Age of Conversation - Bum Rush

Last year I had the honor and pleasure of contributing to a collaborative book effort that both highlighted, and represented, the power of social media. 103 bloggers came together for the project, entitled ‘Age of Conversation.’ We sold thousands of copies, with proceeds going to a couple of childrens charities. And, it was such a success, we are getting the band back together (plus some other contributors) to do it again this year.

Before we dive into the new project, however, we are trying an experiment. Today, the authors and community around Age of Conversation are launching a ‘bum rush’ — a one-day push to help raise the Amazon sales ranking of Age of Conversation. The more books we sell, the higher the ranking goes today and the more money goes to some very worth childrens charities.

So, please, go buy the book (use this link so we can track it):

And tell your friends to buy the book. Write about it on your blog. Make it your activity update on your Facebook profile. Hit your your Twitter account up with a post. Whatever you use to spread the word, please help us with this incredible effort.

Thank you.

SXSW: The Discussion About Metrics That Never Happened

(This is cross-posted at the EchoDitto SXSW blog)

The last panel discussion of the day promised a discussion of social marketing strategy and metrics.  It featured some heavy hitters - Rohit Bhargava from Ogilvy, Brian Magierski from BSG — and others.  The moderator said the discussion would be at the ‘intermediate’ level, meaning they were going to skip past the basic stuff.  The room was packed and buzzing about the possibility of solving this vexing challenge once and for all.

Big let down.  Same old discussion.  No new ground broken.

I won’t quote from the panel, it really isn’t worth the effort.  But I will share a few quick insights that I gained while listening from the back of the room.

1) People are looking for a simple solution.  There isn’t one.  One panelist suggested the problem was that we knew there was an ROI for social media but we couldn’t demonstrate it to our boss/client.  Their solution? If someone could just create a tool, a piece of technology, that could measure all the different elements of social media conversation then we could demonstrate the value.  Um, no, that’s not the right answer.  A piece of technology will not solve this problem.  We can measure most everything that happens online.  But people haven’t spent the time to figure out what it means, how it relates to their goals and the work they are doing.

Why is that?

2) People are lazy.  The benefit of the online world is that everything (or nearly everything) is measurable.  The drawback of course, is the same thing - that everything (or nearly everything) is measurable.  And when you measure everything, reams and reams of data are produced — data about every person on the web, what they are doing, the content they are promoting, and everything else.  But nobody, it seems, reads all that data, they just look at the summaries.  Nobody it seems, is asking the tough questions about what the data says, instead of just passing along the numbers and suggesting they represent the answer.  Nobody, it seems, is wiling to take a stand on what something means, for fear that they will be wrong.

What is missing is analysis, opinion, perspective, insight.  If we are so smart about how people use technology to communicate, how people use the web, what works and what doesn’t, and we truly understand the people we are talking with online (or are even representative of those people ourselves), then we should be able to look at the numbers and understand what they mean.  We should be able to offer opinions and insights that inform real actions.

Why don’t we?

I think I do (and I demand that the people I work with do the same).  I love numbers as much as anyone.  I geek out over the crosstabs when I do polling; The summary memo isn’t nearly as interesting to me.   I wade into the comments when my client has a blog or similar and listen to what people are saying; counting how many people are commenting is not enough.

So, I challenge my fellow marketers to embrace the data and spend the time learning what it means.  I challenge my fellow marketers to provide their opinions, their informed insights drawn from years and years of experience communicating online, about what to do and how to do it.  I challenge my fellow marketers to use their brain, to trust their gut, to take a stand, and to use the process of measuring and analyzing to try something every day until we feel good about what we know.

Then we can come back and have a better discussion about this issue and what we have all learned in the process.

Substance and the 2008 Elections

Since the Presidential primary contests began almost two years ago, I have been calling for a substantive debate of the issues.  I told my friends, my family, and anyone who would listen to me that the key to victory — especially for the Democrats — was to articulate (and discuss, in detail, with the voters) real solutions to the challenges that are facing our society.

There are many issues: the war, the economy, education, the environment and climate change, various social issues, etc. that the candidates aren’t talking about in any depth.  Their websites only host a few paragraphs about any issue.  Their speeches gloss over the important points.  The press hasn’t called them on it.  Hillary Clinton (full disclosure: I am a supporter and donor to Senator Clinton’s campaign) has done better than Barack Obama, but both have fallen well short.

