Do Those Take Action’ Causes and AutoFill Forms Really Work?
by Brian Reich | 26 Aug 2009, 7:15am
My friend, Amy Jussel, the Executive Director of Shaping Youth and an all-around super smarty-pants on the issues of how media and marketing influence kids, tweeted me last week to ask modern-day advocacy and activism. Specifically, she asked me: “Do Those Take Action’ Causes and AutoFill Forms Really Work?”
Amy has now written a very full post — including some of the thoughts I shared. Here is an excerpt from that post, my answers to three questions that she posed over email:
Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: When cause-marketing prompts us toward ‘urgent action’ for a piece of legislation, lobbying at a state level, etc. does it ‘do any good’ to pick up a phone, quick click an autofill form, retweet, SMS, or otherwise respond to digital pleas? Does it ‘count/matter?’ How so? Give us the inside scoop from the back end of these campaigns!
Brian Reich: Each situation is different. But the short answer is yes – feedback from constituents plays a big role in the outcome of a vote by a Member of Congress or similar. There are lots of factors that go into a decision on an issue, how to vote — not to mention a host of different meetings and votes along the way. Still, at the end of the day, elected officials want to know that their vote reflects the will of their constituents and provides the best possible outcome for their district/state. That’s who they answer to in an election year (and when it is an election year, or a big election issue, that is top of mind). Providing a personal word of support or opposition on an issue can have a big impact.
That said, there are some important things you should know:- Email is a commodity. It has become so easy for people to send emails to their members of congress that the direct impact of that form of communication has become limited. e.g. Members of Congress receive so many emails that most of the time what is presented is just a summary; a chart showing what percentage of the emails are in favor of a piece of legislation and what percentage are opposed and use that, along with a host of other things, in their decision making. Calls, texts, etc. are treated the same way by many officials.
Most decisions are made long before votes. There are some cases where the vote is very close and some Members of Congress (for example) are wavering one direction or another. In those situations, a last minute flood of calls/emails can have an impact. But, in most cases, the decisions are made well in advance. So, what is more important is for people to show their support, share their stories, lodge their opposition or similar early on – when a bill is being shaped, when a committee is taking up the issue, before an elected official has decided their position and announced their intention to vote. And if you really want to get your opinion known by an elected official, set up a meeting, attend a town hall, talk to them personally — they remember that stuff for sure. (AJ-yay, I did it right!)
- Local is key. The most important people that an elected official wants to hear from is their constituents. You can get millions of people to send a note or make a call, but if they don’t live in the district, if they don’t vote, if they are only spewing advocacy organization created talking points, it will fall flat.
Personal, genuine, authentic communications win the day. Technology can help speed and scale the delivery of those, so organizations should use them accordingly. Millions of the same note aren’t as helpful as a handful of the right notes.
- List Building: A big reason why groups send out the last minute requests is to build their lists. Every time you send an email or similar you add your email address to their list — and open yourself to future fundraising solicitations, requests for action and similar. If you are already on their list, responding shows that you are interested and willing to be active in future efforts.
From my view, the organizations don’t always interpret that action as they should… that you were interested in a specific issue or action, and that your support may not be broadly for the entire organization or effort.
- There are exceptions. I worked for a member of congress years ago who voted in favor of the assault weapons ban in 1993/1994, knowing full well that the decision was right for the country but not supported by his constituents. And then, as expected, he was voted out the next election. He was personally lobbied by the President (Clinton) and his head/heart was what drove the final decision, not electoral politics or constituent feedback. So, every situation is different.
Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: Is one media form more impactful than another? (obviously fundraising is quantifiable but I’m talking lobbying actions/legislation-appeal)
Brian Reich: There is no way to quantify the effect of one media over another any more — to get your message across, to get an elected official to consider your issue, etc. you have to present your argument across a variety of channels and hope that it finds the right target.
In terms of how to figure out a specific approach or tactic, start with an understanding of who the decision makers are. Most of the time, elected officials aren’t reading their own mail, or in some cases working on the details of the legislation themselves. Their aids and deputies are. What do those people read? In the ten minutes before the LA or LD goes in to meet with a Member of Congress to advise him/her on how to vote, what sources are they checking? That is the media you want to use.
