Why Jet Blue’s Apology Works

I am a JetBlue customer.  I am also a fan.  But, I admit that when the airline initially fumbled the customer service and public relations challenges that followed the snow/ice storm that whacked the East coat on Valentines Day (is it cliche to call it a ‘Valentines Day Massacre?’), I thought the airline was doomed.  You see it all the time — a company screws-up, the press jumps all over them, customers start gravitating to a competitor — and a few months later a little notice appears in the media saying that the company filed for bankrupty.

This won’t kill JetBlue.  In fact, I think the airline will come back even stronger than before and their response to this communications disaster will drive significant changes in the entire airline industry. 

What worked?  First, the very same issue that led to JetBlue’s troubles during the storm — their small size, and relatively thin management structure — played a key role in their recovery.  If JetBlue had acted like most companies and issued a press statement or used a PR firm to offer an apology to customers, it would have fallen flat.  When David Neeleman, JetBlue’s Founder and CEO, went on a personal apology tour through the media and talked directly to customers online (through the JetBlue website and even on YouTube) it came across as genuine, sincere, and personal.  Watch the video - it is obvious that Mr. Neeleman hasn’t slept in days, is taking the responsibility and stress of the crisis very personally.  Nobody wants the man to suffer, but it is nice to know that a CEO isn’t shielding himself from tough times when customers are up in arms.

Second, they took swift and decisive action.  Lots of companies promise to fix problems when a crisis hits.  Usually the investigation into what went wrong takes a few months.  Then a few more months pass before any real changes are announced.  The public forgets what really caused the problem and the impact that the changes a company makes are hardly noticeable.  Not at JetBlue — their new Customer Bill of Rights was issued within days of the crisis, while emotions were still high over the delays and inconveniences.  In today’s fast-moving media environment, where news travels very quickly and the attention-span of the average person is very short, JetBlue was able to put into place a plan for real change while their audience was still paying attention.

The way JetBlue responded to this crisis — in the media, to their customers, online, by making the necessary changes to their structure and policies quickly — probably saved the airline.  We all know that weather will always cause problems for airline companies.   But while I think we all gave up on most of the major airlines long ago when it comes to supporting us as customers when these situations hit, JetBlue has earned itself at least one more chance to prove that its model, and customer-focused philosophy, can and does work.  I think it does work and I look forward to flying JetBlue again (in March, I am heading down to Austin, TX — a direct flight from Boston!) so I can show my support.

Presidential Announcements v2.0

I had this really long, eloquent post written about how all the candidates are using the web to launch their political campaigns.  I hit the wrong button and the whole thing was lost.  I won’t try to reconstruct the entire thing, but let me try and summarize a couple of the key points.

John Edwards announced his campaign for the Presidency with a web video.  Barack Obama used a web video a few weeks later to do the same.  And now Hillary Clinton, who announced her intention to run for President on Saturday, has used a video on her Website to break the news.  It seems you can’t be a candidate for President - at least not a Democratic candidate - without launching your campaign on the web.  (Memo to Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, who announced their candidacy’s on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows — you might want to check to make sure your announcement registered at all, or consider posting the video of your appearance on YouTube to make sure people take it seriously).

Both the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post used Senator Clinton’s announcement to analyze the role that the web will play in the upcoming campaign.  The LA Times offers a brief history of the highs and lows of internet campaigns over the past decade, writing:

The Internet’s power both to make and break politicians has been vividly demonstrated in recent years.

In 2004, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean jumped from political obscurity to grab the front-runner’s position in the initial stages of the Democratic race largely on the strength of the interest and fundraising he generated online.

Last year, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) watched his reelection campaign — and his hopes of emerging as a prime contender for the GOP presidential nomination — go down in flames after a video clip of him addressing a young man of Indian descent as “macaca” made the rounds on the Web.

Barely a factor in campaigning 11 years ago when Clinton’s husband won reelection as president, the Internet has become an integral part of the political landscape, with every major candidate fielding a website and seeking to create a virtual community around his — or her — campaign.

