In January, Barack Obama raised as much money, $28 million, as Howard Dean raised in his entire campaign last time around. And they have done it using $25 and $50 donors. Think about it. On the one side you have the traditional way to raise money — rich people asking other rich people to give. “Bundling” is when the partner asks all the associates to ante up the maximum to attend a local fundraiser.
An individual may give $2,300 per federal election. So if I give $2,300 to Clinton I am “maxed out” and the only way for me to do more is get $2,300 from my buddies. Lets say I am that law partner and by making a lot of calls I can get 50 people to max out for my candidate. That’s $117,300, including my own contribution. I become a Hillraiser.
The Obama campaign is raising money differently. They have raised lots of money from those small donors. For the Obama campaign to get to $117,300 from $25 donors mean they have 4692 people donating instead of only 51. Wow.
We care about this because we care about using the internet for fundraising and advocacy. What Obama is doing is a major milestone in the development of the web. The internet, only the internet, makes possible this kind of retail fundraising. There would simply be no other way to get people, excited in their own homes, across the country, inspired by speeches and videos, organized enough to get these donations flowing. People wouldn’t write the checks or fill out the forms, but they can click and give, just like they click to buy a book or a Pez dispenser or, in 2008, pay their parking tickets.
The Obama campaign says they have more than 350,000 donors this year so far. 350,000 donors! Holy smoke that’s a lot of donors. And they are talking about this many in just over a month.
What the internet makes possible, the candidate makes happen. The internet didn’t raise the money. Obama’s inspiration activated people and the internet made it possible to turn that excitement into dollars. As I have written before, the Obama campaign has been amazing at using video to make that excitement portable across the web, capturing those moments that get people juiced.
There is a lot to learn from this campaign and at See3 and among other nonprofit communicators we will be studying it for a long time to come.
It feels to me like something is happening here. I guess we’ll see on Tuesday.
It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.
Yes we can.
It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom.
Yes we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.
Yes we can.
It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.
Yes we can to justice and equality.
Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can repair this world.
Yes we can.
We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.
We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics…they will only grow louder and more dissonant ……….. We’ve been asked to pause for a reality check. We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.
But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
Now the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea –
Yes. We. Can.
Celebrities featured include: Jesse Dylan, will.i.am, Common, Scarlett Johansson, Tatyana Ali, John Legend, Herbie Hancock, Kate Walsh, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Adam Rodriquez, Kelly Hu, Adam Rodriquez, Amber Valetta, Eric Balfour, Aisha Tyler, Nicole Scherzinger and Nick Cannon
Wow. A Black guy wins the Iowa caucus. That is so 21rst Century. Whether he goes on to win the nomination and becomes president or not, the fact that Barack Obama won in Iowa, a 95% white state, says something about the ability of Americans, especially younger Americans, to put race aside. It gives one hope.
With my marketing hat on I see something else. I see a campaign that will be studied for years to come. As a former political consultant, I know that it is much easier to get people who you know are going to vote to vote for your candidate than to get new people to vote. In the past 20 years most of the efforts to get new people to vote in large numbers has been short on real results. Whether the focus has been on the young or the low income, the results have rarely equaled the resources expended.
The Obama campaign was able to use the internet to mobilize people and then turn that online juice into offline action. “The Iowa Democratic Party says at least 227,000 people took part in their caucuses, a much higher turnout than the 125,000 who cast their votes four years ago.” according to CNN. That is an amazing number. That is something all nonprofits should be looking at closely.
The implication is that Obama had a lot to do with this increase in turn-out. Some random thoughts on how this happened.
* People were excited about the product.
Marketing is great, but if the core message and the messenger aren’t compelling you will only get so far. Obama’s message, which include his words, his color, his life experience and his age, combined to become something people could rally around.
* Video
The Obama camp used more web video in more quantity and with more impact than the other campaigns. Coincidence? I think not. The videos were able to bring people to the events who couldn’t be there in person. The videos were able to give voice to real supporters. The videos were able to animate Obama’s words in a way text could not.