In a lot of cases, the audience that you are trying to reach is only one person, and determining not only what channel to use in reaching them, but also what content/argument/experience you need to create for them to understand and appreciate your argument is what matters.
Mainstream media still has sway in that regard – an editorial from the local paper in the district, or a high-profile article in the Washington Post will get read.
Blogs are increasingly powerful for the same reasons, because certain blogs, on certain issues, or representing certain geographic areas, have influence and audience.
That doesn’t mean the YouTube videos or Tweets don’t get watched/read, but it means that a campaign focused around a really compelling video may not find its intended target. And that doesn’t mean that a mass virtual protest won’t get an issue some needed attention.
But at the same time, some of the tactics that result in big, measurable numbers have the opposite effect you want (e.g. if so many people call the office, urged on by an angry radio campaign, and it shuts down the phone system and stresses out the staff, you made your point that people care about this issue, but you also may have burnt a bridge).
The way I see it, you have to look at activity vs. impact:
You could get 100,000 people to watch your online video, but if the LA or LD, the member of congress, or whoever advises them isn’t among that audience, and you don’t flip their vote on an issues as a result, that effort was a failure.
Obviously, getting 100,000 people to do anything is pretty impressive, but you have to look at using online/social media/technology to facilitate the kinds of actions that will get the results/have the impact you want.
In the case of media/social media, many of the decision makers still aren’t using the tools, or haven’t figured out who to trust online. So, you have to use a mix of traditional approaches and more innovative online approaches.
And again, if you look at the organizational goals, getting 100,000 people to watch a video may be exactly what they want, regardless of the outcome of the vote – because those people get fired up, they join the email list, they make donations, they spread the word… and all that allows a group to sustain its operations and live to fight another day.
My personal belief is that too much time is spent serving the cause and not solving the cause – meaning that groups spend a lot of time raising money and keeping the lights on, but don’t apply the smart strategy and tactics to getting their issue passed, or similar. Its a different approach and very different use of media, and social media, and technology in general, when you are trying to drive and measure impact vs. activity.
Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: How can change agents more effectively mobilize and activate time-crunched consumers?
Brian Reich: That question requires a very long answer. But I would suggest three things quickly:
1) Engage them early and often… you want to build relationships with the audience/consumer so that when you need them to take action, they are already interested and motivated.
2) You need to add value… don’t just ask for money or action, give them something in return. Something they need. Something they want. Add value.
3) Have impact. I know full well when I sign an online petition that the likelihood that petition will result in a meaningful, measurable change on an issue is slim. Everyone knows that now (or soon). So the more times you ask for help, and direct action, and still can’t produce a real impact, the sooner you will find yourself asking and getting a response.
Here is a related blog post turned US Airways Magazine article I wrote on this called “The Internet Has Made Us Lazy.”
I hope you will read the entire post, and I encourage you to pay attention to Amy’s work generally - its super important, and there are lessons for all media and marketing efforts, regardless of audience, that you can take from her focus on kids.
Thanks for asking, Amy!
TAGS
: advocacy Marketing media politics Shaping Youth
2 comments
Marketing Can Be So Easy
by Brian Reich | 8 Jul 2009, 5:31am
I was asked the other day to define marketing. Here is what I said:
“Marketing is understanding how people get and share information, experience things, and consume stuff — and responding accordingly.”
In other words, marketing doesn’t have to be complicated. To be successful, you simply have to pay attention to what your audience/customer wants and need. Armed with that information you can reach out and demonstrate how your product or service will meet their needs or satisfy their expectations. And if your product or service actually does meet their needs or satisfy their expectations, the rest will pretty much take care of itself.
Want proof?
The weather in New England (I live in Cambridge, MA) has been pretty poor lately. It has rained 8 of the last 10 days here and many believe that we simply won’t have a summer this year (which I realize is a pretty silly though, but it helps to understand how people are thinking). Needless to say, if/when the sun comes out and the temperatures warm up, people get excited.