This week, the New York Times agreed with me.  The editorial board wrote:

… it means that there is still a chance to take this campaign and elevate it, finally, to a serious debate about major issues. That is what American voters deserve. And that is what Democrats must do if they hope to break the Republican grip on the White House.

And then this…

For Democrats, changing this dynamic is all the more urgent because Senator John McCain has now won the Republican nomination, and he visited the White House on Wednesday to collect the dubious blessing of Mr. Bush’s endorsement. Mr. McCain is now free to enjoy the food fight knowing that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be weakened. He can now hone his attack for the fall.

And this…

The quality of this contest has not reflected that interest or the candidates’ intellect. Instead of a serious debate about trade, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have engaged in a depressing fit of pandering to voters in economically troubled Ohio. They tripped over each other in rushing to attack the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement rather than offering voters honest answers about what government can and should do to help them adapt to globalization’s challenges.

And this…

Even if their differences on Iraq are negligible, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should still debate the issue, explaining how they plan to bring American troops home and contain the chaos…

Instead of talking seriously about reforming health care, each side has run attack ads distorting the other’s proposals. There has been some discussion about taxes, the home-mortgage crisis and the slowing economy — but mostly when the candidates are asked about these issues during debates.

And finally this…

Nearly a third of the 50 states have yet to hold a nominating contest. Before they do, we’d like to hear fewer character attacks and a lot more discussion of the nation’s many problems after nearly eight years of failed Republican rule. That is the Democrats’ comparative advantage. They should start to use it now.

Voters have an important responsibility in our country and they take their role seriously.  While some voters choose based on personality, I feel confident that most voters decide who to cast a ballot for based on the issues.  We all believe something, and have opinions about how to tackle the tough issues (even when we don’t fully understand them) and we look for the candidate that shares, or at least represents, our beliefs.

So far, the candidates haven’t given us much substance to use in making our choice.  There are many months left (it seems) in the Democratic primary contest, and more months beyond that when John McCain will debate Senator Obama or Senator Clinton further.  Let’s hope the candidates finally listen to me, and the New York Times, and start talking turkey.

quarterlife crisis?

“Quarterlife,” the first Web-based drama to air on network television, has been canceled by NBC after a dismally rated first episode but will move to sister cable channel Bravo, people close to the show said on Thursday.

The highly touted online series about a group of young artists bombed in its NBC debut on Tuesday night, drawing the network’s lowest ratings and smallest audience for that time slot in at least 20 years, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Ouch.
Let’s be honest - ‘quarterlife’ was doomed from the start.  It was designed for MySpace, to be distributed on the web, but it ended up on television instead.  The subject matter was specific to the web.  The production style was suited for online.  Everything that Marshall Herskovitz and Ed Zwick, the Emmy-winning producers of “thirtysomething” and “My So-Called Life” had put together was geared towards an audience of 20-somethings who get their content primarily (if not entirely) online.

So why did NBC buy the program and put it on TV?  My guess is because they thought they could make more money with advertisers, get a larger viewing audience to tune in, instead of log on.  They were wrong.
There is an audience out there that wants to see a well produced drama about 20-somethings.  Some are still watching television regularly, and maybe NBC will find success putting ‘quarterlife’ on one of its more targeted cable channels (though I would guess not in this case).  You see, the majority have found other ways to get their entertainment: through the web, on their mobile devices like cell phones and iPods, and within social networks (which, while online, have a whole different way of operating).
NBC should have known that, the evidence of this shift in how people get and share information is not hard to find.  I think they did know, and they chose to ignore it.
TV networks haven’t found a good reason to break their old habits and old models.  They still make plenty of money doing things the wrong way.  And they get pressure from advertisers, who don’t understand that times have changed either, to keep doing things the same way they always have.  Networks like NBC, and their advertisers, will probably make money this way, the wrong way, for a few more years.  But, the audience is changing and their (our) expectations have changed dramatically.  The networks, and their advertisers, must radically change their activities and recognize that a new world requires a new way of operating.  Until they do, you will see them fall flat on their faces time after time, just as they did in the case of ‘quarterlife.’
Stay tuned, I guess…

Public Media 2007

I spoke on a panel Friday morning at Public Media 2007, the Interactive Media Association’s annual conference.  The conference brings together the folks from the public broadcasting (radio and TV) communities who are focused on interactive (read: online) communications.  While the public broadcasting community has been an innovator in many ways online, the conference was appropriately focused on figuring out how NPR, PBS, and all their member stations and partner groups could make the leap from being public broadcasters who have operations online to being leaders in the broader public media space, and leveraging technology to do that.

