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.
I recently wrote about matching fundraising campaigns where one donor agrees to match the contributions of a set of additional donors, up to a certain amount. A twist on this is a kind of contest with a big payoff for the organization at the end.
The Ploughshares Fund has launched a similar contest with a twist. For the Yahoo!/Network for Good contest the winner was the one who raised the most money using a charity badge (a kind of simple widget) distributed on sites across the net.
The Ploughshares Fund has launched something called the Peace Primary. It is a kind of online popularity contest/election. But you can’t just vote. You have to pay $1 per vote (minimum 10) and those dollars go to the organization. So its a combination contest/fundraiser. Nice!
You can vote for as many organizations as you like. In fact, voting for multiple groups is strongly encouraged.
How many times can I vote?
Each vote costs $1. For each group you select, there is a 10-vote minimum and a 1,000 vote maximum.
Where does the money go?
Every dollar you contribute with each vote goes directly to the group you are voting for. All donations are completely tax-deductible.
I don’t know if I like the idea of money for votes.
Neither do we in actual elections, but in the Peace Primary nobody loses — every dollar raised goes directly to the the participating groups to support their efforts to raise the profile of peace issues in the coming months. There are also strict spending limits in the Peace Primary — no more than $1,000 per voter per group — to maximize every group’s chances of winning. And, unlike real-world elections, voters are allowed and even encouraged to vote for as many groups as they want.
When can I vote?
You can vote any time between September 1 and October 31, 2007.
How will the winner be chosen?
The group that receives the most votes will receive a one-time grant of $100,000 from the Ploughshares Fund, a public grantmaking foundation that supports the smartest people with the best ideas for preventing the spread and use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and identifying new ways to prevent armed conflict.
How were the participating groups chosen?
The Ploughshares Fund submitted a list of organizations to an all-star panel of leaders (see above) from across the peace and security community, and that panel voted for the 12 finalists. The panel was chaired by actor Martin Sheen and also included writer, commentator and religious scholar Reza Aslan, a member of Ploughshares Fund’s Board of Directors; the Reverend Dr. Joan Brown Campbell of the Chautauqua Institute; Bonnie Jenkins, program officer at the Ford Foundation; former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey (R-CA); author Jonathan Schell; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor-in-chief of The Nation, and Ploughshares Fund Executive Director Naila Bolus.
What criteria were used to nominate the groups?
We looked for organizations that represent a wide range of approaches to peace and human security; that have a commitment to action and policy advocacy; that have a base of grassroots support and a national or broad regional constituency; that have the capacity for online communication and outreach to constituents; and that have a record of making an impact.
When we made this recent piece for NARAL: Pro-Choice America, we needed debate footage that we could mash-up and play with. Should we have to pay a private corporation to re-use the footage of our national candidates speaking? If you were to want to grab video of President Bush speaking in order to criticize it, you would have to pay the station that ran the original story. Does that make sense?
The issue of what is Fair Use and how this specifically relates to our political life is an important one. Pressure from the right places can make a difference in the push for more openness. Responding to a complaint from the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the Federal Trade Commission told NBC that their copyright notices were deceiving the public about the public’s right to use materials under the Fair Use doctrine.
The move drew immediate praise from CCIA President and CEO Ed Black, who said NBC’s decision “further opens the doors of the political process.
“The Internet, the great equalizer of our time, empowers people from every walk of life to make better decisions with more information,” he said in a statement. “Indeed, the political process depends on this very principle.”
Black pointed out that fair use guidelines allow others to use portions of the debates for commentary and review, but do not require the footage to be release entirely without restrictions, as the networks have agreed to do.
“Nevertheless, because the public’s fair use rights have limits, ABC and NBC are to be praised for providing the public with unrestricted use of this content, thereby ensuring that the democratic discourse will not be impeded,” he said.
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.
The Obama campaign is doing great things with video that every organization should be doing. They are documenting his travels and speeches. They are interviewing supporters and making short films about supporters and their issues — all in addition to more traditional advertising. Have a look at a couple videos they did around a contest for a donor to have dinner with Senator Obama:
We had conversations with several organizations about doing some video work on July 4th. The idea being that July 4th is the perfect patriotic backdrop and a great time to do “man on the street” interviews. Whether the issue was global warming or human rights, July 4th parades offer lots of compelling imagery and lots of people to talk to.
This year was my third or fourth year actually participating in July 4th parades. My mother-in-law owns a 1931 Model A Ford. She is the only women in the Ford Authentic Restorers Technical Society, aka the F.A.R.T.S. She organizes the group to attend three parades in northern Illinois. For two of those parades — Skokie and Evanston — we participate, putting the kids in the rumble seat and marching along side the car.
As you can see from my pictures below, there is great imagery and lots of diversity in these parades. The first half of the photos are from Skokie, the second from Evanston. The Evanston parade is much more a political affair, as you will also see in the pictures. For the organizations that participate, the parade gives good visibility and a chance for volunteers to actually do something other than click on a site or send an email to their member of Congress.
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.