But with the recent advent of YouTube and other video-sharing sites, analysts said the most intriguing aspect of the evolving use of the Web may be as part of an immense game of political “gotcha,” in which campaigns seek to catch opposing candidates off-guard and off-message, as happened to Allen.

By contrast, the Washington Post took more of an editorial stance on what makes for good web video in politics, offering this comparison Clinton, Obama, and Edwards:

Unlike other candidates (coughBarack Obamacough), whose videos might have been produced by a guy with a cellphone camera, Clinton’s announcement was a veritable showpiece of Hollywood-style set design, lighting and cinematography. While Clinton, looking radiant in a red jacket and flattering makeup, affected the demeanor of a kaffe-klatching neighbor while speaking about the Iraq war, energy, Social Security and health care, the camera swung with pen dular subtlety between a background tableaux of framed family pictures and a fabulous table lamp exuding a warm glow. In fact, the background is so eye-catching, so crowded with totemic details, so bursting with semiotic potential, that I missed whole passages of Clinton’s statement the first time around. (And yes, I do want that lamp.)

The effect was one of breathtaking political shrewdness and brilliant staging, like a mash-up between “The West Wing” and Diane Keaton’s latest holiday heartwarmer. And for all its studied spontaneity, its air of having been pre-tested, choreographed, and managed to within a microfiber of Clinton’s mascara, it worked, if only to provide a little eye candy within a grainy sea of canned speeches and awkward iChats. The aesthetic sophistication suited Clinton, who, as a former first lady and a U.S. senator, would look hopelessly out of place in most other contexts (rocking the mom jeans in the Ninth Ward? Uh-uh. Maybe an ornate Senate office, but where’s the zazz in yet another wall of law books?), and the look and the script warmed up a woman portrayed as either an amoral ice queen or control-freaky dragon lady by her political opponents.

Three quick points: First, the novelty of launching a campaign on the web should have worn off a long time ago.  The web is not even close to being the most dynamic vehicle for delivering information anymore, politics has just been slow to embrace what virtually every major consumer brand and entertainment company in the world has been doing for the past five years.  A really nice website, a blog, or even a web video announcement is not enough.  Its time you ran a fully funded, fully supported effort online to promote your campaign - and to engage the audience that chooses to get its information there instead of through traditional news or campaign events (which are still important as well).  Second, announcing your campaign online sets all of our expectations very high that you, as a candidate, will remain committed to using the web.  John Edwards, you have already created behind-the-scenes web videos about yourself, recorded podcast conversations about issues, and similar.  Are you going to keep doing that when you are visiting four states a day - so we can see what really happens to a person when they don’t sleep enough, eat healthy, or have complete control over their message?  Hillary Clinton, you are taking your web efforts to the next level already, inviting the audience to create the first guest blog post to be published on your site and hosting a series of live video chats with the web audience over the coming week.  Are you going to host live web-chats every week, about any topic?  Are you going to take on the large and vocal segment of the online audience who questions your policies, challenges your positions, and even insults you personally — or will your web campaign, like your offline efforts, be so highly managed and controlled that it fails to really engage people?  Finally, the media needs to find a better way to cover and express the value the web plays in this upcoming cycle than how they are currently doing it.  We have all read, time and time again, what a big impact the web is playing and will continue to play in politics.  Its time to assign a full time, daily reporter to cover each campaign’s online efforts.  It is time to hold the campaigns accountable for what they say will be an online, grassroots fueled effort and put the same scrutiny on their web efforts as you do on their fundraising, their television ads, their speeches, and — even in some cases, their clothing.  Just as you have pushed increasing resources into covering traditional news through the online medium, now its time to recognize that the online efforts of a presidential campaign are also news and cover them accordingly.

It should be an exciting couple of years for those of us who live, work, and love the online medium.  I will definitely be watching to see what happens.  I hope the political world realizes the potential that it has to reach and engage the audience before and lives up to its end of the bargain.

Update: I wasn’t totally fair to Bill Richardson.  He has a very nice website (here) and has posted his announcement video to YouTube and other places.  He has a MySpace page, a Facebook profile, etc.  He’s following the new media playbook pretty much to all the way.  We will have to wait and see how that works for him.

