Capaigning in a Web 2.0 World

Carr/Stelter

Portfolio 3

"When Senator Obama's campaign sought to make one last push with a 30-minute infomercial, it bought time on three major networks, using money harvested on one platform-the Web-to buy time on another-broadcast television"

And what an infomercial it was. That spot was the most fantastic campagning I've seen throughout this entire election. It was a moment where the whole country stopped and watched, with their entire families. Picture a family of 4 huddled and straining around a computer screen-not so idealistic. The type of message that Obama was trying to get across to America did not suit the streaming video medium-but that's okay. Think about how much less of an effect a speech would be if you were reading only the transcript?

But thank god for youtube, because I never would have been able to see it otherwise. It was a great commerical, and it would have been even greater if I were relaxing in my living room in front of the TV instead of hunched over my computer at 2 a.m. Many college students may not be able to afford TV-$50 a month is riduculous-so we get our news mainly from online sources. The Obama campaign made excellent use of this relatively new medium, which has a very large and diverse audience.

"had the kind of access that journalists would kill for, including the cndidate working over his acceptance speech with a staff member and showing the family backstage making ready for their moment in the spotlight"

What we really want to get from a campaign is the feeling that we really know the candidate. TV makes superstars out of the candidates, putting them on a pedestal. Promotion, promotion, promotion. By making that video, the campaign humanized Obama. And I know that's what I want to see-the real person, not the person constructed by the media.

Thanks to online communties like Youtube, the internet has now become a user-constructed medium. The denver video was effective due to the fact that the campaign constructed it and published it on their own. There was no third party, so they could feel confident that no one would edit it before it aired.

"I think this time around, campaigns got used to the fact that anything they put out there could be pirated, remixed, mashed-up, and recirculated"

Beause of the freedom that the internet now gives the user, there were thousands of misconstrued videos. But that was to be expected-what would an election be without satire and manipulation. Instead of accepting the MASS media's promoted image of the candidate, users could now create the candidates as they perceived them to be.

Also, users could now campaign freely for the candidate of their choosing, not having to settle for canvassing flyers, calling people, and knocking on doors. Youtube's audience may not typically be interested in politics, but when you visit the homepage and see what video is popular that day, you're more likely to be intrigued and click on it.

"major companies had to change how they produced their coverage. Before almost every big interview-the networks released excerpts on their Web sites."

I think that people use the internet now more than they do TV. Computers are more readily accessible, so why not advertise on the most used medium?

Sure, you could wait until the next day when the video appeared on the internet, but part of the draw of a major interview is that everyone in the country is porbably watching it at the same time? Who wants to feel left out?

Say you want to watch it again-just visit Youtube or the news site. The two mediums support each other: the internet promotes TV, and TV provides the internet with archivable content for repeated viewings.