Here is a quick excerpt from the conference overview on what was driving this discussion:

For one thing, all media is taking a digital form and “public service publishing” has expanded dramatically–if you extend the definition of public media to any individual or organization creating and distributing media “in the public interest.”  Technical advances and innovations have eliminated barriers to entry. The cost of audio and video production has spiraled downward. Podcasting and media aggregation sites, where you don’t need a license to distribute audio and video, now reach millions of desktops and iPods.  With ubiquitous blogging software, everybody can be a journalist, a critic, a pundit at a cost of no more than $20 a month. 

The speed of this change has been nothing short of revolutionary.

I sat on a panel entitled “Leveraging Social Networks” which promised to answer the burning question: “How can public broadcasting stations can leverage social networks to increase engagement and build audience?”  The panel was moderated by Vinay Bhagat, the Founder and Chief Strategist of Convio and featured Dick McPherson, a consultant to the public broadcasting community, Heather Holdridge from Care2 and David Woodrow from Gather.com.

I was generally disappointed with how the conversation was framed.  The easy way to think about social networks is to look at the existing technologies in the field and figure out how to use them.  In other words, since MySpace has more than 50 million users, they must be a place we can go looking to engage our audience.  Or, since more than 65,000 videos are uploaded to YouTube every day, we should be uploading our shows because that’s where the marketplace is headed.  There is not enough consideration about why these properties may or may not be valuable and not enough thought about what makes online social networking function successfully.

I kicked things off with a presentation (here is my iMA Presentation) that framed social networking and new media in a broader format.  My point was simply that social interaction online, and social networking more specifically, has been happening for a long time in many different formats — and innovations in technology will only expand on that.  Successful communities are built and fostered online not because of the technology that facilitates the interaction, but rather its the content and experience that people create and share that drives interest.   Public media organizations need to think strategically and creatively about what they produce, how if they want to truly engage their target audience.  I think I resonated with the audience, but honestly am not sure.

Dick McPherson followed me and challenging the audience to focus on specific goals they wanted to achieve online (i.e. build community and membership, not raise money) and broadly about how to creatively execute on those efforts.  Heather and David offered case studies about what works within their networks. 

Now, I do not mean to disrespect either Care2 or Gather.com, both of which I think are terrific organizations and both of whom were well represented by my fellow panelists, but they are only two of the dozens of options currently available to consider.  I am not a big fan of presenting personal case studies on panels because it should be obvious that I would biased towards the things that I have done.  That was the case with both Gather.com and Care2, who have been working with public broadcasting groups to build out social networking efforts.  It just seemed to me that the message of the panel was too much about how public media groups could use those two platforms and succeed.  Maybe they are the best two networks for public media.  Or, maybe the public radio community should be looking at more examples, and more opportunities.  I don’t know, but most people probably left that room thinking about launching Gather.com groups or launching petitions through Care2 and not enough of them were considering all the other venues available to them.

I did make one point at the end that was good, and I think resonated.  A woman in the audience asked for our opinions on how many social networks should a station target and what kinds of resources should they put into the effort.  A good question.  However, in asking the question, she referenced ‘us’ (meaning the station) and ‘them’ (referring to the audience members who would be part of the community).  After everyone else had offered specific answers to her questions, I jumped in, adding something to the effect of: Its very important for you as an organization, for your staff, your talent, whoever, to see themselves as a part of these communities.  You are not separate.  It cannot be us vs. them.  Most likely, the reason that your audience might be intererested in joining and contributing to a community that you organiz is the same reason that you, as a staff person at one of those stations, work so hard to make it successful.  Its about the content, its about the experience, its about your contribution to our society.  If you see yourself as separate from that community instead of as a part of it, you are missing the boat.

