YouTube - U Think?

Last night we witnessed an interesting Democratic "debate". CNN hosted a debate among the Democratic candidates for President, using questions posed by YouTube users. I thought the format was particularly interesting for a number of reasons.

First, I liked the fact that "real people" got to ask the questions. I think it underscored the fact that these candidates are auditioning to serve the people. The format made it seem as if the candidates were responding to individual voters, not practicing yet another stump speech.

The format too, helped underscore the reality of the problems behind the question - the two brothers caring for their Alzheimer afflicted parent asked a question about health care. A lesbian couple asked whether the candidates would allow them to marry, parents of soldiers currently deployed in Iraq asked questions about the war.... very powerful stuff.

The questions weren't tempered, as they are sometimes by the media. After all, the media has a "relationship" with each of the candidates to protect. They can't ask the harsh questions or be particularly critical, because the next day, they may need a quote or response from the very candidate they've rebuked. By using real voters questions, they were given a "free pass".

While the questions and issues, for the most part were the same ones that reporters might have asked, the format left the impression, that the reporters weren't acting as middlemen in the Q&A process. (Although, it should be noted that slightly more than 1% of the almost 3,000 YouTube submissions were actually aired and that CNN alone chose the questions.)

While the entire production was carefully managed and the questions culled, it nonetheless left me with an impression of being a more "authentic" (honest?) exchange than previous debates.

And God knows, we could use more of that.

More Web 2.0 and Politics - Predictions

MSNBC today reports on how the Internet is affecting political campaigning. As I've been saying for some time now, Web 2.0 phenomenon changes everything. Barack Obama has energized over 130,000 contributors to date and has a far wider contributor base than any other Democratic candidate. His online efforts focus on building communities of interest, around ideals and issues. The effects of online campaigning will be felt long after this current race has concluded.

Here are some predictions.

1. The dialog won' stop after the election. Savvy politicians will continue to cultivate their bases, explain their position, strengthen the bonds between support base and themselves. This is an especially important point for the eventual winners.

2. Web 2.0 encourages dialog between ALL interested parties. This campaign isn't about the candidates just talking to crowds. It's about them talking to crowds who share their values. It's about those supporters talking to each other. And it's about those supporters helping to spread the word. Those politicians who understand this will win.

3. Perhaps as soon as this election, any politician who refers to "the internets" or "the Google", will be immediately written off as being out of touch. Being Internet savvy will become a criteria upon which to judge a candidate - a "relevancy filter".

4. Internet campaigning will help engage a younger demographic. Internet campaigns most importantly will engage first time voters, a full two years before their first election. Old white male politicians beware! Watch for voter registrations among first time voters to jump, over previous elections.

5. Can Web 2.0 generate lifelong candidate support? If these politicians identify and capture their support base early, (in their twenties) and are authentic (vote their personal values rather than their party line), they may be able to retain this support across elections, possibly for decades. Instead of lifelong Republicans or lifelong Democrats, we might have lifelong Huckabee supporters or lifelong Clinton supporters. Watch for candidate support to begin to trump party support.

6. The Internet strategy is far cheaper and far more effective that the mass-marketing strategy that campaigns currently employ. While it will be some time before we see the death of TV campaign commercials, they are becoming less relevant. The 2008 election will be won on "word of mouth", spread in blogs, and spread in people's homes. The Internet will be THE mainstream campaigning tool, post 2008 elections. This may help break down the mandatory fundraising barrier and pave the way for a broader field of candidates in future. More choice can't be bad for the process.

7. We may be seeing a tipping point in how campaigns are run. The Internet allows people to be "heard" in venues other than the 30 second sound bite. It allows for a thoughtful explanation of a vote or a point of view, that doesn't get reported (at least with any immediacy) anywhere else. It allows politicians control over their message. The recent TV debates demonstrate the weakness of TV as a campaigning medium, where short, unexplained answers to questions can't demonstrate what a candidate is all about. Post review discussions were constrained to whether a candidate made a "gaffe" or not. I don't think this format is the way that thoughtful Americans want to choose their next leaders. it was strikingly similar to American Idol (without the voting)!

8. Candidates beware! Authenticity matters. If candidates come off as "spinning a party line" or as being phony in some sense, their support will evaporate in a heartbeat. The Web offers immediacy. And that can work for you or against you.