Newsiness?

Stephen Colbert appeared on the O’Reilly Factor.  Bill O’Reilly made an appearance on the Colbert Report.  Both happened last night, a few hours apart, in what was billed as a ‘Smackdown’ — the ultimate television news commentator (O’Reilly) finally meeting face to face with the ultimate fictional news commentator (O’Reilly again, just kidding - Colbert), each a caricature of the other.

I didn’t watch.  I was late getting home from work and missed O’Reilly’s show and chose not to stay up late enough to watch Colbert.  I suppose I could have Tivo’d it, but it didn’t seem all that important to me.  Truth be told, while I will watch both Fox and Comedy Central pretty regularly (I am a media junkie, remember, the more information I can consume the better), I get most of my news from the other news networks and I align myself more with the Jon Stewart/Daily Show gang when it comes to that kind of entertainment. 

Fortunately, the news and entertainment media did the watching for me.  A quick Google News search this morning revealed 158 articles about the two swapping appearances.  In truth, there were far fewer unique articles written, but the Google News search shows up all the AP placements and similar (lots of reprinting of this one).  No matter, the coverage is pretty much what you would expect.  The two shows, it sounds like, didn’t quite live up to the billing (though I am sure that super-fans of either O’Reilly or Colbert would say differently).  The funniest moment, as I read it, came during O’Reilly’s appearance on Colbert’s show, described here by Alessandra Stanley in the New York Times.

On Comedy Central, Mr. Colbert suggested that Mr. O’Reilly was a bit of a brawler. Mr. O’Reilly demurred with a joke. “I’m effete,” he protested. “This is all an act.”

Mr. Colbert leaned forward and said in a deep, dramatic voice, “If you’re an act, then what am I?”

My question is this: Is this news, or is it entertainment?  In my print edition of the New York Times, Ms. Stanley’s TV Watch Column appeared on page A16 - in the National News section along side articles about breaking up gang violence in Los Angeles, a nasty and very public row between justices on the Michigan Supreme Court and a host of other serious issues.  In the online version of the Times, the article appears in the Arts section.  It is not uncommmon for the TV Watch column to appear in the main news section — when Ms. Stanley writes about how the State of the Union or some similar political announcement comes across on the tube it gets lumped in with the other national news coverage.  Is the same as coverage of the State of the Union?  After all, nearly all of the non-New York Times coverage seems to have come from entertainment writers like Ms. Stanley — Jake Coyle, the AP’s entertainment reporter, Peter Johnson, who writes the Media Mix column of USA Today, etc.  I haven’t seen where any of those columns appear in the print versions of their respective papers.There is one article by the staff of Editor & Publisher, a group that covers the news media exclusively, but only one so far. 

Two thoughts:  First, the reason this is getting so much coverage, I think, is because the media wants to shed some of its guilt about how much of an entertainment enterprise it has become and how far away from true journalism it has stayed.  They have decided to place the blame on the over-sized ego of Bill O’Reilly and the over-sized fictional ego of Stephen Colbert.  Think about it — both Colbert and O’Reilly are public figures who report on happenings from around the world on their respective shows, and what they say impacts how the rest of the world views those issues.  That makes them part of the news industry. Still, while many people argue that O’Reilly presents hard news and Colbert presents a fictional version of it, in reality, both O’Reilly and Colbert do the same thing – deliver the news to their audience with an extra dose of their own personality added for effect.  Some would argue that the only reason Colbert’s audience gets the news is because of how he presents it - and the same argument could be made about O’Reilly.  That makes them entertainers.  Entertainers aren’t bad, but can they present the news?  Journalists aren’t evil either, but are they entertaining?

Second, I actually believe that the New York Times’ coverage of this event – and more to the point, where they placed it in the print edition – says a lot about the future of media, in a good way.   Alessandra Stanley is a journalist and did in fact report on the meeting of these two television personalities as a news event.  Just because this particular news event is born out of an entertainment focus doesn’t make it any less news — or at least that is no longer for someone like the New York Times to decide.  Her contribution to the Times is just as important as that of Adam Nagourney, and in many ways equally influential when it comes to how the public reads and responds to it.  The placing of the TV Watch column in the main section of the paper is an acknowledgement by the Times that the lines between different types of news  content are now permanently blurred — the audience doesn’t see a difference, so the paper shouldn’t either.  I only wish the New York Times had put the article in the national news section online as well.

