New Media

If you want too boost your business or brand then new media marketing can give you the advantages you realy need. You can save a lot of time and resources by using new media as your marketing tool. It can attract more customers to your business or brand. New media marketing can give you a lot of advantages for your business. It is the most important tool for marketing your brand or product. It is very efficient in converting your market to customers.

Normal
0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0jnyuJ1Tg

I don’t really think that any of Newsom’s policies are good.

But I did think that his online video announcing his gubernatorial campaign was great.   Here’s why:

1-   It was Short

For the love of God please NEVER put a video on the Internet that is longer then five minutes.  The shorter the better. 

2-   It was made specifically for the Internet

I have seen far to many candidates and politicians use their youtube channel for reposting entire news conferences, long-winded speeches and news clips. I am not objecting to this material being put up, but online video allows for so much creativity and yet I see so many campaigns just pushing what was already on TV, and what didn’t make it onto TV.     

3-It was professionally produced

Did you notice the upbeat music that fit well with the theme?   The multiple shots?   The flowing story line?   The fact that Gavin speaking was shot specifically for this online video?  The fact that this video had quick edits and was always visually interesting?   The consistent text?  The good sound quality?   

Notice how when you give an intern a $300 camera you got at Best Buy you don’t have any of these things? 

If you want your video to be good, expect to spend a little bit of money on it.  It will still be a tiny fraction of Television CPM.

4-K.I.S.S.

This video was a very simple announcement:

San Francisco is doing great under my leadership.

I’m running for governor.

I’m liberal.

Join the Campaign. 

5-It spoke to a target audience.

Every time an online video is made there should be a specific target in mind: past donors, potential donors, gun owners, the media, young voters ect.

The target for this video was elite voters (voters that are informed and who’s political opinions are valued by their friends, family and neighbors) of the Democratic party, who will defiantly vote in the primary.

What did the video say to this very liberal group?

-I have little regard for the English language.

-Extremist government environmental policies create jobs.

-Government health care is wonderful and affordable because of me.

-Minorities like me.

-Government creates jobs that pay a “living wage”.

These are all things that the target audience wanted to hear.

6-It was used to in conjunction with the media.

The media talked about his video.  The story was about how he is cutting edge, and high tech.  As opposed to the story being about his problems: the failure of prop 8, his personal issues, ect.  He created the frame as opposed to letting the media frame him.

7-It was used in conjunction with the rest of his campaign.

The video promoted campaign stops he was going to be making up and down California.  And it asked people to “Join” his campaign (donate or volunteer).  

8-It was used in conjunction with other Internet properties.

Gavin twittered the video (where he has over 421,000 followers), put it on his facebook (where he has 50,000 supporters), his website (which gets more then 7 times the traffic of all his gubernatorial competitors combined), and he put it on the Huffington Post (where he is a regular contributor).

Online video must work hand in hand with every e-platform you have at your disposable to ensure proper distribution.

9-Awesome subliminal messaging!

“Stop looking back and start looking for solutions.”

“We can’t afford to keep returning to the same old tired ideas and expect a different result.”

“We need new ideas and bold fresh innovative solutions.”

=

Jerry Brown is older then dirt.

Bryan Barton is a political consultant based in Sacramento specializing in online video.

You can email him at bb@iStardom.com.

Or check out his videos he has made for Congressman Tom McClintock, The San Diego County GOP, and the Tea Parties at www.youtube.com/bryanbarton

Let’s take a glimpse at the evolution of the role of technology and so-called “new media” in politics. In the early years, there were “Web” departments — for example, my colleague Patrick Ruffini served as the “webmaster” for Bush-Cheney ‘04. The new jargon for this role has become “new media,” which typically serves as an umbrella for all forms of “new” communication, such as the Internet and mobile technology. The problem lies in the fact that we are still using the adjective new, which inherently distinguishes it from other forms of traditional media (i.e. TV, radio, and so forth). Accordingly, the people who oversee new media are called “New Media Directors” and work in “New Media,” while the people who oversee traditional media are given the title of “Communications Director” and work in “Communications” or something along those lines. The bottom line is that not only is “new” media no longer new, but even more importantly, “new” media is rapidly replacing “traditional” media. If the right is going to become the side on the cutting edge, then right-of-center campaigns and organizations must ensure that the separation of traditional and new media comes to an end.