* Data and organization
Turing the excitement of people into action starts with good data. The Obama people — like the other candidates — invested heavily in being able to track and follow-up with everyone who took actions on their site and to marry that data with data about Iowans in order to mobile people precinct by precinct and household by household.
Nonprofits should be excited about the possibilities of their investment in online tools and offline organizing. They can take their real stories, the compelling work they do and use social networking and video to turn it into online excitement and activities. They can marry it to offline action and, like the Obama camp, see real results.
This time of year the nonprofits bring out the gift catalogues. The idea is to allow people to buy the gift of helping by putting a specific dollar value on certain nonprofit activities. One of the most successful organizations at showing their activities as tangible items is Heifer International - where you can actually gift a water buffalo to a poor family in a developing nation.
This is the first year I am seeing this idea used by a political campaign. I received an email just now from the Iowa State Director of the Obama campaign. In his email he tells me that they have opened up their budgets and now I can sponsor a specific aspect of their Iowa campaign. Of course, like the Heifer heifers, these are representative gifts — they don’t actually buy that water buffalo, they are just showing you that this amount of money could buy a water buffalo. In other words, the money is fungible.
Here’s what you can buy from (for) the Obama campaign:
$28.75 25 “Big Round O” signs for a Chickasaw County GOTC Rally
$66.67 1 field organizer’s salary for a day in Des Moines
$115.50 75 Yard Signs for Davenport area Caucus Locations
$253.79 300 bags for canvassers to carry literature in Mason City
$511.46 750 “Turning the Page in Iraq” mail pieces in Davenport
$1,100.00 1 month’s rent for a small field office
$2,300.00 1 full day’s worth of radio ads in Des Moines
And here’s the letter:
Dear Michael,
Here in Iowa, our team feels a deep sense of responsibility for our role in this election.
What we do — or don’t do — in the days leading up to the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd can have a major impact on the future of our country.
But we also know that we’re not in this alone. Folks like you have shown again and again that you want to do everything you can to help us win here.
I have another unusual request for you. We are about to take a leap no other campaign has ever taken, and you can be part of it.
Starting today, you can provide our Precinct Captains, field organizers, and volunteers with the exact resources they need to do the job.
We’ve opened up our budget to give you an opportunity to choose what part of our campaign you want to sponsor — everything from yard signs to field offices to radio and TV spots are catalogued in our system.
If you click the link below, you’ll see specific items and specific costs, and you’ll be able to choose what part of our effort you want to be responsible for.
Take a look at the system and make your donation to support our ground operation in the crucial first-in-the-nation caucus state:
We asked you to do something out of the ordinary last week, and you really came through.
Tens of thousands of personal letters and emails poured in from across the country to our Iowa Precinct Captains and volunteers.
Your stories, words of encouragement, and passion for change connected with the folks here on the ground and moved them more than I can tell you.
Now you can make your support even more concrete. We’ve gone over our entire budget for our Iowa operation and built a system that will let you choose exactly what you want to support.
I am so impressed with the Obama campaign’s use of video. They are really making video a central part of their online strategy and I am certain it has an impact on the crowds they are drawing and the enthusiasm they are seeing.
I got a link to this video by email today. It is the 5th anniversary of Obama’s speech against the war, on October 2, 2002.
Here’s an excerpt from that speech:
“What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”
-Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
It shows impressive foresight. But as powerful as it is to read those words, see what they did with the video when they only had 13 seconds of the original speech on tape.
There is nothing here particularly complicated in terms of shooting or editing video. If your organization isn’t finding a way to start using this tool, you are missing a tremendous opportunity.
One of the things we know about email fundraising and advocacy is that requests that are timely are more likely to result in gifts. For example, if legislation is being voted on today and I get an email today asking me to call my Senator, I am more likely to do it than if I received the request two weeks earlier. In fundraising, if I am told that we have 36 hours to meet a deadline so that food aid can be delivered with the next convoy — this is a compelling ask.