Enter Boloco, a burrito chain with roots in Boston (in fact the name is short for ‘Boston Local Company’). When the sun finally emerged and the thermometer read 80+ degrees for the first time in weeks, the company sent out an email that read:
You saw it. We saw it. It was beautiful. Some would even say it smelled good. It was all over New England.
Yes, you guessed it…it was the Sun. And with that Sun we all knew Summer had arrived! Finally…and yet only briefly.
Even though we all felt a slight chill in the air after the Sox lost…and even though most of us are now under some form of cloud cover and in most cases even taking cover from rain, we were all there and we caught a glimpse of the season we yearn for. Summer.
So, in order to celebrate the sighting of that beautiful orb, and since Planet Earth looked and felt so darn lovely yesterday, we’re doing something special.
Simply visit your nearest Boloco, TODAY or TOMORROW, with a piece of trash off the street (yeah, seriously), throw it out in front of us, and get a regular-sized Summer Burrito for $3 (large $4). There will be a bottle of Purell at each of our restaurants should you get aggressive on how much filth you choose to take off our streets, but by the end of tomorrow, the streets throughout some of New England’s most picturesque cities and towns will be cleaner. And with a little natural rinsing from the powers above , we’ll see a new kind of beauty that even the sun can’t beat.
Happy Summer
*VALID ONLY Tuesday 7/8 and Wednesday 7/9, 2009. Gotta have a piece of trash. And don’t you dare complaint that this is late notice… it is, and we were inspired, so we just did it. Enjoy it
No celebrity endorsement. No massive ad campaign or crazy interactive experience. And the deal isn’t even that good — after all, I am the one who has to pick up a piece of trash and bring it to the store, and all I get in return is a small discount on a burrito. But it worked.
How do I know it worked? I am not on the Boloco email list or Twitter feed. My wife sent me the email with a note that read “Cool marketing. Doing good. Simple.” She isn’t on their list either - she had been forwarded the email from someone in her office. But now we are both aware of the campaign and making plans to go pick up a piece of trash and buy a burrito.
Why did it work? The message was simple and related to our current life. The ask wasn’t significant. I felt as if I was doing something good for the world by participating. And, I got something out of the deal. And the company didn’t have to spend millions of dollars for that to happen.
You see, marketing can be so easy.
TAGS
: Boloco burrito cause marketing Marketing
leave a comment
Marketing vs. Politics
by Brian Reich | 21 Mar 2008, 2:00am
The Los Angeles Times posted a photo essay on its website highlighting the similarities between the movie marketing business and the business of campaign politics. They used Barack Obama’s campaign as their case study. They write:
Getting elected to the White House is a lot like opening a Hollywood blockbuster these days. And nowhere is that more in evidence than Barack Obama’s campaign after his speech on race in America.
With the current election cycle consuming the thoughts and dreams of a great majority of Americans, commentators have begun bemoaning the inevitable blurring of the lines between politics and entertainment. Young people get their news from “The Daily Show,” a comedy program, and politically minded voters are putting their energies into creating Internet videos that rely more on cheesecake than issues-oriented slogans.
Some pundits are calling Obama’s race relations oration the most defining speech of his campaign. However, it’s the Obama media blitz that has followed that is most reminiscent of Tom Cruise’s or Denzel Washington’s pre-movie release talk show rounds.
They go on to highlight Obama’s surprise visit to Saturday Night Live, making time for the talk shows (like the Tyra Banks Show) and his ability to “Move the Merch” (translation: sell t-shirts and stuff) and seven other overlapping strategies.
What the LA Times doesn’t note, however, is that the Obama campaign has actually been more successful than Hollywood at engaging people and mobilizing them to action. All the candidates have been really. A movie ticket only (only!) costs you $10 and requires a commitment of 90 minutes, but Hollywood still can’t get a major blockbuster to stay on top of the charts for more than a couple of weeks. The Obama campaign has millions of people donating $25, $50 and $100 at a time (several times over) and spending hours making phone calls, knocking on doors, and similar. And he is doing it in a more challenging environment — talking about serious issues like healthcare and war and race.
