Links and Comments 16/11
Posted on | November 16, 2010 | 1 Comment
A valuable insight about Adwords: target the long-tail: you want to reach voters who are researching issues, voters who are likely to be undecided (example here: “North Carolina unemployement rate”)
If you listen to the Tea Party candidates…actually listen to what they (as opposed to the media filters) are saying, you start to hear the same language of hope and optimism we heard in 2008. You may not agree with their philosophy for creating a better future for America, but the optimism is the same. The goals are the same. It is simply the media narrative that’s changed.
An article about the role of the media..makes me wonder to what extent popular defiance against the media – not even politics – will change the “game” of political communication in the years to come (if it hasn’t already). In other words: people are not just tired of politics, they’re also tired of traditional media which is said to distort “reality.” Perhaps social media is not so much good for politicians as it’s bad for traditional media.
There are some forms of television programming that typically aren’t watched on a delayed basis, specifically news and sports. As DVR use increases, you’re likely to see political advertising concentrated around these types of programs where the audience is more captive
An interview about the new “comprehensive approach” of the NATO which is said to include more extensively on civil actors – including political communication?
- http://www.internetactu.net/2010/10/25/danah-boyd-vivre-avec-dans-et-autour-de-linformation/ (French)
Defining power as attracting our interest, stimulating our attention..
You’ve all seen the “I’m You” video – here’s an interesting anecdote:
With Ms. O’Donnell, he met her over dinner and within five minutes came up with the “I’m You” concept. She wasn’t the freak outlier as portrayed by the press, he decided. After dinner, he scripted the spot in the hotel and shot it the following night. “That’s politics,” he said. “You only have so much time.” [...] Recently, however, Ms. O’Donnell told “Good Morning America” that she regrets the “I’m You” ad, which only increased visibility of her supposed extreme views.
And yes, it’s true, she still lost.
Using Facebook Places for exit polling? Why not!?
This race has been very negative from the beginning. Of the $2.2 million spent on TV ads, approximately 82 percent of it has been negative — with the help of both parties and outside groups, of course.
In short: it’s not about the technology, it’s about the people; inform/consult/involve/engage; be user-centric – it’s not about the candidat, it’s about the people; be reactive. Good stuff.
An article trying to explain just why there are so many negative ads (from a different perspective as above): 1. it’s potentially free PR as it gets discussed 2. politics, unlike business, is a zero sum game: you either win or lose; there’s no shared profit 3. these “brands” are only active during a very short time period so they’re less inhibited. (Not sure I’m buying into the last two explanations though.)
I generally have the politician write down three words on the top of the page (of any speech): Conversation, punctuation and pause.” The conversational tone lets the speaker talk with the audience rather than over their heads. Punctuation can help generate passion, and pausing underlines the speaker’s gravitas and authority.
“Humility is a great quality, and it’s one that people will respect,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who teaches at Rice University. “Ronald Reagan could be seen as a polarizing presence, but he also knew how to play humble when it was necessary. Where is President Obama’s self-deprecating humor? Kennedy and Reagan could both be very self-deprecating. People liked that.”
More than 12 million clicked Facebook’s “I Voted” button on Tuesday, more than twice the 5.4 million from two years ago. Foursquare encouraged users to vote by awarding a special “merit badge” to those who went to polling places. More than 50,000 of its 4 million users received it.
Theodore Sorensen, 82, was not only Kennedy’s speechwriter but one of his most trusted advisers. While Kennedy is remembered for the 1961 inaugural address in which he declared, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” Sorensen became known, too, for his part in drafting the speech.
Economics Professor Thomas Stratmann says his research on political advertising found a candidate who spends as little as $100,000 more than the other guy will increase his or her share of the vote by just over one half of one percentage point.
The growth of political neuromarketing as inevitable? Maybe..maybe.
Some received an oversize postcard encouraging them to vote, others the same message via a phone call or in-person visit. One control group received no contact whatsoever. After the election, The in-person canvass yielded turnout 9.8 percent higher than for voters who were not contacted. Each piece of mail led to a turnout increase of only 0.6 percent. Telephone calls, had no effect at all.
The “hyperpresidency” of Sarkozy is part of the constitutional heritage of De Gaulle, except for the fact that he crosses the traditional public/private boundaries. I find this convincing.
