The simple message didn't win the day

There has been a lot of campaigning around the Manchester Congestion Charge which was decided by referendum today. The result was a no, turnout was fairly high for such a vote (53% with just over a million participating), but it is argued that it was the cost implications that swayed the vote. The Yes campaign run by Labour supplemented the usual techniques with a very flashy and professional online film "produced this to replace the traditional campaign leaflet... aimed at the student/young professional audience and is hopefully engaging/sharable whilst not being too party political".

The film gained 184,806 views by the time of the announcement as well as a lot of, predominantly hostile it has to be said, commentary from Youtube users. The No campaign also used Youtube, though gets a paltry amount of hits. In contrast to the Yes campaign it has little of a positive message but preys on fears of being 'ripped off' by 'sharks' (or worse with on example) but often uses a little humour as well (see below)

Perhaps the No campaign used more traditional means to target its core audience to win, perhaps the young professional did vote yes in line with the video aimed at them. Perhaps also the Yes campaign was hindered after their £230,000 television advertisement was deemed by Ofcom as being biased. However it seems the simplest message, about the effect on the pockets of those who work in the centre of Manchester, linked in to fears of unemployment and the economic downturn (both of which the No campaign claimed would be exacerbated by the Congestion charge) seemed to have the most effect. Where there was a positive message calling for support the No campaigners waded in with a very hostile message; there was no similar response to their ads; hence it seems No won the day.

Has he changed his mind?

The news is out that Cameron is no longer going to support Labour spending plans and is offering an alternative in case an election is on the horizon. The story is available across the media but a link was also sent via an e-newsletter that has a link to the WebCameron Youtube site. But the interesting thing is that five minutes after receipt of the e-newsletter the video is no longer available. Was there a huge gaffe in the original, has he changed his mind, or is it a problem with the technology????

Good idea or pointless?

Here is an interesting video, uploaded to the parliament Youtube channel and and attempt to answer and so alter negative perceptions of politicians and in the case of this video those sitting in the House of Lords.

While including elected members may have strenghtened the case, but well made and designed to be persuasive; it puts the uninformed but negative position first and then unravels it slowly before putting a case for 'why politics matters'. It does seem to jump about a bit but a reasonable attempt. Whether it has any impact will depend on if the disengaged are among the 2,360 viewers since may 8th. However this is unlikely, those who believe politics is irrelevant and politicians are self-seeking are hardly likely to dip into the parliament site on Youtube: the web can be used to communicate with young voters but you got to have something to attract them to your site.

E-democracy?

Steve Schifferes writes on the BBC News website that the Internet has been pivotal for the Obama campaign. His case is that Obama capitalised on the fact that "The internet favours the outsider", his early use at the outset of his campaign allowed him to exploit the potential of "ability to quickly mobilise supporters and money online". Obama basically hit the ground running, Clinton was far slower in developing an effective Internet campaign. But it is not just about awareness and donations: "His use of social networking sites has helped Mr Obama to mobilise young people, a group which has traditionally been uninterested in politics". But a key point that Schifferes identifies is not about Obama's strategy. He claims that "Mr Obama's decision to run was influenced by the fact that a page created on MySpace by supporters not connected to any official campaign quickly signed up 160,000 supporters". In other words Obama became the figurehead of a campaign to change the traditional politics before he officially threw his hat into the ring and, following that, the independently developed Youtube videos such as 'Obama Girl' and 'Yes we can' by Will-I-am, were key to demonstrating the level of support he enjoyed beyond the usual candidate produced endorsements.

The point here is, whether anyone thinks Obama would make a good President or not, that he not only developed a grassroots campaign online but joined and existing campaign. So it is not just a case of strategy, there is a degree of synergy between his style of campaign and the communication and media tool use of those who support him. Perhaps this is the e-democracy some have spoken of for years, political choices being expressed online and building a momentum that could have a direct effect on the governing of a nation.

The digital politician?

Gordon Brown, in launching an online 'Question Time' via Youtube, argues it is time the public had a chance to ask him questions. He invites anyone to submit videos and promises to respond.