The Future of Newspapers

I have been thinking a lot about the future of newspapers lately. 

The topic is not a new one - the various threats to print newspapers have been debated publicly in media and technology circles for several years now (and probably for quite some time out of the public’s view).  Despite numerous articles, conventions, discussions and predictions, I don’t think that much has been decided or even made more clear in that time.  I certainly have more questions than answers.  I don’t think anybody really knows what is going to happen.

A full discussion of the future of newspapers would take up more than one post, and would need to include people with far greater knowledge and perspective on the subject than I have to offer.  That never stops me from offering my opinion though.  And while I will try to organize my thoughts more clearly in the future, and invite friends and colleagues who work in the newspaper business to weigh in, for now I just I wanted to share a couple of recent articles about this debate that I thought were really interesting.

First, The Week magazine, writes about The Decline of the American Newspaper.  The article is a well organized summary of the current state of newspapers - with a little bit of editorial perspective to round things out.  For someone who is new to this debate, or just needs a refresher, the article is organized around seven key questions about the newspaper industry.  The questions include:

1. Why are newspapers in deep trouble? 
2. Where did the readers go? 
3. What’s the problem? 
4. What is the newspaper doing about all this? 
5. Is that strategy succeeding? 
6. So are newspapers going broke? 
7. Can anything be done?

For me, the future of newspapers has to include some localization of content and expertise.  I am an avid newspaper reader and nothing bothers me more than the AP-ification of the world’s information, when all the articles pull from the same sources and not a single bit of additional perspective is added.  Don’t get me wrong, the AP provides a valuable service and I use it regularly to keep track of events happening around the globe.  But I don’t consider that to be the true value that newspapers can provide.  According to The Week, I’m not alone in thinking this:

Publishers are experimenting with generating several versions of the paper to target various market segments, such as young people. Some may start giving away their papers free, relying entirely on advertising revenue. One school of thought is that newspapers should become “hyper-local,” focusing intensely on community news not available on the Web or TV. But most industry experts believe that the era of print newspapers is nearing its end. Newspapers, says media analyst Ken Marlin, “have to either adapt to the new economics, or die.”

Next up is “A modest proposal for reinventing newspapers for the digital age” by Michael Hirschorn in The Atlantic Monthly.  The article begins with an overview of, EPIC 2014 (now apparently updated to EPIC 2015) an online movie that predicts the future of the media that results from technological innovation (or assimilation as the case may be) and continues through a discussion of the various models that newspapers might try to integrate to become profitable.  Hirschorn settles on this recommendation/thought:

The current Web-publishing model that newspapers are using isn’t likely to become financially viable anytime soon. With few exceptions, the media businesses thriving on the Web either are low-cost blog-like efforts or follow a many-to-many model, in which communities create, share, and consume content. Publishing an article on the Web gets you one click; getting your users to write the article for you gets you a thousand clicks, and costs less to boot. In other words, turning your users into contributors increases their engagement with your site—each click is, after all, also an “ad impression”—while simultaneously generating more content that you in turn can sell to advertisers.

Now we’re talking!

Last on the article list for this post is Michael Wolff’s Billionaires and Broasheets in this month’s Vanity Fair, a look at the recent push by various moguls to buy into the print newspaper business.  Wolff alludes to most of the reasons I can imagine a billionaire would want to buy a newspaper - boredom (as might be the case with Jack Welch who is rumored to be interested in buying the Globe), frustration with the perspectives of the editorial board on an issue that is close to them personally (as is the case with Hank Greenberg, who is rumored to be interested in buying the New York Times), or maybe even ego (as is the case with Ron Burkle and Eli Broad, who are rumored to be interested in the LA Times and who probably think their investment and management savvy might be able to reshape the media biz).  For what its worth, Wolff’s contribution to the debate is summarized at the end of his article as follows:

Of course, the Internet is a bitch. On the other hand, the Internet is an inefficient way for a big man to throw his weight around. A newspaper really is the much more effective bully pulpit.