Tags: Corporate Communications > Facebook > Foursquare > Google > History > Institutional Communications > Political Advertisement > Political Marketing > Public Speaking > Sarkozy > Social Media > Tea Party > TV > War
So what is political communication after all?
Posted on | November 16, 2010 | No Comments
I read this interesting paper the other day (available here) about the political communications landscape in Switzerland; besides its actual empirical contribution, what I find intriguing is to classify political communication into three “fields”:
- political PR
- “campaigning” of all sorts (election campaigns, institutional campaigns etc.)
- lobbying
These three fields can be associated with “horizontal mediation” (building trust between different political agents), “vertical mediation” (building trust between political agents and citizens) and “political advocation”, respectively. I find this a rather neat conceptual framework.
In addition, if you’ve ever wondered how to justify political consultancy to politicians you could claim:
- technical expertise, improved infrastructure, etc.: a question of ressources
- the “innovative and independent” point of view that outsiders (should) provide: a question of innovation
- the possibility to pseudo-legitimize admist others: a question of legitimization
Obama, Change ‘08…and today?
Posted on | November 6, 2010 | No Comments
What hasn’t been said and written about this campaign in the two years that have passed? And yet – of course, there’s hope for change..
So, I just came across this video on Youtube:
What’s really interesting here is what this fine lady says at the beginning of the clip:
The president alone cannot affect the changes that he had promised in the 2008 elections…
Let me rephrase:
The president alone cannot affect the changes that he had promised in the 2008 elections…
This is, in fact, quite revolutionary; it’s both acknowledging the relative powerlessness of politicians and getting citizens to support them in order to “get the job done.”
In other words: if there’s one thing this campaign did do, it was 1. to identify one of the major elements of today’s political landscape – “politicians have lost all real power” – and 2. using just this “fact” to turn it into something positive, something stimulating and engaging. That really is quite astonishing.
Now: what’s left after the midterm elections? I’m not quite sure, actually, but let’s look at what he said on Wednesday:
I think we have to take direct responsibility for the fact that we haven’t made as much progress as we need to make.
He’s assuming leadership, integrity and honesty, fair enough – and, for all “we” could mean here, I think it’s fairly obvious that he’s taking on personal responsibility for the election outcome. In other words: he’s just another powerless politician..which is, in fact, probably not as bad as it sounds – because, God forbid, the last thing you’d want is to believe that the “people” are powerless too…
Deliberative Democracy…and the Tea Party
Posted on | October 30, 2010 | No Comments
As I was browsing the web, I found yet another small discussion of deliberative democracy; here’s a small excerpt:
Deliberative democracy stems from the belief that democratic leadership should involve educating constituents about issues at hand, and that citizens may significantly alter their opinions when faced with information about these issues. Advocates of the approach state that democracy should shift away from fixed notions toward a learning process in which people develop defensible positions.5 While the approaches of the Center for Deliberative Democracy, America Speaks, and the Consensus Building Institute do differ, all of these deliberative methodologies involve unbiased sharing of information and public-policy alternatives with a representative set of citizens; a moderated process of deliberation among the selected citizens; and the collection and dissemination of data resulting from this process.
Source: http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-10-25/promise-deliberative-democracy
It all sounds so good, deliberative, rational..and then there’s a rally to restore honor, another one to restore sanity, the Tea Party etc. – so what’s going on? I find this somewhat puzzling – is it not? The promise of more direct, deliberative democracy seems to be on the rise with the developpment of the Web 2.0; yet, at the same time, you also seem to have more and more virulent and irrational forms of political expression.
..or are these two just two sides of the same coin: the reemergence of direct democracy? I guess you can’t have your cake and eat it too..
Google, again
Posted on | October 27, 2010 | No Comments
I must say: whoever’s in charge of communciations at Google, they’re doing a good job. Having presented my thoughts on Eric Schmidt’s public speaking skills a while back, I now had the chance to see Arnauld Mitre of Google France. Asked about transparency issues surrounding Google Search’s algorithm, he said that they’re handling it the way they are because they’re “user-directed”: being more transparent would leave the user unprotected vis-à-vis business interests. In other words: they’re doing it for us.
That’s obviously a somewhat shaky anwer but an elegant one nonetheless. Now have a government tell this to their citizens and no one would believe them..
keep looking »