While a little bit like a video answer-machine message, he looks a lot more open in his manner than his usual appearances, talking to the camera in a very sincere way. The rules of engagement are interesting, firstly it is clear what he does not want "Videos should not contain any references to political parties or commercial endorsement, be aggressive or offensive" and one imagines any that do not conform here will not see the light of day. However, there is a further inference of wanting a different type on engagement: "Be original, use your creativity and your imagination. Make your video a success. Think outside the box!" This perhaps hints he wants to follow a different agenda to that of the media, and in his video this may well mean those big issues he talks of: "globalisation, climate change, housing, jobs and public services", issues which are of concern to the predominantly young Youtube user but that national politicians are often accused of ignoring. Will he get interesting and creative questions? Will he in turn provide interesting and creative answers? Or is this purely an exercise to prove he is not an "analogue politician in a digital age"? Clearly he recognises that the Internet is a key political battleground and one which Cameron has had to himself for a long time; can he make an impact here?

The Youtube War

The Political Betting blog reported the Youtube war 4 days ago, where the candidates from Crewe & Nantwich had all posted their campaign videos and were awaiting an audience. On Sunday the scores were Cons 796; LibDem 469 and Labour on a derisory 181. I wondered if this had changed, had this gained extra hits for any of the candidates. It seems there has been a change but it is a Conservative landslide. Timpson's video has now has 2,996 views, LibDem is 976, Labour now have 811. Does this tell us anything - not long to wait to find out.

click through to political betting for the videos

Will Youtube have an impact?

Looking at the viewing numbers for John McCain's campaign videos on Youtube I was impressed, one got almost 850,000 views. Now we do not know where those viewers are in the world, never mind if they are likely to vote or in the key swing states; it is a significant number though. But then you consider the size of the US voting population, estimated to be somewhere close to 205 million, of which 50-60% (so at least 100 million) should be expected to turn out. So suddenly less than one million (0.8% of the population) suddenly seems a drop in the ocean. Clinton nor Obama are fairing any better, even scanning across the Will-i-am Yes We Can Barack Obama promotion, that has had around 15 million views; could be 15% of the electorate but I am one of those viewers and not a potential voter so perhaps only 10%, 10 million, may be in the US. Will this increase as the election gets closer, will Youtube and the Internet come of age as a tool of political communication, and can this be measured in views, recall, or what - any ideas?

Getting noticed, but maybe not in a good way

Barbara Clark is a nurse leading a campaign against fraud in high office involving Adventists across California, predominantly her campaign is web-based and largely consisting of videos of her speaking stridently about a range of conspiracies. She has, however, created an alternative identity and a series of images that appear to attract those interested in politics to her own videos and her website.

To ensure some attention she has a number of videos posted on Youtube with titles that make the visitor beleive they are camapign ads for Clinton and Obama, both of which gain significant attention in their own right. To aid hits the image that appears (as the pic above shows) is a provocatively dressed woman; like many I thought someone somewhere had plummed new depths in grabing viewers for political ads, not the case. Her Youtube profile (right) also shows someone who is not Barbara Clark, who is pictured on her own website, and perhaps is designed to appeal to the male surfer. I find this quite bizarre, it has to be a stunt to try to get clicks, but is it really appropriate to combine a video talkign about 'Spitzer & Dupree ignore FBI subpoenas while IRS calls AIG' advertised with the picture of a topless busty brunette (possibly her from the profile picture) holding her breasts? She does get views, over 400 for the one with Clinton in the link title; does it devalue her cause is a bigger question. Surely this has to undermine whatever credibility her and her cause has or am I missing the point?

Cheap shot or reinforcing a perception?

When I saw the link to this Youtube video being sent around, packaged as a Boris gaffe, I expected it to be one of the Have I Got News For You moments that Boris Johnson specialises in; and by that i do not mean moments from the programme but the times when he looks like he is being tripped up by a comedian of Paul Merton's quick wit even when he is not. But then I watched it (well listened).

It is a radio debate between Johnson and Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick, Johnson suggests Paddick was soft on drugs, as opposed to having a softly softly approach, Johnson perhaps is caught out by the semantic difference here. Paddick did suggest not arresting and charging cannabis users, not decriminalising them, and so seems out of his depth. But the clip seems really to offer a negative perception of both participants. Paddick interrupts Johnson, Johnson garbles the answer, could this make an audience feel more sorry for Johnson? Moreover, while it highlights Boris's inefficiency in interviews, is this news and so could it be read as just a cheap shot? Or, alternatively, does it reinforce a public predisposition towards Boris? Furthermore who is the main benefactor, as Paddick seems unable to change his standing, so far anyway, do these attacks, and the negative tone, benefit Ken Livingstone. All questions of strategy: and the wonderful unpredictability of political communication

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?

