Ok, call me crazy, but presidential elections are often determined by rallying the publics passion and to this end I believe that YouTube will eventually become a critical variable in influencing the publics views on candidates. So much so that it could even end up determining who wins an election. I'm not sure if it will happen in 2012 (although I think it's possible), but I think it will definitely be a factor in 2016.
I think we are entering (or about to enter) a new age. One that will redefine the PR process relating to politics. An age in which average folks with a little bit of creativity and video editing ability can collectively equate to a multi-million dollar marketing campaign that goes beyond just traditional marketing but which is viral/buzz oriented.
I saw a video today on YouTube that I thought was really well done. It was just some kid (I reserve the right to call anyone under 25 a kid now that I'm in my mid thirties) who put together a variety of clips and put it music. The video - Even Black people like Ron Paul! - was a video of why he was a Ron Paul supporter.
How much is a video like that worth? It's hard to say, but a corporation would probably spend a thousand bucks to produce something like that.
Not to mention the value that comes from it orginating at a grassroots level. As any PR person can tell you, the most valuable messaging you can have is the endorsement of your message by the consumer. Customer praise matters more than even what your CEO says, because it's assumed that a customer has nothing to gain by speaking positively - so if they do, odds are the product is actually good.
The same holds true for politics. I mean, who would ever imagine that an African-American youth would be endorsing / hyping Ron Paul (especially when Obama is in office), that kind of publicity / endorsement you simply can't create, it has to come organically from within the populous.
And this type of video isn't easy to make even if you know what you are doing. I'd say a video like the one above probably took anywhere between five-to-ten hours to make. You have to collect all the clips (not just the ones you see in the video), you have to cut them all up, you have to arrange them, you have to set them to music, you have to do your first cut, then you have to keep editing until you get something that you actually like.
It's a lot of work. Which is why if a corporation were to pay someone to create a video they'd spend tens-of-thousands of dollars to do so (and more often than not come up with something very stale and cheesy).
With technology today a candidate with a passionate base of tech-savvy followers could very well generate a huge buzz through YouTube. By itself YouTube isn't enough to win an election, I"m not suggesting that be a campaign strategy, but what I am saying is that YouTube enables the creative expression of the youth (and anyone for that matter).
When people can connect with the 'passion' behind a movement, that's when you start to get followers.
In 2008 a video by a group of celebrities was put together and it generated a huge amount of buzz for Obama. It really helped fuel this emotional connect that Obama was an agent of change of historic proportions - truly a man of the people. (Ironically, it's this same hype that I think very well could cost Obama the election in 2012).
It was this kind of emotional draw that brought people out to vote for Obama (people that normally wouldn't vote, but whose apathy was momentarily stripped away and they participated in the election process).
The Yes We Can video on YouTube has 22 million hits as for today. That doesn't include all the times it was played on music stations, radio stations or posted on other sites. Nor does it include all the kids who dragged their parents in to their room to watch the video.
My point is that we usually hear public voices as small clips when being interviewed by media stations. But YouTube (and today's video editing software) could very well determine the next President. When momentum grows and people begin to unleash their creativity through YouTube to rally awareness for a candidate they believe in, it's not inconceivable for such buzz to go viral and to permeate in to the mainstream media and eventually the populous as a whole.
Yes, YouTube is famous for funny viral videos, but it really hasn't been seen as a platform for activism yet. And to the extent that it's been used by a few people for that purpose, they've lacked the creative juices to make their videos interesting to watch (much less evoke an emotive response from the viewer)
I think we're going to start seeing some amazing videos appear in the future that are as effective in their messaging as any multi-million dollar marketing campaign could ever be. The consequences / effects could be very surprising.
I suspect it could even happen in 2012. We actually saw a little bit of it start up during the BP oil spill, but it was nothing compared to what I think is on the way.
I think we could see a big backlash against Obama from just average folks who voted for him. Remember all the jokes about Bush (if not I've put a few at the bottom of this entry). I won't be surprised if Obama's reputation starts taking a serious hit as we get closer to the elections. Not from smear campaigns from the right, but rather from regular folks who make interesting, creative videos that are posted on YouTube.
To that extent, I genuinely think anyone could win in 2012 (although the Republican field looks pretty sad right now). Personally I liked Ron Paul in 2008 and while it's a long shot, it's not beyond possibility that he could become a front runner.