The decline of traditional media becomes clear when you look at recent polling trends. For example, a substantially increasing percentage of Americans turn to the Internet for their news. Moreover, a poll taken in 2008 indicates that nearly 70% of Americans consider traditional journalism to be “out of touch,” and as a result the plethora of respondents use the Internet as their primary source of news and information. Twice as many Americans said they “regularly learn[ed] something about the [2008] campaign from the internet” as they did in 2004. And of course, millennial voters almost universally turned to the Internet as their primary source for 2008 election news.

In addition, there were two Presidential campaigns whose profoud impacts demonstrate the importance of integrating all forms of media. It goes without saying that President Obama ran an incredible web-based campaign, raising two-thirds of its money online and peer-producing 200,000 offline events, 400,000 blog posts, and 3 million phone calls. Likewise, Ron Paul’s campaign was almost entirely organized and built around the Internet, using existing tools like Meetup.com to build an incredible yet extremely low-cost national infrastructure. What was the differentiator between these two campaigns and most of the others from the past cycle? They didn’t separate “new media” from their other operations; instead, they allowed it to serve as a sort of circulatory system that fed and empowered every other part of their organization. “New media” wasn’t a part of their campaign; it was their campaign.

The line between traditional and new media is disintegrating, and therefore, separating the two puts the right at a disadvantage. So let’s embrace this change. “New media” must become “media,” and must be embraced as the heart and soul of our campaigns and organizations.

Crossposted at NextGenGOP.

Colin Delany makes a crucial point at e.politics (and techPresident) about the importance of (a) integrating new/internet/social media with the rest of the organization rather than siloing it as one department among many, and (b) treating new media as a force multiplier for existing goals.

[Former Obama new media director Joe Rospars said] his department was NOT a part of the campaign's tech team. Instead, it was coequal with communications, field/grassroots, finance, etc., and was in fact just as much a client of the technology folks as, say, the press team was.

His remark jumped out at me because it's true so rarely. More often, online organizers and online advocacy staff are put in the technology box rather than allowed to be communicators ... And online communicators are often the last people consulted when messaging and outreach strategy are being planned, when they should be a part of the process from the beginning. [...]  [I]t's not the tools, it's the people and how they're organized and directed to USE the tools.

The Obama campaign used the internet as well as they did not because they employed tools that were particularly new (database-driven field organizing, email fundraising, online video and social networking have all been around for years) but because they worked out human systems to put those tools to work effectively.

 It is important that we don't put the technology cart before the mission horse.  The internet simply changes the scale at which we can productively do things that people already want to do.   As I've written previously, the Leftosphere is not effective because they can fundraise and mobilize activists.  They are effective because they can communicate and organize people around a message.  Fundraising and activism is a product of communication and organization.

I've outlined the correct course and order for rebuilding the Right as follows. 

• ...better information organization, which helps create coalesce a movement around...
• ...the organizing agenda, out of which flows...
• ...the storyline, narrative, which motivates...
• ...the grassroots/netroots to get engaged, mobilized and donating, all of which is channeled effectively by...
• ...the infrastructure, both online and offline.

Notice that the first 3 steps are really about information organization, ideas and communication.  It's not until we get to step 4 - when people are actually motivated to do something - that new, innovative technology really becomes necessary to turn information into more tangible results.

The key: new media operations need to be service-oriented.

The internet is not an organization, full of people to direct.  It is a market, full of people who already have things they want to do. 

We need to stop approaching the internet with a "what do I want them to accomplish?" mindset.  Instead, our campaigns and infrastructure need to ask, "what do they want to accomplish and how can we help?" 

"How do we use RTP website" is the name of a blog post over at RebuildTheParty's ning network.  The author of the piece offers this advice:

A couple of folks, responding to my blogs, have asked how we use this website beyond just chatting. Good point. Here is how I intend to use it. 1. To identify activists in my home state (MD) and get them to start to organize events as our network builds. 2. To identify people with particular talents (IT or otherwise) or particular expertise in subject areas that allow us to organize and to respond to the lies put out by the Democratic Administration and the media. 3. To work for and fund specific candidates that support our views and positions. I believe this website was designed to be a tool, not an end in itself. It can be useful for seeking information and resources, but the rest is up to us.

I completely agree.  These technologies will not change the face of Congress tomorrow, nor will they give us a Republican President today.  But they give us the opportunity to be ready for 2010 and to be ready to take the fight to the liberals.  Never again will we be caught flat footed.

This is my advice: Network, network, network. Find fellow travelers, exchange ideas and interests, extend your network online (twitter, facebook, youtube, blogs) and offline (events, phone, fundraising, campaigning, etc). We have a lot of networking to do to surpass the libs.

