing the books.
Of course, this doesn't take into account attempts at politics-related humor that go viral. In cases like this, standard rules apply, I guess.
However, other sites have tried to blend humor with genuine campaigning. Some of the people behind the "Obama Girl" video, including actress Amber Ettinger and writer Leah Kaufman, are on record as willing to use the viral credibility earned from their first video to develop other videos across candidate, and party, lines. Call it viral-for-hire, I guess, though I have a feeling that the good feelings earned from the initial video could wear off quickly if we're faced with eight or nine more.
The curse of the one-trick pony?
Godin is right when he notes that maintaining these kinds of viruses is challenging work:
People no longer clamor to dance the Hustle or to get into Studio 54. They don’t visit the once hot jennicam website or pay a premium for front row seats at Cats. Why? Because instead of institutionalizing the process of improving, honing and launching new ideaviruses to replace the dying ones, the “owners” of these viruses milked them until they died.
Does anybody need Giuliani Girl? Probably not. By focusing on replicating the past instead of innovating towards a new, desirable form of video, sites like BarelyPolitical.com guarantee themselves a short cultural half-life. Again, it's an interesting challenge.
The challenge of replicating viral marketing in political forums might be best-suited for local or state elections, where focused campaigns, a narrower market, and a relative lack of big media scrutiny might afford political marketers some of the mystery and allure needed for these ideas to catch on. Nationally, however, hoping the replicate artificially the power of naturally-occurring viral media is a disaster waiting to happen.
For more on Seth Godin, check out his site for more insights and optimism. And, for those of you who love political videos, here's a countdown of the 10 best, according to these guys.
I'll be back later with my reviews of The Interplay of Influence, The Cluetrain Manifesto, and News That Matters, along with the usual pithy banter.
My last post introduced my dissatisfaction with the clusterfuck that is the primary debate system, but simply putting up a video of Dennis Kucinich being even weirder than usual didn't satisfy my need to vent about, and perhaps propose a solution to, this latest problem on the political landscape.
To put it simply: the debates that we've seen so far this season have, plainly, ranged from unsatisfying to downright detrimental. On the low end of the problem spectrum, the YouTube debates wrapped style over substance in the attractive papers of voter interaction. What should have been an interesting exercise in political participation devolved quickly into a cavalcade of schmucks and amateur actors all trying to out-quirk each other in hopes of their 15 minutes. The point, as they say, was missed.
Now, in the latest example of gimmick politics, we've been presented with the latest ratings-grabber: the Lightning Round! What a great way to derail an otherwise passable debate: with outmoded gameshow strategies!
Seriously, enough. Enough now. This has to stop. I'm as politically charged as the next Georgetown student, but if I have to see one more waste of airtime like this, I'm buying a yurt and moving to Montana. Instead of engaging in real discussion and, you know, debate, the candidates are once again reduced to soundbites. Oh, and often, too. By my (read: Wikipedia's) count, the Democrats and Republicans will, by the end of the primary season, have combined to engage in 36 of these dog and pony in just under nine months.
Wow.
As I stated earlier, I'm all for debate. However, to really catch my interests, it has to fulfill two very important criteria: it must be fair, and it must be in-depth. The primary debates tend to miss both of these by wide margins every time they hit the air. The sheer number of candidates, coupled with the media's maddening desire to turn everything into a horse race, tends to lend itself to exclusion rather than inclusion. Front-runners get most of the airtime, while great policy minds like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are left to fight their way out of their very own Catch-22 - they don't get the coverage because they're not popular, but part of the reason they're not popular is because no one's talking about them. Thus, you end up with these disadvantaged candidates resorting to sniping or outlandish statements as means of getting ink.
As you might've figured, the well-reasoned portion also goes out the window as soon as you start factoring in the numbers. With all of these candidates trying to make their own mark on a discussion that covers a wide range of topics, the audience ends up with all breadth and no depth. Nowhere is that more apparent than the latest inclusion of a Lightning Round, but it does get worse. Does anyone else remember the debates this summer that actually made use of show-of-hands voting to settle the important issues?
Fuck me. Are we in 6th grade again?
All of this talk about the problems with the primary debates reminds me of what Neil Postman said in Amusing Ourselves to Death: television, at its core, is primarily an entertainment medium designed around selling advertisements. Whenever you try to mix it in with serious discourse, bad things tend to happen.
Now, while I don't completely agree with that sentiment in regards to this situation (these debates tend to be covered without commercial interruption, for instance) I still think that we can do better. An, in the interest of not bitching without offering a solution, I think I have a few suggestions.
1) Themed debates. This would completely clear up the problems inherent in trying to cover all of the issues in every debate. Maybe, in addition to a few all-purpose debates scattered throughout the season, the candidates could participate in debates centered around narrow, predetermined topics. You could tune in to Hillary Clinton explain herself in "The Democratic Healthcare Debate", for instance, or listen to John McCain pop a few veins in his forehead during "The Republicans present: The War in Iraq". This type of setup would not only would this give the candidates ample time to touch on the finer points of a given debate without the distraction of other topics, but would also aid viewers who are more interested in some topics than others.
2) Showdowns. The media wants a horse race? Let's give them one. What if, instead of pitting all of the candidates against each other during every debate, the networks instead devised a system of head-to-head debates between each of the candidates? It could be like watching the NBA draft: each match-up could be randomly selected, giving lesser known candidates the chance to steal the spotlight from one of the big guns. Who wouldn't love to see Barack Obama get into an honest, lengthy debate with Dennis Kucinich? Once everyone's gone around once, maybe there could even be a second round featuring different pairings. With the natural lure of competition that's so attractive to our sporting culture, we could even open this whole thing up to voting. Perhaps an expert panel, plus some input from the public, could decide who moves on and who plays for consolation. Why not have a debating tournament? Maybe it's the NFLer in me, but if we can do this every weekend in January at high schools around the country, why can't we do this with our politicians?
Are these the perfect solutions? Of course not. Do they open up some interesting possibilities? Maybe. Are they better than what we've got so far? Well, obviously, I think so. What about you?
PS: For those of you really interested in the whole debate scene, check out this section of the New York Times' coverage. Personally, as someone who's had to slog through transcript after transcript from these kinds of events, this service is remarkable.
Before I forget, I have things to give you. Here's what I'm doing instead of homework.
- Barack Obama finds himself in the middle of a flap regarding an age-old tale of gay-bashing, gospel singing, and South Carolina campaign rallies. Earl Ofari Hutchinson has more.
- This just in: Glenn Beck is still a douchebag. I dislike him more than most people.