The reason for the success: It is not because he is a ‘rock star’ (though that doesn’t hurt) or because he goes on the Daily Show. His success is the result of his substance — its because he’s talking about the issues that people care about, the things that impact our daily lives. All the candidates are… maybe not enough, or in enough detail, but Senator Obama and the others are all talking about issues. And that’s what we want, that is the key to success - understanding what the audience wants to hear about and delivering on their expectations. It’s a tough time in America, the economy is slowing, the war is dragging on, people are concerned and looking for answers. In hollywood terms, he has a better script, a more interesting plot.
Hollywood should pay attention to the Obama campaign, and politics in general. If they can start to relate their work more closely to the serious issues that impact people’s lives — and if they can do it well (and seriously and authentically the way political candidates are doing it) they might just see the kind of interest that Seantor Obama and other political candidates are enjoying transferring over to blockbuster movies again as well.
TAGS
: Barack Obama Los Angeles Times Marketing Movies
1 comment
Age of Conversation
by Brian Reich | 16 Jul 2007, 2:00am
Today marks the official release date of “Age of Conversation.”
What is that? It is a collaborative effort of 103 bloggers and online types – a book that we all co-wrote and are now beginning the effort to co-market. It is also an experiment in distributed media, a test of whether a group is really more powerful than the individual. The goal was painfully simple:
- Pull 100 authors together on a single project
- The overriding topic was “The Conversation Age” — where you take it is up to you.
- The items are short - one 8.5? x 11? page — it can be words, diagrams, photos (again up to you). If it is words - about 400, give or take a couple.
- We write it quickly and get it out there. We publish electronically.
- We make it available online for a small fee and we donate 100% of the proceeds to Variety the Children’s Charity — which serves children across the entire globe
It all started with an off-handed remark on a blog post and grew from there. The credit for both launching and facilitating the project goes entirely to the editors, Gavin Heaton and Drew McClellan. I have never met either, but I was honored and flattered that they would let me participate.
All signs in this suggest that this crazy little experiment will be an overwhelming success… Age of Conversation is an interesting book and will get significant attention, hopefully driving good sales.
More information, and the option to puchase the book, is available at www.ageofconversation.com. Go buy a copy!
TAGS
: Age of Conversation Blogging Citizen Marketing Event Coverage Marketing Public Media Shameless Self Promotion
leave a comment
Why Jet Blue’s Apology Works
by Brian Reich | 23 Feb 2007, 2:00am
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.
TAGS
: Commentary Corporate Crisis JetBlue Marketing PR
1 comment
SRI In the Rockies: The Big Picture
by Brian Reich | 30 Oct 2006, 2:00am
I spent the weekend in Colorado Springs, CO attending SRI in the Rockies, the annual gathering of the socially responsible investment industry in the United States. I was there to participate in a panel about online marketing and host a topic table at lunch on the same topic. I also had an opportunity to attend some of the speeches and sessions — and learned some new things about climate change its impact on disease, micro-finance and, perhaps most interestingly, the future of the internet.
Bob Veres, an author, speaker, and one of the most influential people in the financial services industry (socially responsible or otherwise) gave a talk entitled ”The Next Society.’ The focus of his talk was how the world of sustainable investments has changed, and continues to evolve, and how the world is now following the lead of SRI - for the better. He noted that a decade ago, social screens were seen as a depressant on fund performance while today, social screens are the very best way to evaluate corporate character and avoid surprises in your portfolio.
Then he launched into a commentary on the changing nature of communications and how it relates to the tough work of changing the world. Here are my (rough) notes:
- The media industry is in crisis. Stories are covered and then disappear. Stories are covered by people who don’t know much about the subject and who have a very short attention span. The future of news will be an environment where you can access a lot more information, a lot better information, from people who know a lot more than reporters. And it will make everything more focused, more meaningful, and more actionable.