I got a lot of nods, and a pat on the back from one of my fellow panelists for making the point.  I probably sounded a little righteous, but maybe that helped get the point across more effectively.  I enjoyed being on the panel and would love to help the public media conversation move forward to where it desperately needs to be, but I am not sure I was able to broaden the perspectives of anyone in attendance with respect to the framing of a conversation about social networking.

Thank you to Teri Lamitie of WGBH in Boston for the invitation.  I very much enjoyed the conversation and I hope that I was able to contribute some interesting thoughts to the discussion.  Please invite me back to do it again.

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.

I want XM and Sirius to merge

I really want XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio to merge. 

Why?  I want to hear Dave Niehaus, the best color man in baseball, call Mariners games for me every night.  I want live happily in Boston and know how my Seahawks and Sonics are playing without stalking the crawl on the bottom of ESPN2 each night.  I want to follow NASCAR without having to sit in front of my television for six hours on a Sunday.  Its not just about sports though, I want to hear what Oprah and her friends have to say about eating healthy and decorating my house.  I want to get public radio coverage from around the country without having to sit by my computer and stream it.  I could go on.

All that is available to me, of course, but only if I subscribe to both XM and Sirius.  I have come close to choosing before.  I received Sirius as a Christmas present two years ago and never activated it - mostly because because the football season was already winding down and I didn’t want to wait until next season to start getting full value out of my subscription.  I have gotten all the way to the checkout screen on the XM Satellite Radio website three times in the last few months, in anticipation of another exciting baseball season, only to bail out in hopes that the rumors of a merger will soon come true. 

If XM and Sirius merged, I could buy one good piece of hardware and one subscription and get everything I wanted.  I would pay good money for it.   I would enjoy it thoroughly.  I don’t think I would be alone.

Simply put, I don’t think my desire to hear a variety of different types of programming from one source is unreasonable.  And I think it is well past time when the two satellite radio giants, and the government, got in line with my thinking.

Joe Nocera writes in the New York Times today (Times Select subscription required) about the possible merger between XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio.  While most of his column is about the regulatory aspects of the proposed deal and whether the FCC would support the creation of a single satellite radio giant, he does get to the heart of the matter - and seems to be in agreement with me.

[The two companies] also compete, of course, for content. Most famously, Sirius has Howard Stern, who signed a $500 million five-year deal with the company and moved his shtick to satellite radio at the beginning of last year. (Last week, the company announced that Mr. Stern had earned an $82 million bonus, claiming that he brought in far more revenue than he cost the company.) XM has an Oprah Winfrey station. Sirius has professional football and has pried Nascar away from XM. XM has Major League Baseball — and took the National Hockey League away from Sirius. Both have loads of news and talk and music channels, but XM’s channels tend to be more eclectic than Sirius’s.

On the face of it, this all sounds terrific for consumers. “Choice is always a good thing,” said Ryan Saghir, who blogs about satellite radio at Orbitcast.com — and opposes the idea of a merger. But it is not quite as terrific as it sounds. For one thing, what if you are a fan of both baseball and football? What kind of choice is it to have to decide between them? Or what if you like both Howard Stern and Oprah? (Well, O.K., that’s not a good example.) It is hard to think of another technology that forces subscribers to make that kind of choice.

Joe Nocera wants to listen to baseball and football on the same device, and the same subscription, as well.  His column sounds like a desperate plea from a radio junkie like me to make it happen.  Hey, Sirius and XM… hey, FCC… if you won’t listen to me, will you listen to Joe Nocera?

I can understand why the FCC might be nervous about giving the green light for a merger of this size.  But with appropriate monitoring and regulation - to ensure that a merger betwen XM and Sirius wouldn’t drive prices for consumers out of proporition with the market (something Nocera seems to argue isn’t likely because of the continued influence of free radio) - the potential benefits to consumers far outweighs the risks.  And I can understand why XM and Sirius are both believers in their product so much that they would rather compete to the death than cede control of their operation to their arch rival.  But really, would you all think about the consumer for a moment?