I have noticed recently the added idea of speaking to me like I am an insider. I am seeing this mostly in political fundraising. I got a note from Barak Obama last week. Have a look:
I’m just now leaving New York, and you’ve got me fired up. Nearly 25,000 people came together last night for the rally.
Here’s the video:
I’m inspired by your continued energy and support. But we’re still shy of our goal of 500,000 donations to the campaign by Sunday’s deadline.
Make an additional donation now and help us get there:
https://donate.barackobama.com/promise
More soon,
Barack
Paid for by Obama for America
This email was sent to: michael@see3.net
To unsubscribe, go to: http://my.barackobama.com/unsubscribe
The subject of the email above was “Hey.” Hey? As in, “Hey, I just wanted to fire off a quick note to my buddy.” The signature was the uber-personal “Barack”. Yeah, we go way back.
The next day I got an email from Michelle Obama with the subject line “re:Hey” It’s like we’re all friends on a normal chain of emails.
Today, I received an email from Rahm Emanuel at the DCCC.
Hi Michael,
I know it’s Sunday so I don’t want to take up much of your time. You know me, I like to speak frankly.
Here’s the reality check: This election is far from in the bag. There are 60 Democrats sitting in seats that Bush carried in 2004 and there are eight Republicans sitting in Democratic seats. We have a lot of seats to protect and an historic opportunity to expand the playing field. The resources we have now will determine whether or not we win next November.
The FEC end of quarter deadline is MIDNIGHT TONIGHT and the DCCC is just $38,000 shy of its goal. House Dems are matching every gift until midnight tonight so please give what you can before this critical deadline.
http://www.dccc.org/r/99581/3018530/
On to Victory,
Rahm
Sent Wirelessly Via Blackberry
I like the urgency. We have hours to go and we need your help. But “Sent Wirelessly Via Blackberry”???? Yeah, sure. I wonder how my good buddy Rahm got all of this far at the bottom of the email:
To unsubscribe from this email list, please paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.dccc.org/unsubscribe/?p=MTQxNCwzMDE4NTMw%0A
To make sure you always get our emails add dccc@dccc.org to your address book. Find out more about adding us to your address book here.
http://www.dccc.org/r/99582/3018530/
Paid for by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
430 South Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003
(202) 863-1500 www.dccc.org
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
Contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are not tax deductible.
That’s a lot of Blackberry typing for him to remember.
Yes, friendly and urgent work. But maybe sometimes you need to give your audience a more little credit.
by Michael Hoffman Wednesday, September 19th, 2007
Why should I donate? Yes, you do good work. Yes, I care about these issues. OK, you got me. I will donate. But not now. When I get around to it. (Which might not actually happen any time soon.)
I think this is a common subconscious set of thoughts from donors. I will get to it. I made that pledge, but I didn’t return the envelope. Not because I didn’t intend to do it, but because it’s not URGENT. Creating urgency is an important part of fundraising. OK, I get you do good work. But why is it important that I donate now. Right now. Why not tomorrow? Why not next month?
One way to solve the urgency issue is to use a matching program. A typical match program will get a high-net-worth donor to conditionally pledge some money, say, $75,000. They will pay the pledge if you can get another $75,000 to match it. Often this is a nice way to up a gift from a major donor as well as getting your base excited. I was thinking about this recently because I saw two case studies for running matching gift programs online.
The first is from the American Jewish World Service (AJWS). They sent out an email about a week ago to their list saying that a family foundation has agreed to provide $75,000 if the amount could be matched. In about two days the $75,000 came in online. Here’s the amazing thing… a lot more money came in phone calls! “I just got this email about the matching and I want to donate.” So they were over their goal. (Don’t forget, if you get calls or letters that reference an online campaign, the online campaign needs to be credited for those gifts in your database so you can accurately measure the impact of the campaign.)
Within a couple days, the whole experience got someone else excited about the matching possibilities and I got this email from Ruth Messinger, the head of AJWS:
Dear Michael,
During these Days of Awe I am particularly grateful for your ongoing commitment to AJWS.
