Archive for Blog

The Key to Winning the 2012 Election

The problem with losing a political campaign is that everyone points to the winners as being smarter, that every single detail (latest technology) of their campaign was perfect, and those who executed the winning plan are geniuses.   On the other hand, pundits cast the losers as dumb, behind the times and totally worthless.  Nobody calls you up, if you lose.

Garrett M. Graff

Neither one is true.  There is no one magic formula for winning.  Running a political campaign is like setting up a medium sized business for a short time, hoping to make a profit (winning) and closing it after the election ends.  It’s the campaign that makes the fewest mistakes that wins.

Campaign tools/ electronic gadgets are available to all sides.  You only have to go down to the corner pub on Capitol Hill to find out what your opponent is doing. 

What wins – organization and implementing your plan?  At 5:45 a.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2008, at a grade school in Ladue, Mo, an affluent suburb of St. Louis which votes heavily Republican, three Obama workers were already there with yard signs in place handing out literature.  Republicans had one worker and no yard signs.  Although McCain ended up barely winning Missouri after a two-week recount, Obama won in heavily Republican areas of St. Louis County.

As Michael Silberman writes in “Welcome to the New Media campaign of 2012,” the Obama campaign was very good at mobilizing and communicating with their volunteers through text messaging as well as online messages to recruit and funnel volunteers. 

Social media served them well, but in the end it was the old fashioned person-to-person, standing at the polls, going door-to-door that grassroots “get-out-the-vote” that wins.  Those poll workers in Missouri were part of the campaign’s “Project Houdini,” described by Silberman.

So how will globalization and technology change the landscape of future campaigns?

Dick Morris talks about the “Electronic Precinct” where any individual can influence an election. In his new book, “2010-Take Back America,” Morris writes that each person should be their own campaign media guru, strategist and manager.  “Make a list of your constituents and go talk to each of them by e-mail, by Twitter, by YouTube, by Facebook and by phone.   Craft a strategy for each person on your list. Send a video about a candidate or one of his speeches. Be your own publisher and spread the word. To win in 2010, we need to have hundreds of thousands of electronic precincts across the U. S.”  Already the Democratic National Committee has released a campaign video of President Obama urging his supporters to vote for Democrats in November.

 What about the “gotcha” politics online?  Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal writes about how, “the veil was ripped from the true cost of government” by the internet.  “Before the Internet in Washington, California, New York, New Jersey—who knew what the pols were spending? The Democrats (and their Republican pilot fish) could get away with this. Not now. Email lists, 24/7 newspapers, blogs, TV and talk radio—the spending beast is running naked.”

A new kind of political campaign

It’s pretty obvious that the new technologies, Facebook, YouTube, e-mail, Twitter, will play a big part in the 2012 election.  But in the end, it takes people showing up at the polls, just like the Obama campaign of 2008 proved.  The electronic tools communicated to the volunteers and voters to show up. When they got to the polls, it’s that gut feeling people have about a candidate that translates into a yes vote. The image of Obama, young, energetic and using the latest technology was a powerful image of change. As Garrett Graff wrote for a cover story in Infonomics.  “Even the candidate himself was a techie: Obama famously cherishes his BlackBerry, and on the campaign trail he regularly zoned out with his iPod

Michael Lind talks about “The Boring Age” in Time Magazine’s March 22, 2010 claiming the “times they aren’t a-changin’ and though we want to believe technological innovation is proceeding at a rate with no parallel in all of human history, the truth is we are living in a period of stagnation.”  He asks, “Is the combination of a phone, video screen and keyboard really as revolutionary as the original telephone, the original television set or the original typewriter was?”

In the end, will people be too busy running their lives to know what’s going on?  Or, will social media cure that?

Advertisements

Leave a comment »

Vogue Versus The Blogs

It must be nice being Anna Wintour, long-time editor-in-chief of Vogue Magazine.  It must be nice at least until now.   Although social media/ internet have gained wide acceptance across the world, Vogue and Wintour are struggling on how to use social media and not be threatened by the new phenomenon of fashion blogger. The struggle could result in the glossy, slick magazine being just as “out” as last season’s clothes.