- The web has created a hostile world for advertising. As we move towards the web as a content delivery vehicle, corporate america will not be able to artificially create demand for their products and services. It is harder and harder for advertisers to gain interest and traction. That is why TV advertising is suffering and that is why the future of communications will be information/content-centric, and not marketer driven.
- We are experiencing the death of the consumer economic system. Why? It doesn’t relate to the issues that people actually care about most. That has also given rise to the concept of “Life Planning.” People are finding they don’t want more stuff. They want more fulfillment from their lives. How do they know?
Ask yourself, if you had one day left to live, what would be your biggest regret? Write down 30 goals you want to achieve this year (the first ten will be easy, the second ten more difficult, the third ten will make you did deep). If you had all the money in the world, what would you want to do?
- How can we change the world? He offered two directives:
1) Operate in your zone of personal genius. Imagine a circle, with a circle inside that, and a circle in side that. At the center of that innermost circle is a blue dot that represents your greatest energy, focus, and passion. That is where we must all operate - get rid of the distractions and just work within our blue dot.
2) Hire a coach to help you get there. They will help you put aside all of the work you do for others and help you focus on just what you need. The coach will nag you because they will present your own goals back to you in such a compelling way that you will do for them what you can’t seem to find a way to do for yourself.
- The way we work is changing. You are going to see most of the world’s work being done by ad hoc teams who are experts in their field and who are operating within their blue dot. You will see corporations (who right now have office buildings filled with generalists and inefficient information flow based in hierarchy not expertise) “melt like sugar cubes in the rain.” The people who own the assets will control them - you won’t need marketers, etc.
- The internet will become the superconductor of human and financial capital.
The speech made me think. Not sure quite yet what it all means, but rarely does a conference speech make me think like this one did, so that must mean something.
TAGS
: Advertising Citizen Journalism Citizen Marketing Conferences/Events Event Coverage From the Trenches Journalism Marketing News
leave a comment
Shut Up & Run the Ads
by Brian Reich | 28 Oct 2006, 2:00am
I wrote a post yesterday discussing the marketing efforts behind Shut Up & Sing, the new documentary about the Dixie Chicks and their criticism of President Bush. You didn’t see it? Nobody did. My computer froze up and I lost the text before I was able to put it up online. Too bad — when I wrote it yesterday morning, this was a small story and my analysis looked really solid. Now its a big story and I am late to the conversation. Alas.
So what are people talking about?
The documentary tracks the fallout that resulted after lead singer, Natalie Maines, said she was “ashamed” that President Bush was from Texas, the Chicks’ home state. The comment prompted a boycott of the Chicks’ music by conservatives and opened up a discussion about freedom of speech among scholars and those in the music industry. Time passed, things died down. But now, the documentary has brought the controversy back to the fore — and with a new twist.
A handful of media venues have refused to run advertising promoting the movie. The LA Times covered it yesterday. There was a story on NPR’s Weekend Edition this morning. And the Washington Post summed it up this way:
It all started earlier this week when Weinstein submitted ads for its new Barbara Kopple documentary “Shut Up & Sing” to the broadcast networks for review by their standards and practices departments.
NBC said it “cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.”
CW said it “does not have appropriate programming in which to schedule this spot.”
Weinstein said: “Eureka!”
And on Thursday evening, it sent out a news release headlined:
“In an Ironic Twist of Events, NBC and the CW Television Networks Refuse to Air Ads for Documentary Focusing on Freedom of Speech.”
“It’s a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America,” bemoaned Weinstein Co. co-chairman Harvey Weinstein.
“The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is sad and profoundly un-American,” he added.
As I see it, this hubub was not only anticipated by Harvey Weinstein and his team, it was a key part of their promotional strategy. How else would you get coverage for a small-budget documentary film in today’s big-budget Hollywood movie promotion craziness? We have a very tense election cycle coming to an end just two weeks from now, and a national media that is feasting on any criticism of the war, or the President, they can find. All you had to do was light the fire.