Let's see how many of these predictions come to pass.

Web 2.0 and Politics...more musings

I just read that Chris Hughes (creator of Facebook) has joined Obama's campaign team. Not that Obama's campaign needed more coaching in building community - he's already garnered double the number of campaign contributors than his closest Democratic rival. Agree with his politics or not, clearly he's a candidate whose campaign really understands the power of online community.

And now they have added Chris Hughes, who as founder of Facebook, clearly understands how communities can be built and grown over the Web. It will be very interesting to see what is in store.

To that end I have one idea... I've been writing recently about how Dell courageously introduced IdeaStorm - an open discussion with the online community about how to improve their products and services. If you're not familiar with IdeaStorm, click here. Dell invited interested parties (anyone) to suggest improvements. Participants can vote to promote or demote any proposed idea. They also promised to respond to the most popular ideas. So far, they've committed to take action on the most popular idea - which was to expand their offerings of Linux based PCs and laptops. This is already underway.

I bring this up, because the same idea could be a powerful way to further engage Obama support. What if Obama's team launched their own IdeaStorm? Can you imagine the power of unleashing the creativity of hundreds of thousands of people, engaging them in discussions about every major issue facing the country?

The campaign could then respond, by issuing position papers on the highest ranked suggestions or by having Obama issue a YouTube video, responding to the ideas - or both. I can't imagine any other tactic more engaging that allowing voters to interact directly with a candidate and one another. Besides the benefit of potentially surfacing ideas that might otherwise stay at our kitchen tables, it also reinforces the fundamental message that we all need to work on these problems together rather than falling into the trap of thinking and acting along traditional party lines.

This could potentially energize the voting public in a way that's never been done before. For Obama, it might offer a competitive advantage over the other candidates who seem to be struggling with Web2.0 - relying on the shifting tides of public opinion polls and recreating their images to better the outcome. What a great way to sidestep the interests of PACs and special interests and let the voice of the people be heard. What a terrific way to drive a constructive conversation on the issues that matter.

When Web 2.0 goes from campaign to government.....

Yesterday I mused about how Web2.0 was affecting the political races. Here's an opine from the Obama website discussing the same thing.. http://www.barackobama.com/2007/04/05/obamas_savvy_internet_campaign.php

It now makes me wonder. If he gets elected, without PAC money and WITH the social networking skills and apparatus that helped spread his proposed policies, how might Web2.0 affect the way government works?

Can you imagine the power of putting the Iraq War question to the people? Asking Americans how they would support the efforts against global warming? What to do about security on our southern borders?

And what will it say about representatives and senators who don't use the web's collaborative tools to help raise and discuss issues?

The next few years will be an interesting ride!

Will Web 2.0 Change Politics?

That's the question I've been asking myself recently. I've signed up to a number of campaign websites just to observe how campaigns are using the Web to energize each politician's support base. Obama sends me emails monthly and makes it very easy to host, find and attend "house parties" in my neighborhood, to discuss his campaign platform and build support.

In my view this is a tremendous marketing and organizing tool. In 3 months he's raised virtually the same amount of cash as his primary rival who is better known, better connected and has the advantage of an ex-President husband for fundraising.

Of most interest to me is the number of contributors. Raising $25 million across a far wider (double the base) of Hillary's contributors must surely translate into broader support (more votes) at the polling station.

Another recent example of Web 2.0 technology in action is the candidates use of MySpace and YouTube. Just yesterday, I saw Newt Gingrich clarifying remarks he made with respect to his views of English as the "official" language in the U.S.. In the old days he would have had to make the talk show circuit to get his message out (and be exposed to potential bias of the interviewers). Now politicians can quickly craft their own messages, in their own words and distribute it for free to an awaiting internet public.

John McCain has his own MySpace account. His campaign is going through a bit of a learning curve with respect to internet etiquette. His campaign used a MySpace template without proper accreditation, and was subjected to a graffiti attack.

It's clear to me that candidates resonance with the younger voter will in some part be measured by their internet savvy. McCain's campaign is going through a steep learning curve, Obama's seems to be more "at home", with Web 2.0.

I wonder how this will affect the "traditional media buys" that accompany every election? Will it help level the playing field in future elections? Ten years from now, will campaigns be run entirely over the internet? Probably not. But it would be interesting nonetheless.