Rather than forcing customers to choose betwen services (a fact that I believe is actually driving down interest in satellite radio, and probably radio in general), the FCC could bless the creation of something that would provide a far better radio product than what is available today.  XM and Sirius could create the ultimate radio programming center, pitting their efforts against folks like Clear Channel who have sucked all the feeling out of radio in their quest to dominate the airwaves everywhere.  The merger would force traditional radio stations to compete with better programming and an alternative business model (advertising instead of subscription — a mix which I think is totally possible if you do it right).  And, best of all, I wouldn’t have to live without access to the programming I want because I find it unreasonable to have to buy/subscribe to two services instead of one.

Please FCC?  Please XM and Sirius?  Do it for Joe Nocera!  Do it for me!

The Times They Are A Changin’

Monday is the day when the media covers the media.  And yesterday did not disappoint.  What was making news?  Here is just a sampling:

- Time Magazine was delivered to newsstands on Friday and by Monday the industry was in a full fledged twitter.  The magazine is much thinner and puts a heavier emphasis than ever before on hard-core reporting and high-profile authors.  Gone are the days when Time tries to be everything to all people it seems.  As Richard Stengel, the managing editor explained it to readers in a letter that appeared in the latest issue, the new publication date “reflects the way the Internet is affecting pretty much everything about the news business.”  He notes:

The most immediate change is right in front of you. The issue you are holding in your hands — or perhaps you’re reading this online — is the first issue of TIME with our new on-sale day, Friday. In fact, it’s the first copy of TIME magazine to go on sale on Friday in more than 50 years. We’ve moved our publication schedule because the news environment has shifted and because we’ve been listening to you. Over and over, we’ve heard from subscribers that they get the magazine early in the week and then put it aside to read on the weekend. The solution was pretty simple: let’s get you the magazine on the weekend when you want it.

At the same time, I believe that getting the magazine on newsstands on Friday helps us set the news agenda, not just mirror it. The traditional newsmagazine was retrospective, looking back at what happened the previous week. But today’s TIME is much more forward-looking, offering you guidance on what’s essential to know going forward. Many news sources give you information; we provide knowledge and meaning.

You can read more here, here, and here.

- Kit Seelye writes in the New York Times about how Washington Bureaus for major print news organizations are shrinking.  She writes “Faced with declining advertising revenues and competition from the Web, midsize, regional dailies across the country have been retrenching in recent years to focus on local news. That has scaled back their Washington coverage, and their national ambitions.”

- In another story by Kit Seelye, the curtain is pulled back at The Politico, the new hard-core political news organization led by former Washington Post writers Jim VanderHei and John Harris (more recently a contributor to Time) and graced with the talents of columnists like Roger Simon.  According to Seelye, “The Politico is planning its own regular half-hour program on Allbritton’s 24-hour cable news service, Channel 8, which reaches 1.1 million viewers in the region. Its reporters are to appear on CBS News programs. And The Politico is planning a five-minute daily segment in the late afternoon on WTOP, Washington’s all-news radio station.”  Does this signal some kind of major change in political news coverage - or the media industy all together?  The article suggests it might, though it gives the doubters their due as well:

If The Politico succeeds, it could signal that the Web has become a more plausible alternative for mainstream journalists. (Most bloggers offer their Web logs free, and rare is the site that pays reporters to create original content.) But there are skeptics who say that the focus of The Politico is too narrow and that the marketplace too crowded with sources of political news, from sites like RealClearPolitics.com to scores of other publications, including newspapers and their Web sites. Partisans, especially, feast on sites that affirm their views; The Politico says it will be nonpartisan.

What I find most interesting is that this whole discussion about the shift in the media, political or otherwise, is coming the same week that the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) is taking place out in Las Vegas.  CES is the glitzy, crazy party of the year for gadget junkies as well as the platform that every major technology company in the world uses to launch their new initiatives.  What are people talking about at CES this week?  Based on the coverage I have read, 2007 will be the year of the networked consumer — in other words, it is the year that the industry will finally figure out that different people have different preferences when it comes to getting, sharing, and experiencing information and deliver the technologies and services to satisfy the demand.  Rather than try to force one format on people, technology folks are promoting devices, and services, that do it all.  The consumer will have their choice of content and method of delivery (they always have really), but more importantly, the variety and the quality of the experience will finally begin to rise to meet expectations. 