Ken borrows from Barack

Blue State Digital will run Ken Livingstone's Internet campaign, the Internet firm behind Barack Obama, for the mayoral election and last night launched the first campaign video on YouTube. The video (below) is very simple in design, featuring still shots of Livingstone with ordinary Londoners accompanied by voice overs offering endorsements from those same ordinary people. The idea, according to Thomas Gensemer, the US firm's managing director, is to position Ken in the same way as Obama as an ordinary person; differentiating him from Boris Johnson the old Etonian (perhaps linking into the Labour strategy of referring to him as Mr Johnson and not Boris).



This video complements a series of vox pops with Londoners saying how great London is to live and work in, all of which appear on Ken's Youtube site (an example of which is below), he has also used the site to attack Boris Johnson's negativity and highlighting his own positivity.



The key message is to reinforce Ken's authenticity as a Londoner, something that won him power against the odds in 2000; but the important bit is not him saying that but real Londoners endorsing him as the candidate. It is working for Obama as he can claim an outsider status to some extent; can it work for the incumbent?

Engagement via Youtube

Every election campaign now involves Youtube, it seems almost de rigeur and normal. There are not many questions uploaded yet and not much activity but as the contest moves towards a conclusion it could be interesting to see how many engage with the three main candidates and want to talk about issues. Currently it is just the 'wall' that is gaining attention, here we find issue based questions some of which border on the philosophical to some extent i.e.: "Is it right that an indigenous population should be allowed to become an ethnic minority in their own city without even being consulted?" but then we have social media graffiti a la: 'BORIS IS A CUNT' a weighty contribution from someone called Pete. But, that aside, is Youtube offering a real potential for a new level of engagement or is it just a passing fad that only a few will bother with - an interesting question!!

Parliament nervous of the Youtube generation

The Sun newspaper and a Facebook Group are campaigning to end a ruling that scenes from parliament cannot be posted to Youtube on the basis that if clips were put on the site they could be downloaded and “manipulated” by anyone so Commons Commission spokesman, Nick Harvey is quoted as saying.
The call to bring parliament into the 21st Century and engaging with an audience that watch online videos more than commercial television and public service broadcasting is an interesting one. Parliament could build its own Youtube site that brands videos; there is of course the problem of what would be posted and who would choose how to select bitesize elements of the day. Prime Minister's Questions would probably be popular, but are perhaps unusual in terms of much of parliament. Whether anyone should be allowed to post bits of parliament is a broader issue perhaps but there is also the question why not? There are clips from Canadian, Taiwanise, Australian and the European parliament on Youtube already as well as a couple of the UK parliament that seem to have slipped under the radar.

Then there is the question of what would happen if someone did rip a video of parliament from the television and post it (manipulated or not) onto Youtube. Would that count as treason? Could it be an offence? If so, is George Galloway due problems?

Co-production: the positives and negatives!

Social networking sites such as Facebook are not promotional tools, attempts to use social networking to promote products, brands or individuals that can use other media and are not part of the community can mean network users can reject them. Brands advertise via social media but seldom intrude using profiles etc; politicians are different, as individuals they can be members of a community but must also follow the communities rules and allow co-production of site or profile content. Friends can post words, pictures etc on each other's wall, interact with one another and maintain relationships via the site.

Politicians like to use the Internet as a promotional tool, and particularly at the party level want to communicate to voters but are worried of the consequences of allowing the ordinary people (which also includes opponents) to contribute whatever whenever they like. David Cameron seems to be willing to take that risk. The Webcameron YouTube page allows comments, unlike Labour, and his Facebook profile is asking supporters to upload pictures of them meeting him. The former gives the appearance of being open, the latter builds on this by providing the impression of accessibility.

But is this going to pay dividends or be a highly risky enterprise. At worst it could allow opponents to say what they like and give negative images and opinions wider circulation. But this may not be the problem it would seem. If Cameron and his communications team engage with critics it can diffuse the situation and provided images that could be damaging are greeted with humour rather than fear and censure, it could enhance the Cameron brand, it cannot replace substance but it may build positive perceptions and impressions.