Last week I shared the news that, in the spirit of the High Holy Days, a family foundation agreed to match your contributions up to $75,000.
I am so pleased that, thanks to an outpouring of support, we have met the match.
However, the generosity of our supporters did not stop there. After hearing of the success of the first match, an anonymous donor came forward and offered an additional $100,000 in match funds!
With the ongoing help of the AJWS community, we are confronting some of the world’s most difficult challenges. We support the world’s most vulnerable people - where the need is greatest - in communities that have not been reached and not been served by others.
So please, don’t miss this special opportunity to contribute today - your donation will go twice as far and will help AJWS raise up to $350,000 for our critical work around the world!
Thank you for your commitment to global social justice and support of AJWS. May we all be inscribed in the Book of Life.
Warm regards,
Ruth Messinger
President, American Jewish World Service
The second case study is from the Obama campaign. What’s interesting about their approach is the idea of matching real people to each other to create a kind of virtuous circle of leveraged gifts. The Obama people are combining the urgency of the match with the idea of creating community, which has been a lot of what their campaign is about. And they also throw in here a little “prove to me that you’re a man” kind of stuff for added punch (which is the part I don’t really like because I think it dilutes the power of the community sell.) Have a look:
Dear Michael,
Somebody out there believes that you’re ready to own a piece of this campaign.
A fellow supporter has promised that if you make a donation right now, they will match what you give.
So take the next step.
Prove to them that they were right to put their faith in you. Make a donation now and double your impact:
https://donate.barackobama.com/match
This isn’t an anonymous donor program backed by big checks from Washington lobbyists or corporate fat cats. This is a one-to-one, supporter-to-supporter effort.
If you make a donation, you’ll be matched up with a real person — another supporter who has put their faith in you. And you’ll be able to read a note from them and send a response.
Here’s how it works:
You choose the amount you’re willing to give — it will be doubled by someone willing to match that amount
You’ll see the name and town of the fellow Obama supporter who agreed to double your donation
You’ll be able to write a note to the person who matched you and let them know why you decided to own a piece of this campaign
https://donate.barackobama.com/match
Our movement is funded by actual people — individuals who are moved to give whatever they can afford, whether it’s five dollars or five hundred dollars.
Most campaigns do not realize the value of contributions from ordinary people — they are focused on the money that comes from Washington lobbyists and special interest groups.
But we reject the notion that lobbyists and PACs represent “real people,” and we’ve refused their money since this campaign began.
So it’s up to you.
Make a donation and show your support. Double your impact by giving today and being a part of our supporter match campaign:
https://donate.barackobama.com/match
According to the Campaign Finance Institute, we have raised more money in small dollar contributions than any major campaign in history.
If we keep building our movement this way, we have the potential to fundamentally reshape the political process.
We can end the days of lobbyists and political action committees paying for access and influence.
That’s why we’re so focused on bringing new donors into the campaign. For the next ten days you will write the history of this presidential election through your actions.
You have the opportunity to build the biggest grassroots campaign politics has ever seen.
Make a donation, connect with another supporter, and double your impact now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/match
Thanks for your support,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Matching programs can work. So if you haven’t tried it, you should. One rule of creating urgency is that you shouldn’t abuse it. You can’t tell people in every communication you have with them all the time that the sky is falling (even if it is!). If you say, “We need you to act today!” and you say it again next week, they will get burned out. They will begin to feel that they can never solve your problems, that you just take and take and no matter how much they give you are still in this crazy urgent situation. And if they feel that way, then your appeals start to make them feel guilty, and guilt is not a tricky tactic in fundraising. Most of the time people will avoid guilt-inducing situations.
If you have your own matching gift story, leave it in a comment here to share it with your nonprofit colleagues.
I went to a session on Friday at Yearly Kos about the impact of video through the 2008 election. I had meant to “live blog” the session, meaning, I was typing while sitting in it and could have published this, but live blogging doesn’t give you the chance to make sure things make sense for your readers and I was not breaking any news, so I waited until now to finish this.