The changes at Time Magazine and the launch of The Politico reflect a recognition by those in journalism that people don’t get their news one way anymore.  Its not a run and hide strategy that suggests people aren’t interested in the news, or aren’t satisfied with the quality of the content (though that may come in time) - its a evolution of both the delivery method and the content strategy to adapt to changing times.  By contrast, the shrinking of the Washington Bureaus does the opposite - it will further limit the choices that consumers have when it comes to news and will serve only to increase frustration.  As distribution methods become more micro-focused and consumers are able to pick what information they want to receive, when, and how, the media companies that pulled their reporters should be doing the opposite — hiring more, training better, and assigning differently so that more things are covered, more thoughtful insights are provided, and more options exist for people to consume the news they find most interesting or relevant.

John Edwards’ Online Presidential Launch

The online world is buzzing about the online-heavy launch of John Edwards’ campaign for President.  Jeff Jarvis summarized it this way:

So John Edwards announced his presidential announcement on YouTube in a video made by Andrew Baron and Joanne Colan of Rocketboom (who put up their own interview the next day) and Chuck Olsen (who, Andrew reports, is flying with Edwards to make video for the official campaign site). The digital cool doesn’t end there. Edwards tells you to text the word “hope” to a given number to get more instructions; how mobile. As NewTeeVee reports, he has Robert Scoble trailing around with a camera as well. He’s “live-bloggin” (their usage, not the usual meaning) at Daily Kos. He’s trying to create is own sort of Peace Corps called One Corps with people signing up online to do good deeds under his brand (they will “fight poverty” and, oh, while they’re at it, flog candidates who “support One America ideals’ [that was the old name of this campaign effort] and spread the word by calling radio stations). And tonight he’s having an online town hall from Iowa.

How cyber can you get?

Is this all just a publicity stunt to look modern and cool or is this a turning point in how campaigns are run? We’ll know in about a decade.

I think we will know whether John Edwards, and other candidates for President in 2008, are serious about the use of the internet and change the way they campaign well before a decade has passed.  Change is already taking place.  I wonder what impact those changes will have on politics - and what use of online is really worthwhile when promoting a political activity like this.  What will John Edwards’ next announcement look like and how much of his campaign will be geared towards the online audience (as opposed to complementing his outreach to all audiences, to balance or bypass television coverage, for example)?  How will the online momentum that he is able to generate translate into real votes on Election Day (remember, Howard Dean had all the online momentum before the 2004 primaries began but couldn’t translate them into wins in key primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire, dooming his quest). 

I have high hopes for the Edwards campaign and their online efforts in particular.  But I don’t want this to become a debate about what an internet-driven campaign should look like, or a media-driven frenzy over ‘who is going to be the internet candidate’.  Every candidiate should launch their campaigns online in some way because a big part of the electorate looks online for some part of their news, or political information.  But every campaign, Edwards included, should also have a substantial grass-roots base, a sophisticated media strategy, a good message and some credible policy positions, advertising, and a host of other things.  The smart campaigns know this.  And when we look back in November 2008 at which candidate was elected as our next President, it will be the one who mixed all those pieces best that wins the day. 

Google CEO says Internet is key to campaign win

Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, told Republican governors yesterday at the internet was going to play a big role in politics.  More importantly, Schmidt gave some examples of cool ways the internet was already changing politics.  One example from overseas:

Schmidt said the Gulf kingdom of Bahrain got a taste in the run-up to its elections last weekend, when someone used the Google Earth satellite mapping feature to photograph the ruling family’s lavish houses, and posted them on line, juxtaposed next to the homes of ordinary citizens.

The government tried to censor the photos, which instantly boosted their popularity, he said.

He also said that Google was taking steps to limit the effectiveness of ‘Google-bombing’ - a tactic of manipulating search results to promote a specific topic.  Some bloggers used this tactic to help promote flattering news about Democratic candidates and unflattering news about their Republican opponents during this past Election cycle.

You can read the full article here.

On a related note, Mindshare (where I work) released a white paper last week about the impact that technology had on this past election cycle and how candidates should use interactive techniques in the future to win elections.  I hope you will download and read it.