Down, Down - down the dustpipe

This video by Harry Hammersmith and the Flyovers is produced by Hammersmith and Fulham council to "engage residents on its budget". But check out the 'engagement' they have gained on the Youtube page. In only ten days it seems to have become an open forum for disgruntled council employees, residents and anybody who wishes to slag them off basically. A great example of the dangers outweighing the potential of the online environment perhaps and an indication of why electoral political organisations seem nervous of allowing feedback and co-production.

Accessibility?

The Queen's PR department have launched the 'The Royal Channel' on Youtube so that her messages are "more accessible to younger people and those in other countries". Will it be successful, well her first broadcast which is posted has over 2,000 views and there are currently 1,169 subscribers and its not even Xmas day yet. Who says Youtube is only for happy slappers and silly videos of cats?

Should Youtube be regulated?

I am largely against regulation of the web, not only is it impractical but it is perhaps the one place where anyone can say what they like and for the audience to judge it on face value. However there are also questions about whether free speech should be completely free and if there should be rights and constraints relating to his as there is to other media outlets. See this posted video for example.



Not easy to spot that it is a satire, but by framing it as a Party Political Broadcast, by using the logo and by publishing it without any context, i.e. it being embedded within a comedy programme or website, does this cross a boundary? Is it defamatory or just satirical? And, if there is no regulation, does this then allow highly negative and defamatory messages to be posted, viewed and circulated, by parties to denigrate their opponents, without any necessity to identify the source.

Advertising is regulated at least to the extent where the sponsor has to identify themselves; if Youtube is eroding this safeguard what could be the effect? It is claimed that negative rumours, although dismissed or ignored on first viewing, sleep in our subconscious activated if the rumour may be true of more negativity is attached to the individual under attack. In other words thousands of videos highlighting dodgy deals involving Gordon Brown could well be believed in the current climate, independent of their veracity, and contribute to a further loss of popularity. So regulation or total freedom, I am undecided!

Getting the message out

It seems political oppression no longer has the power it once did. There are a series of blogs emerging from within Burma that tell the story of life under the military dictators. Many are by monks, and the aim seems to be to get the message out as widely as possible (for example see here). The campaign is also being waged on YouTube with the help of Dennisbier09:

While the national media will be the key means of getting the message out, such high quality accounts and images enable journalists to provide better accounts of the crisis and those campaigning within Burma to get their message to the broadest possible audience. Powerful and effective, and probably impossible without the internet; such is the nature of modern communication that none can stop information if those wishing to inform are determined enough, and while there are cases of this throughout history, in the modern age we are informed in minutes and hours not years.

Having the reverse effect

Youtube is predominantly a site used by young people, or at least this is the perception. Politicians who use Youtube certainly want to portray themselves as being younger, or at least cool and in-touch; it also gives them the chance to reach out to young voters. But there are risks when anyone can comment on your video. Australian Prime Minister John Howard seems to have passed his sell by date, the youthfulness of leaders has been a feature of Australian elections previously; thus at almost 68 Youtube allows Howard the chance to shake off a few years in the eyes of voters. Hence he, or a misguided member of his staff, felt it a good idea that he used Youtube to talk about an issue important to young people: the environment



It is a typical talking head shot, a little wooden and perhaps indicative of why Howard prefers talk radio. Searching for it one finds several user generated rebuttals, such as this! Also it elicited several negative remarks such as "what a shit politician" or "Hey, Nice Name JohnHoward2007, I'm guessing 'Bush's Bitch' was taken ??? Nice to see you put the year in your username, as it is is quite significant seeing it'll mark your governments last year in power ". These types of remarks also drove instantly negative media coverage as the whole initiative was deemed a failure. It also means that he is side by side with some seriously prejudicial material, the below shows him being mocked in parliament under the caption "John Howard is a Farting Fossil Fool'

This highlights the dangers of attempting to jump on the social media bandwagon with no real understanding of the environment. Maybe it was a last ditch attempt to change his image, done in the spirit of things cannot get worse. Or maybe actually someone thought this was a good idea. The problem is the lack of strategic thinking and cost-benefit analysis. Anyone can post stuff to Youtube, a lot probably goes unnoticed; but if you are in the public eye there is a risk. If you are in the public eye and disliked by the users of Youtube, the risks are huge.

Why Obama is winning in the donation stakes?

Highly negative, unofficial but the most viewed political ad on Youtube


Naueasting maybe, catchy yes, but can 2 million viewers be unaffected?