I should also note, this is a warning to all organizations that they should get their community relations programs in to tip-top shape, because their 'community' in the future will have the ability to produce polished, compelling and creative videos to express themselves (both positive and negative views). If you thought rogue Web sites were a problem, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Now for some laughs (if he hadn't let the world go to hell, I'd be tempted to say I miss Bush, at least he was funny):
I think we are entering (or about to enter) a new age. One that will redefine the PR process relating to politics. An age in which average folks with a little bit of creativity and video editing ability can collectively equate to a multi-million dollar marketing campaign that goes beyond just traditional marketing but which is viral/buzz oriented.
I saw a video today on YouTube that I thought was really well done. It was just some kid (I reserve the right to call anyone under 25 a kid now that I'm in my mid thirties) who put together a variety of clips and put it music. The video - Even Black people like Ron Paul! - was a video of why he was a Ron Paul supporter.
How much is a video like that worth? It's hard to say, but a corporation would probably spend a thousand bucks to produce something like that.
Not to mention the value that comes from it orginating at a grassroots level. As any PR person can tell you, the most valuable messaging you can have is the endorsement of your message by the consumer. Customer praise matters more than even what your CEO says, because it's assumed that a customer has nothing to gain by speaking positively - so if they do, odds are the product is actually good.
The same holds true for politics. I mean, who would ever imagine that an African-American youth would be endorsing / hyping Ron Paul (especially when Obama is in office), that kind of publicity / endorsement you simply can't create, it has to come organically from within the populous.
And this type of video isn't easy to make even if you know what you are doing. I'd say a video like the one above probably took anywhere between five-to-ten hours to make. You have to collect all the clips (not just the ones you see in the video), you have to cut them all up, you have to arrange them, you have to set them to music, you have to do your first cut, then you have to keep editing until you get something that you actually like.
It's a lot of work. Which is why if a corporation were to pay someone to create a video they'd spend tens-of-thousands of dollars to do so (and more often than not come up with something very stale and cheesy).
With technology today a candidate with a passionate base of tech-savvy followers could very well generate a huge buzz through YouTube. By itself YouTube isn't enough to win an election, I"m not suggesting that be a campaign strategy, but what I am saying is that YouTube enables the creative expression of the youth (and anyone for that matter).
When people can connect with the 'passion' behind a movement, that's when you start to get followers.
In 2008 a video by a group of celebrities was put together and it generated a huge amount of buzz for Obama. It really helped fuel this emotional connect that Obama was an agent of change of historic proportions - truly a man of the people. (Ironically, it's this same hype that I think very well could cost Obama the election in 2012).
It was this kind of emotional draw that brought people out to vote for Obama (people that normally wouldn't vote, but whose apathy was momentarily stripped away and they participated in the election process).
The Yes We Can video on YouTube has 22 million hits as for today. That doesn't include all the times it was played on music stations, radio stations or posted on other sites. Nor does it include all the kids who dragged their parents in to their room to watch the video.
My point is that we usually hear public voices as small clips when being interviewed by media stations. But YouTube (and today's video editing software) could very well determine the next President. When momentum grows and people begin to unleash their creativity through YouTube to rally awareness for a candidate they believe in, it's not inconceivable for such buzz to go viral and to permeate in to the mainstream media and eventually the populous as a whole.
Yes, YouTube is famous for funny viral videos, but it really hasn't been seen as a platform for activism yet. And to the extent that it's been used by a few people for that purpose, they've lacked the creative juices to make their videos interesting to watch (much less evoke an emotive response from the viewer)
I think we're going to start seeing some amazing videos appear in the future that are as effective in their messaging as any multi-million dollar marketing campaign could ever be. The consequences / effects could be very surprising.
I suspect it could even happen in 2012. We actually saw a little bit of it start up during the BP oil spill, but it was nothing compared to what I think is on the way.
I think we could see a big backlash against Obama from just average folks who voted for him. Remember all the jokes about Bush (if not I've put a few at the bottom of this entry). I won't be surprised if Obama's reputation starts taking a serious hit as we get closer to the elections. Not from smear campaigns from the right, but rather from regular folks who make interesting, creative videos that are posted on YouTube.
To that extent, I genuinely think anyone could win in 2012 (although the Republican field looks pretty sad right now). Personally I liked Ron Paul in 2008 and while it's a long shot, it's not beyond possibility that he could become a front runner.
I should also note, this is a warning to all organizations that they should get their community relations programs in to tip-top shape, because their 'community' in the future will have the ability to produce polished, compelling and creative videos to express themselves (both positive and negative views). If you thought rogue Web sites were a problem, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Now for some laughs (if he hadn't let the world go to hell, I'd be tempted to say I miss Bush, at least he was funny):
Comments
Post a Comment