Of course, now the networks are in a no-win situation now — if they don’t run the ads, the press continues to cover the story (helping the movie gain traction, and the stations look selectively moral), and if they do run the ads, they look like they caved. I think they should run the ads - networks would benefit greatly by becoming a part of the political dialogue and letting the population decide on its own. Be fair, show ads promoting and criticizing the movie if that opportunity exists, but don’t limit one perspective from being heard because you are afraid of your audience.
Give credit to Weinstein and Co. for recognizing the opportunity to use the news cycle to promote their movie. It is not a new strategy — MoveOn got into a similar fight with CBS around the Super Bowl a couple of years ago, and I have had clients whose online ads that venues have refused to run because of an arbitrary content standard. In both cases press coverage resulted and the message ultimately got to the target audience. I don’t think it will work for any movie or event, but its a strategy that more organizations should understand and pursue.
TAGS
: Clips and Tips Free Advice Journalism Marketing Movies News politics PR TAGS: Advertising
leave a comment
Public Looking for Political Information Online
by Brian Reich | 21 Sep 2006, 2:00am
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.
TAGS
: Campaign Web Review Commentary Free Advice Marketing politics Research Technology
leave a comment
At the Public Radio Development & Marketing Conference
by Brian Reich | 27 Jul 2006, 2:00am
I am in New Orleans today speaking at the Public Radio Development & Marketing Conference. The panel I am on, entitled “New Media: Making Sense/Making Cents” will focus on the ways public radio stations can leverage interactive and other tools to raise funds and expand their offering. Here is the session description:
RSS Feeds, Podcasting, IM, flickr, blogs, etc … etc … What is all this stuff and how can we use it for fundraising? First a thoughtful, accessible overview of new media tools and terms for the non-techies amongst us, then it’s off to the races! Join us for roll-up-your-sleeves brainstorming about new media and how we might market it to our audiences and use it to build revenue, whether directly through outright membership solicitation, business sponsorship or e-commerce, or indirectly by capturing user contact information for later cultivation. Enough talking about what the future may hold — let’s start putting this darned stuff to use!
I will provide an overview/analysis of how other media organizations are using interactive tools — from HBO offering mobile games and MySpace pages to promote Entourage to the American Cancer Society’s virtual charity walk in Second Life – and offer some thoughts on how to apply these to public radio stations.
I will let you know how it goes.
TAGS
: Conferences/Events Free Advice Marketing Shameless Self Promotion
leave a comment
Are Branding and Marketing the Same?
by Brian Reich | 21 Jul 2006, 2:00am
People ask me all the time if branding and marketing are the same (hint: they are not). So when Karen E. Klein, a business columnist for the LA Times, offered up the following answer in her small business ‘In Box’ column this week, I had to share it:
Question: How does a small business brand itself? Is branding the same thing as marketing?
Answer: Branding your firm is a crucial part of your overall marketing strategy. Establishing a brand involves defining your company, knowing exactly what niche you serve in your industry and convincing your potential customers that your product or service is the only solution to their problem.
The smaller the enterprise, the more important branding is because small firms tend to have fewer resources and lower marketing budgets.
If you have established a strong brand, you will not have to do as much marketing to have an effect on potential customers.
“The truth is that branding has to occur before any other kind of marketing: advertising, public relations, Web marketing, identity and so forth,” said Rob Frankel, a branding expert and author of “The Revenge of Brand X.”
Once people are aware of your company and are convinced that yours is the only solution for them, they will stop shopping elsewhere.
“The clearer your brand message, the more likely people are to tell others about it, including why it’s the only brand to buy. That’s how you turn users into evangelists. Your advertising, public relations and other marketing efforts run more cost-effectively because the message gets through much more quickly and memorably.
“That’s how branding works,” Frankel said.
Unfortunately, he said, most companies don’t spend much — if any — time on brand strategy development, thinking they’ll do fine if they can just make potential customers aware of their products.
“The result is that they spend five or six times the marketing money on marketing that has no brand strategy, so it simply doesn’t work,” Frankel said.
More information on specific branding strategies, along with case studies, is available free at Frankel’s website, http://www.robfrankel.com .
