Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Talking to the online audience

TV commercial audiences need simple messages, probably are less likely, on the whole, to be highly involved in politics, or expecting to receive a political message. In contrast visitors to a candidate's Youtube site are seeking information, are involved and interested in the election and may be seeking reasons to cast their vote. The former are more likely to be reached by simple, high impact negative political advertisements, the latter are turned off by negativity and want a positive message. It seems the Democrat contenders have figured this out and provide a very different experience for their Youtube audience. Their latest television commercials are quite dark, Obama's is particularly negative, Clinton's highlights the need for experience in a dangerous world using images of Osama bin Laden and Pearl Harbour to make her point. But on Youtube there are personal endorsements, scenes from rallies and the candidate promoting themselves and the America they would deliver.

Clinton's 'Thank You' ad on Youtube has received almost 75,000 views and there are 117 comments most of which are positive. Her message is one of mobilisation and it seems to have that effect.

Obama Everywhere is a soundtrack for Obama travelling the country and being a real person, on the whole. So far it has only had just short of 20,000 views and 35 comments, most on the song. Interestingly Obama has a higher rating (4 stars), Hillary has three. Is this indicative of anything? She has reached a bigger audience, so far, but she also has lower support for this video; interesting contrast perhaps. More importantly will the parallel campaigns effect one another? Will one dilute the power of the other?


Anonymous said...

"Obama Everywhere" has been viewed nearly 60,000 times in a single day. Hillary's "Thank You" video has been up for 3 weeks and has 77,000 total. I think your analysis is way off base.


Darren G Lilleker said...

It has now, but not when I accessed it; hence the discrepancy. Thanks for letting me know how quickly it had caught up; though still only 0.6% and 0.7% or those likely to vote