The moderator of the panel was from the New Politics Institute, a progressive think tank that is tracking changes in politics from the progressive perspective.
Marcy Wheeler a blogger with FireDogLake who has moved to video blogging.
John Amato from Crooks and Liars who we are told was way ahead of his time with web video. The Vlog Father.
At the start of the session he showed the famous Johnson daisy ad.
This was really revolutionary when it ran. It is very powerful. I wonder about the “we must love each other” part. Not sure what he meant by that really.
Another point mentioned at the start of the session was that we have come along way from that ad, where everyone who saw it saw it on TV. Google’s revenue is approaching the total ad revenue from all network television.
We then saw the famous Macaca video. At one point someone asked what the real impact is of all this online video. The answer - we know a US Senate seat was lost because of it. If you haven’t seen that video, I pasted it below. The context is that an Indian-American is basically being called racial names from George Allen, who actually thought he would become the President of the United States.
Macaca video.
The campaigns are getting into the act of using web video. At the session we saw screen shots from Obama’s web video announcement, for example.
We are also seeing the parody. The best known one is probably Obama Girl.
Basically, there is a wave of video innovation going on now and it is changing politics.
There are categories of videos here. Viral Hollywood. Campaign video blogs. Event clips.
Not as much Flash animation these days. Will there be more? [I don’t think so.]
We also have TV clips that go viral.
And now we are starting to see web features — 5 to 10 minutes.
YouTube CNN Debates, for all the criticism will mark the coming of age of new media.
So here we are today. Lets go to the panel to talk about what’s next for web video.
John Amato on the phone:
“The power of video is truly amazing. With Crooks and Liars I was just getting into the blog world and when I actually saw Bill O’Reilly using right wing propaganda to frame every issue I realized the power of video through television was unique and I needed to get it online. Reading transcripts wasn’t enough. If you see them, see the spin, that would go viral and people needed to see this… ”
The most important things we will see with web video will come from individuals. People will watch the Obama Girl. It will be people at home with their video camera and an idea who can now take action on their ideas. The real power comes from us.
Julie Bergman Sender
Campaign for America’s Future wanted to kick off month long campaign around issue of obstructionist Republican Congress. She then showed us a video she said they did in one day. Staring Jason Alexander. Here it is:
[Love to hear what you think of it. Thought it had some good lines, but seemed too insider to me to have an impact on the masses.]
She also said… and these might not be exact quotes…
“In 2004 when I approached America Coming Together to do the Will Ferrell thing they looked at me like I was a Martian. It had three very clear policy points in it. The key is finding a popular culture conversation to tease out policy points.”
“I think we are in a transformational moment. As Wesley Clark said this morning, who are we? And how are we going to reinvent ourselves and return to the image of ourselves as Americans that we are not living up to.”
“[Speaking of the folks working on new media and web] there are a bunch of new thoroughbreds approaching the gate the if the old guard [of consultants] doesn’t get out of the way they will be trampled. There is a place for straightforward political messaging, biographical narrative treatments, etc. but there is also the person like Wesley Clark who talks about war… he is former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and he is on our side. It’s about authenticity.
There is still a stranglehold from old guard. We have to throw them over. This new crew, the bloggers, the individuals, the spirit of Yearly Kos that is everywhere… I think this is the new way to look at this paradigm, it is not a vertical command center of messaging, it is horizontal and people can take leadership and then blend it all together and the ones that know this will be the ones that succeed.”
Marcy Wheeler
FireDoglake… they covered the Libby Trial and they matched and surpassed the the old media in that. “I wrote these long posts that had readership of 2,000 people or maybe 10,000 people is max readership. Too long, too detailed and too inside baseball to change the narrative or really take on AP or Washington Post. Then I would write shorter, punchier posts for outlets with higher traffic.”
The live blog from the Libby trial was getting up to 200,000 people a day. There is no way we are going to beat the speakers on Fox… so we thought we need video. After 8 hours of live blogging did 5-10 minutes of video. A lot of people got to us for the first time through video.