What’s more, given a host of new papers—The Daily Geffen, The Welch Globe, The Greenberg Times, The Broad Journal, The Burkle Shopper—freed from the deadening template of the people who theoretically know how to run newspapers, maybe the people who know nothing at all about newspapers will stumble onto something that makes them shout and sing (Eli Broad recently offered that it might be a good idea if the L.A. Times had more pictures of donors at charity events … well … maybe).

Anyway, now is not the time to worry about the unknown. The unknown is the only hope. Make the deal.

I don’t know yet what the future of media looks like - I’m working on figuring that out right now.  I don’t believe that the demise of newspapers will come any time soon, and I don’t see that takeover of journalism by faceless and emotionless technology (as is suggested by EPIC) will be realized any sooner.  I know that profitability is the chief concern of any business, and as long as journalism is considered a business (instead of say an art, or a public service) then groups like the New York Times and the Tribune Company will look for ways to monetize their coverage of world events.  My hope is that someone in the middle of this debate will realize that one of, if not the primary value, that newspapers have always offered to the public is editorial perspective and journalistic excellence — a way to help all of us who consume news on a mass scale to understand what is relevant, important, and why.  That seems to have gotten lost in this debate, and in our news industry today as a whole, and needs to return to both.

Why Candidates Watch What You Buy

AdWeek has an article about micro-targeting - the political strategy of using lifestyle data (magazine subscriptions, shopping habits, etc.) to target and communicate with voters.  I am quoted.

My first quote is about the value of micro-targeting:

“You are now targeting based on behavior,” says Brian Reich, a senior strategic consultant at Mindshare Interactive Campaigns, a Washington public affairs shop that handles lobbying and ballot initiatives. “You understand a lot more about a person based on how they spend their time and money, rather than on how they identify themselves.”

My second quote is about the difference in approach to elections demonstrated by the Republicans and the Democrats:

The Democrats’ data-gathering strategy pales in comparison. Prior to this year, some states lost or discarded voter data between elections, according to the DNC. And unlike Republicans, who handpick candidates early on and develop corresponding campaign messages before the upcoming race, Democrats often find themselves playing catchup— waiting until a candidate gets the party nomination, then figuring out how to sell him or her to the voters.

The disparity between these arrangements is obvious. “If you wait until [a nomination] to tell people you have to mobilize, you have a problem,” argued Reich. The Democrats are now in a scramble—and the stakes are high. Many political observers are predicting that the GOP may lose its lock on both houses of Congress. But for that to happen, the Democrats must win 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

I have never tried hid my frustration with the Democratic Party and its use of technology.  I wrote an article for Personal Democracy after the 2004 cycle about the mistakes I felt the Democrats had made in developing their database for example.  And while the Democrats have made a much larger commitment than many expected over the past two years, I think the Republicans are are still far ahead of the Democrats, and have a more practical approach to the use of technology to support their election activities. 

The Democrats will probably win big next week — take control of the House, maybe the Senate as well.  Still, the Democrats will lose some close seats because the Republican message and turnout machines are using technology in a more focused and efficient way.  They have identified the most important political activities and found ways to use technology to support their efforts - whether its targeting and message delivery, opposition research, Get-Out-The-Vote or similar.  In other words, technology is not the story. 

If the Democrats do win big, the message that more needs to be done will likely be lost… the focus will be on the President’s failures in Iraq or the corrupt practices of the Republican leadership in Congress.  Political experts and the media give credit to liberal bloggers, or the few candidates who found a way to tap MySpace or YouTube with changing the face of politics.  And while there is some truth to that, and they all deserve some credit for pushing this discussion forward, there is more to the conversation.

Democrats continue to invest in technology, and I believe they are closing the gap that exists between them and the Republicans in this area.  But, there is still a fundamental difference in the philsophies of the two parties — and until Democrats position technology as an element of the campaign, and not the story itself, the Republicans will continue to have an advantage.

