The results of the 2008 election yielded a president whose supporters provided the most interesting YouTube content that preceded November 4, 2008. It was lighthearted, deeply political, amateur, pro, testimonial, musical and theatrical. You could take your pick and there would be something like it on YouTube. You could be sitting in front of your computer and your friend would send you a link to a video that would have any of the aforementioned qualities. While videos often intended to deliver a message from their producers, they were also accompanied by messages and images interpreted from the campaign or other sources. If you missed the point in one medium, you would find it in another.
Regardless of one’s personal interest in politics, images from the videos were impossible to forget: Obama Girl swooning over a shirtless Obama, destitute Wassup guys, and Will.i.am singing “Yes We Can.” The videos were produced without involvement from the Obama campaign and will remain as lasting pieces of campaign memorabilia. The precise impact these videos had on voters is difficult to calculate, and it may take some time for YouTube users to reflect the actual influence of the videos. However it is clear that user produced videos were a major piece of the media pie in the ’08 election. It is a major accomplishment for a medium, YouTube, that did not even exist in 2004. Candidates campaigning for the 2012 election cannot ignore millions upon millions of views of supportive media that they had nothing to with creating.
For the good of the future partnership between technology and politics, Barack Obama should not thank the Internet and wish it well. He should consider the Internet a member of his cabinet. He should maintain and expand upon his image on the Internet. He should use his popularity on the Internet to bring transparency to the Oval Office and use the tools that we use to illustrate that transparency. By 2012 there should be a presidential, not just a Barack Obama, presence on the Internet that the proceeding president will inherit.
Campaigns will need a department for keeping up with new tools that will spread messages rapidly. If a video can be uploaded to a site before breakfast and reach 2,000,000 by dinner, embrace the site. Release content on it. Release a lot of content on it. Show the American people that you are one of us; that you are progressing with us. If a phenomenon like the Internet -the most significant technological development since the printing press – emerges, do not patronize us about its proper use. Use it how we use it. Technologies that spread messages rapidly will help elect a candidate. It is a fact that cannot ever be ignored by a presidential candidate ever again.
Campaigns should provide guidelines to users who aspire to create supportive content. Therefore any piece of content that fails to meet those guidelines by default does not meet the approval of the campaign. Not a single word needs to be said about it by the campaign, because their word is implicit. Obama supporters who created supportive content certainly sought his approval, and in cases like “Sing for Change,” the producers who meant well were also seriously mistaken about the potential effects of their efforts.
As Obama has proven, a candidate need not slam his or her opponent. Attacking media will bubble to the surface courtesy of the candidate’s supporters, and the popular media will explode like a geyser and rain upon us. One McCain supporter made rain with the release of Obama’s “Redistribution of Wealth” radio discussion from several years ago. The video was nothing more than audio from the broadcast accompanied by the default trippy media player visualization but nevertheless rose to the top due to the potential for damage it contained. Candidates in 2012 must squash attacking media by steadfastly pressing forward with a consistent and clear message that demonstrates that he or she is not what the media claims. Obama’s message had nothing to do with socialism so the attack had little merit. It did however rally McCain’s supporter base, so this type of media will never disappear. A combination of clear track record, transparency, and consistent message may be the only way to muffle attacks. Too much talk will only endure it longer than necessary. A new dominant piece of media will appear the following day anyway.
The number of feet on the ground certainly appears to have helped Obama win the election. Reaching lots of people on a personal level clearly means more support, and in turn more people who support you will be willing to produce content for you. It’s a no-brainer. If people support you, get them on the ground, and live up to their expectations in order to keep them there and recruit more.
This reflection was not possible a week ago. Our heads were full of media and emotion. It still may be too soon to recommend a plan for the 2012 candidates. However it is no longer possible to ignore the content that users create, and candidates must not ignore the media that provide it. Any plan that meets at least those two criteria can’t be that bad.