People who couldn’t read the live stuff — but they would start with the video then scan the live blog. It gave me an appreciation for telling the story quickly.”
“If I would do this again there should be a video component all along.”
Dan Mannat
Shows this video…
What’s going to happen in the next year? His predictions:
1. VideoRoots — tracking, archival work, the folks doing Crooks and Liars on a local level. Basically the netroots phenomenon that we see so influential moves to video.
2. Self funding videos… contribute money so we can get this on the air. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was substantially on the web before it went to TV.
3. The Convention — how will they incorporate video? With inspiration of YouTube debate it will be interesting to see what happens with the convention.
4. Video Ad Watch - deconstructing attack ads with video. As soon as an ad goes up you will see video responses. Matter of hours before there will be video responses.
5. No candidate has done what Al Gore showed us.. the policy video. Integration of multimedia to explain policy — make it substantive - -we will see that in the next year.
6. Smear videos — honeymoon during primary, but for general gloves will be off.
Questions he has:
Will there be a YouTube general election debate? Will Commission on Presidential Debates incorporate it?
November Surprise videos.. last time we had Bin Laden…
In 2004 some effort to combat voter fraud with video. In 2008 we will see real time reporting of how long lines are on every precinct in the country. You can auto-post cell phone video to YouTube today.
The session ended with everyone agreeing that video is having and will continue to have a big impact and that the organizations that are able to teach video literacy will be the ones able to have a big impact. (Andrew Rasiej, who was in the audience called it “videacy” or something like that.)
Mainstream media spends a lot of time trying to be more relevant in our world of unlimited online channels. So in this context I can excuse people for being skeptical that the CNN - YouTube debate was anything more than a gimmick. If you are unfamiliar with this, the idea was that instead of the moderator asking questions, YouTube users would submit videos that ask the questions.
The debate aired on CNN tonight and I just finished watching in online in my living room on CNN.com with my wife Jessica. (Why the video of the debate wasn’t also on YouTube, I don’t know. CNN has a very annoying player that required me to download a new plug-in.) Some criticism before the debate, particularly from Jeff Jarvis, was that CNN shouldn’t be deciding which videos to show. In this way, he and others argued, CNN was simply replacing questions they would ask with the same questions being asked by YouTubers. What these critics wanted was that the most popular question videos on YouTube be the ones they show at the debate. CNN argued that if they did that then the candidates might try to manipulate the popularity of the questions online. I would add that we would probably have had 30 questions about health care.
In the end, I think CNN made the right choice and I think this was a much better debate than usual. Jeff Jarvis thinks it sucked. He says that an online debate, with the candidates responding directly to the videos would have been better. Probably. And you have to agree with his point about the “horse race blather” from the commentators after the debate ended. This might be baby steps, but it is certainly steps.
Michael Bassik, an authority about all of this from MSHC Parnters, was quoted in the New York Times as saying it was less about which questions are picked and more about simply giving people a voice that don’t have in the traditional debate format. After seeing it, I agree.
Jessica said it’s all about stories. The videos became real reality check stories. At one point, John Edwards told us about a man he met on his recent poverty tour with a medical problem — a cleft pallet that he didn’t get fixed until he was 50 years old. This story, stuck in the can by Edwards before the debate and pulled out to show he is in touch with real people, seemed totally hollow to those of us watching from the couch. It didn’t have any impact because minutes before he told his story we saw videos of adult kids feeding their mother with Alzheimer’s and a woman taking her wig off and talking about being denied preventative care because she didn’t have health insurance.
Yes, there were too many candidates. And Dennis Kucinich has to be the most annoying candidate that ever ran. And there is never enough time. But millions of Americans saw this video. And I think that really is a difference.
What I like about this piece from James Kotecki and David McMillan is how a couple of guys can contribute to the presidential conversation while demonstrating how you can create effective media on a no budget. According to Jeff Jarvis on his site PrezVid, these guys haven’t even met in person and they are creating a show together. Yes, the lighting and sound could be improved, but it works.