Stadiums and Neighborhoods

I am a self-styled expert on the issue of sports stadium construction.  More specifically, I find myself studying, writing, opining, and obsessing over new ballparks and other facilities, particularly when there is an element of public financing involved.  I don’t know why, I just geek out over this stuff.

Typically the news coverage of stadium construction focuses on the public battle over funds — half of a community (maybe more) call a public contribution to ballpark construction a shameless waste of tax dollars and demand increased support for local schools, road improvements, etc.  The argument on the other side is that stadium construction spurs economic growth in a community that spills over into increased funding for other public programs.  The jury is still very much out.

Today, the Wall Street Journal takes on the issue with a story about how Ross Perot, Jr.  son of the Texas billionaire and former Presidential candidate, has worked to build “an urban district” with the American Airlines Arena in Dallas as the hub.  They write:

Victory Park is one of a growing number of mega developments to be paired with large professional sports venues. In suburban Phoenix, owner Steve Ellman of the National Hockey League’s Coyotes is preparing to open the first phase of his $1 billion Westgate City Center this fall with the Glendale Arena as its centerpiece and the home of the National Football League’s Arizona Cardinals, complete with retractable roof, across the street. And baseball’s St. Louis Cardinals and the Cordish Co. of Baltimore are planning Ballpark Village, a $650-million urban neighborhood spanning six blocks next to the new Busch Stadium in St. Louis.

Until recent years, noise and traffic discouraged many people from living near arenas and stadiums. But as the entertainment value of professional sports has grown, sports venues have become selling points. Now they figure prominently in the pitch by many urban centers to “live, work and play” in the same place.

As you read the whole article, you will see that Mr. Perot has faced some pretty significant challenges in building this new community - and is far from out of the woods.  Still, he understands the potential for entertainment and sports to serve as an anchor for a community, a mix of residential and commercial. 

I wrote a paper in college about this subject (”Baseball and the American City: An Examination of Public Financing and stadium Construction in American Professional Sports) that speaks to many of the issues that Mr. Perot and other developers are facing. Much of my research dates to more than seven years ago now, and my analysis focuses mostly on plans to build new facilities in/around New York City, but the paper’s findings remain true today. 

I found is that there are economic, political, and social benefits of building sports facilities as the center of communities, but that public officials have to be careful when investing because of the long-term economic considerations.  Mr. Perot probably doesn’t worry about the community investment piece since the likelyhood is that he will make back his investment fairly quickly.  The City of Dallas does not have that luxury - if they don’t make back their investment, they could face significant problems down the line.

I think that communities need to support the development of ballparks and stadiums, not for economic reasons — in fact, economics are probably the last reason they should look to build them.  Great cities are defined by great experiences and sports provides one of those opportunities for people to have great experiences.  You can certainly have great communities without a new stadium, or the neighborhood that surrounds it, but it will be a very different kind of great community than one that does have one.  Compare and contrast on your own and let me know what you think.

Public Looking for Political Information Online

There is lots of news today to suggest that a growing number of people in the United States are looking for political news and information online.

The Pew Internet & American Life released a memo/study saying the number of people looking online for political information is at its highest point ever, a big deal given we are in a non-presidential year election with voter turnout in many places coming in at depressingly low levels.  They write:

On a typical day in August, 26 million Americans were using the internet for news or information about politics and the upcoming mid-term elections. That corresponds to 19% of adult internet users, or 13% of all Americans over the age of 18.

This is a high-point in the number of internet users turning to cyberspace on the average day for political news or information, exceeding the 21 million figure registered in a Pew Internet Project survey during the November 2004 general election campaign.

In addition, the Wall Street Journal has two articles this morning about new ways that the public can access political information online.  The first article highlights how social networking sites devoted to politics are popping up, focusing on a handful of relatively new projects like HotSoup, Essembly, and MorePerfect.  They also note a shift among the big players in the space towards political topics.  They write:

This month, Facebook, a social networking site with more than 9.5 million members, launched an Election 2006 network, creating stock profiles of around 1,400 candidates with basic information like their name, office, state and party. Facebook, of Palo Alto, Calif., then reached out to the Democratic and Republican National Committees to encourage candidates to expand on them. The site also launched an election “Pulse” feature that ranks candidates in various races according to how many Facebook members who have elected to support at least one politician support that candidate.