Anna Wintour

Wintour seemed not as dismissive recently on her opinion of bloggers when she said:  “We love as much coverage of fashion as possible. We don’t care at all where it comes from, and we embrace bloggers and video and social networking, and anyone that’s talking about fashion is a good thing. And we now have our own website that incorporates all of that. But I think what’s interesting to us with this new phenomenon that ‘everyone’s a fashion editor, everyone’s a fashion writer’ is that all of that actually helps Vogue, because we have access and the understanding of fashion that, forgive me, but maybe some bloggers and some of the newcomers to this world have a little bit less experience of, but as I said, the more the merrier. We embrace it.

Is “The Cluetrain Manifesto” lost on Wintour?  “Markets are conversations” – “people are sharing information at blinding speed,” and there’s a reshaping of power.    Her comment “we have the understanding of fashion,” implies that fashion bloggers do not.  It’s clear that she hasn’t read the tea leaves.  Anna Wintour believes that she and Vogue still rule.  Even one of her assistant editors admits “not being that wild about fashion bloggers such as teen fashion blogger Tavi Gevinson.”

On April 22, 2010, Wintour was inducted into the American Society of National Magazine Editors Hall of Fame – it’s called the Ellies and is the Oscars for magazines.  At the same ceremony, Wired Magazine was honored as well as Glamour Magazine for the best use of both print and digital media.   

At the gala, the Wall Street Journal asked Wintour about her plans for the Ipad. Her response was vague, something about “plans on the drawing board,” but she did say Vogue was in the process of redoing its Website, making part of it interactive, which would launch in August.  

 Maybe the subject (or villain) of “The Devil Wears Prada” can still get on board.  In the May 2010 issue of Vogue she features Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, in a glowing article.  As a prognosticator for fashion, who tells us what to wear 10 months ahead of time, Wintour ought to be looking to the future (technology) instead of the past (print).  Her future and that of Vogue’s might depend on it.

Leave a comment »

From Metal Magnet to YouTube – Access to the Frontlines of War – Weekly#10

 

The “Metal Magnet” is one of the top artifacts at the Newseum in Washington D.C.   An armor-reinforced Chevrolet truck, it kept Time Magazine photographers/correspondents safe while covering the violent conflict of the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia.  Repeatedly struck by bullets the 7,000 pound vehicle was dubbed the “Metal Magnet.”   Christopher Morris, Time’s chief photographer in the region, and two others were pinned down for three hours in the truck and escaped without injury. 

Metal Magnet at the Newseum

Seeing this bullet-ridden truck is not as dramatic or shocking as compared to seeing and hearing the gunfire of the War in Iraq on YouTube.  For someone who has never been to war or had any connection with the military except to be grateful for their service to our Country, the sound of gunfire is unbelievably loud.  It’s the way YouTube allows us in the war zone.

Although YouTube and the other Web 2.0 tools give us these unique looks at the War, this idea of transparency and coverage of War began in March 2003, when reporters were embedded with U. S. troops at the start of the War in Iraq   The Pentagon allowed reporters to travel and report alongside the military.  Both the military and journalists have given the effort high marks.

Since 2003, the rapidly expanding digital revolution has enabled every person in the War zone to become a potential reporter – teller of the truth of what’s really going on there. Prior to 2004, the Web 2.0 communication sharing communities existed on a very limited level.  Most social-networking and video sites simply did not exist. 

Blogging and solo video journalism have allowed people like Kevin Sites to cover the war and file their stories.  Even if they are first-hand accounts in the War zone, they could be no more accurate or informative than the traditional news media coverage.   As the first news correspondent for yahoo.com and then a video journalist, Sites says his impact can be greater on the internet – a potential audience of 400 million every month, compared to his old job as correspondent on NBC Nightly News with 10 million viewers.

Whatever tools are used to communicate the cruel realities of War, the information is there for all to see and hear.  Reading the blog of “Baghdad Burning” gives us a view of one family in Iraq and the slow destruction of daily life in a War zone.

The Web 2.0 tools have been used very successfully by the U. S. Army in their recruiting efforts.  On the GoArmy.com Website, where future soldiers can get first-hand accounts of Army life, Army recruitment is up because of real-life stories for parents and future soldiers such as, “What’s it like to be a soldier.”  The daily routine of a soldier is explained in “At work and during free time.”  The site also provides games and downloads.   Because of these games and efforts on line, recruits are more likely to join and remain in the Army.  Recruiting goals are up as well as Americans have a more favorable opinion of the Army.

.

Leave a comment »