And a number of political candidates already have pages on MySpace.com, a unit of News Corp. Len Munsil, the Republican running for Arizona governor, recently asked his 19-year-old son to create a profile for him. “You have to find every way possible to communicate inexpensively with voters, especially younger ones,” says Mr. Munsil, who checks his profile — which features a background photo of supporters waving placards, a head shot and a campaign video — every few days. Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is running for re-election, was pleasantly surprised to find he had a MySpace presence. “We have no idea who put up the MySpace profile,” says a campaign spokesman. “But we would like to be in touch since it is so supportive.” Facebook and MySpace accept political advertising.

The second article discussed how political ads, and other video, are starting to appear on video sharing networks.  They posit this as both an effective way to bypass traditional television (which, in some markets, will compete with the upcoming baseball playoffs, or just may be too expensive for most campaigns) as well as present a candidate’s case to some different audience groups.  They write:

The technology that’s been flooding the Internet with videos produced by everyone from teenage skateboarders to major entertainment companies also is beginning to affect the political process. Sites like YouTube.com, Google Video and Blinkx.com already are filling up with candidate commercials, news clips, interviews and even amateur satirical videos.

This new medium naturally opens up new possibilities for negative campaigning and for gaffes to be magnified into major campaign issues. For example, an amateur video on YouTube.com about Montana Sen. Conrad Burns shows him falling asleep at a hearing. Numerous Web sites carried footage of Sen. George Allen, of Virginia, calling an aide to his Democratic challenger “macaca,” considered by some to be a racial slur.

But video on the Web is going beyond mudslinging. It’s also beginning to help inform voters. Numerous TV stations that televise debates are for the first time posting them on their Web sites so they can be watched at any time. Some civic groups are putting short video interviews with candidates on the Internet so voters can make side-by-side comparisons. Startup sites like thepeoplechoose2006.org and election.tv are trying to create video-rich sites that provide information on races throughout the country.

The fact that people are looking to the internet for political information should come as no surprise.  There are still not enough campaigns and candidates waging effective campaigns online, but there are some very encouraging signs from both sides of the aisle.  Still, there is still more work that needs to be done - by candidates and campaigns, technology gurus, and voters/audiences if the online medium is going to truly revolutionize the political process. 

Right now, the net is mostly being used to push existing content — position papers, television ads, etc. — to new audiences.  While important, and in some cases effective, this is not full utilization of the medium.  Online presents opportunities to make the political process interactive – candidates and campaigns have to think about new and different ways to present their content, or better yet, create content that exists only online and recognizes the opportunities for a different interaction. 

Technology gurus, like those building social networks, have to accommodate conversations about serious issues — and embrace the fact that political conversations are different than conversations about music, movies, consumer package goods, or life (dating, etc.) that typically drive social networks.  Simply putting people in an online space together and suggesting a political interaction does not a productive discussion make.  Social networks dabbling in the political space need to program aggressively, support networking activities with relevant, timely, and compelling information, and tie those conversations to voting and other actions.  For example — where is the section on YouTube that allows users to search for political videos by category?  Where is the area of MySpace that allows you to find charitable, advocacy, or political organizations to join and become involved with?  There is so much potential out there that is not being realized.

Finally, the audience needs to demand more.  The consensus is that voter turnout and engagement in the political process is low because the campaigns don’t reflect the voters interests.  Maybe so.  But the public shouldn’t stand for recycled position papers and empty-headed rhetoric online.  The public shouldn’t bark at the moon simply because some blogger says that is what they should do.  If you are looking online for information and you want to have your issues addressed, demand more from both your candidates and the technology gurus.  Tell them what you want.

I am encouraged by the growth in interest of political spaces online.  I just want more.

Politicians Fall in Love with ‘Word Bites’

John Ridley delivered a commentary on NPR last week about the new hot thing in politics — “word bites. 

“Political sound bites have shrunk even further, from sentences down to “word bites.” Defeatocrats, Islamofascists and “The Secure Fence Act” are all examples of politicians boiling down their ideas to bumper-sticker phrases.

You can listen to the commentary online.

Will the Mariners Finish in Third Place?

Bill Chuck, a writer and baseball analyst, posted to his Billy Ball blog/email list today one of the most important questions of the year.  Here it is:

3. Will the Seattle Mariners catch the Texas Rangers for third in the AL West (and why does it matter)?

Seattle won the first two games of their weekend series with the Rangers and, even after a loss yesterday, the M’s are just four games behind third-place Texas in the American League West. There are 20 games left in Seattle’s season, and six of the last nine are against the Rangers. There is time for the Mariners to avoid last place and sink the Rangers.

Now finishing out of last for the wonderful people of Seattle would be a nice thing (they have rested in the cellar the last two seasons), the Rangers finishing fourth would probably enhance owner Tom Hick’s threat of “blowing up” his team, rather than fire Captain Queeg (a.k.a. manager Buck Showalter). Many teams would be very anxious to get their hands on Hank Blalock and Mark Teixeira. SI.com reported that the Rangers already have offered Teixeira to his hometown Orioles for Miguel Tejada and Eric Bedard.
 

I don’t ask for much. I understand that the Mariners are a small market team.  I understand that the Mariners play in the weakest division in baseball.  But my wish all year has been that the Mariners would finish in third place and that they would gain national recognition in the baseball community for such a feat.  We have a talented squad and a good fan base.  We are capable of finishing third and I expect nothing less.  I shared this wish with Bill when we had lunch a few weeks back and I am pleased that he would not only make it one of his ‘Five Questions with Three Weeks to Go” but that it would rank as the third most important. 

Thanks Bill.  Go Mariners.   

Social Networking for the Social Good

Paul Lamb posted a fantastic article this morning on CNET about the potential for social networks to move beyond commercial opportunities and be used to support a larger social purpose.  As he put it, to “enhance our ability to connect with others in meaningful ways.” 

Here is an excerpt from the article:

What would a world look like where the best of social-networking tools were put to use in “average” communities and for the larger social good?

It might include:

- Neighborhood social networking. While sitting at home using my PC or driving around my neighborhood with my cell phone, I can identify and connect with people on my street who share common interests. Neighbors I may not know have a choice to make their profile available to me and others in our immediate neighborhood. If an elderly neighbor needs help moving furniture, I can find out about it on our neighborhood social network and volunteer to lend a hand.

- Educational social networking. Students, teachers and the community at large participate in school-based systems that match school assignments, activities or needs with individuals inside and outside the school who can help.

- Social services networking. Using a cheap wireless device, an abused spouse or a person recently released from prison can be linked immediately to a variety of services in their area, including temporary housing, counseling and employment support. Before they even show up at a social service agency, they could access information about the best person to talk to (based on reviews from other clients) and know what services are available in real time without having to wait or be told to go somewhere else.

- Street-smart social networking. Rather than handing over a quarter, a passerby can assist a homeless person using a one-click system that identifies local services or electronically transfers money to an account at a local grocery store or restaurant.

The way I see it, the Web is a venue for an ever-increasing number of social isses to be addressed – the online population can discuss ideas, share opinions, educate and even mobilize itself to try and change the world.  Social networking is the latest online trend where people no longer just interact with content by “reading” and “clicking,” but digest messages and then contribute their own ideas. In turn, they influence others in their interaction with that message or idea. 

The opportunity for social networks to emerge around specific issues and become the framework in which many conversations happen online is tremendous.  The challenge for an organization promoting “serious issues” is to leverage the power of these new social networks to create innovative experiences that the audience can access and influence.  The audience still needs a take away message that is valuable to the organization as well.

What drives interest in social networking is content – short or long, descriptive or interactive.  In this context, social networking adds the logical next layer to content-driven resources.  In other words, it is not the social networking technology or functionality that will make this happen.  It’s the substance.  An organization’s online audience can be served by content uniquely tailored to its online behavior and interests. And through this content, the audience will engage with an organization in new and important ways.  Without the content, we are out of luck.