The right needs a few good bloggers.

Actually, more than a few. We need more good bloggers in every battleground state and in every competitive Congressional district in 2010.

As important as having activist blogs like The Next Right is at the national level, it's even more important at the state level. The states are where the mainstream media is breaking down big time, with multiple local and regional newspapers expected to stop publishing in 2009. Media coverage in these areas won't just go away; it will move to the Web and the blogosphere. Many of the reporters and journalistic resources at cash-strapped newspapers will likely land at left-wing "alternative" news websites affiliated with the likes of the Huffington Post, the Center for Independent Media, and ProPublica.

If the right doesn't act now, we could find ourselves outgunned in this next shift in media just as badly as we were outgunned on the Internet in 2008.

We need conservative websites and blogs in every state that are dedicated to winning those states. They should be run by sophisticated activists or consultants who know how politics works, who know where the bodies are buried in the statehouse, or young up-and-comers who are interested in working in the political arena and can use this as a venue to prove themselves. We need sites like the Flash Report in California, Minnesota Democrats Exposed, Red Mass Group, Sayfie Review, run by my friend Justin Sayfie in Florida, or the Politicker network.

Now is actually a very opportune time to what I'm calling Project Battleground. An unusually large number of Republican operatives now find themselves with decidedly fewer opportunities for career advancement as a result of the last election. To those operatives to whom that last sentence may apply: there is no better way to get your name out there than to become a public voice in the political debate in your state, and to do it using new media. Most of the good state political websites are run by people with real experience in politics, whether they're operatives, consultants, or people with significant experience volunteering. If you know what you're talking about, the chances of success are very, very good, and you'll be the key voice defining the public battle to take back a Senate or House seat. I view blogging as essential to what I do as a political consultant, not because I flog my clients or use it to get new ones, but because I can use public arguments to prepare the ground for the kinds of strategies that help get good candidates elected. 

OK, I'm sold, so what do I next? Just click the Read More link below to fill out a form letting us know of your background and interests. You really don't need our permission to start a new site, and you can use the form to make us aware of an effort you're already running or one that's planned. I may use the names to put together a Google Group for leaders in state political blogging -- and if it makes sense, I'm happy to piggyback on similar efforts that may already exist -- with the caveat that Project Battleground will focus more on electoral than policy battles.

Scribes Charlie Martin:

So think of it this way: the New York Times spends ten million dollars to deliver about as many readers as Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit can for a thousand bucks.  This has a lot of implications, but the biggest one is simple: it costs almost nothing these days to become a publisher, so lots of new publishers are coming into the market. 

On the other hand, the number of readers really hasn’t changed.  So, it’s like pouring the same amount of water from a tall pitcher into a wide flat baking dish; you’re going from a world where you can have lots of readers, but only a few outlets - the tall narrow world - and moving to one where there are lots more outlets, but where you inevitably end up with fewer readers for each.  The conventional name for this, in Internet-speak, is “the Long Tail”, but most pundits are taking it from the wrong end.  They don’t realize that, as the costs of entry are lower, readers inevitably migrate to the new sources, leaving fewer for the big outlets.

His prognostication regarding the old media:

What then?  This won’t stop.  Advertising-paid television is on the same track. I don’t have any use for broadcast TV any longer, I depend on cable.  And I’m one of millions.  And I know people who get all their television from YouTube or Hulu, by Netflix and by download. 

To some extent, the television networks are protected by the relatively high cost of production. But that won’t last.  Last night I was watching Ed Driscoll’s piece “The Red Queen’s Race“.  Ed appears to presents it in the sepia-toned set of a Victorian mansion, but in fact he shot it entirely in his home studio.  The whole “set” is digital.  Steve Green shoots his PJTV segments in his basement.  Mine are shot in my office.  And blip.tv gives you access to an amazing variety of original content, made by semi-professional creators who will only get better with experience. 

We’re only a few years - two to five is my guess - before the networks are in the same position as newspapers and magazines are today: their expensive, capital-intensive business model on the brink of destruction.

His conclusion: "Just ask medieval scribes how they felt about Gutenberg."

Props.

Pete Daou and I appear to be reading from the same playbook.  At TechPresident, he writes many of the things I've been arguing for some time.

The pyramid of Internet political functions consists of message (communications), money (fundraising) and mobilization. Atop that pyramid sits communications. Message drives money and triggers mobilization. Devoid of a compelling message to spur their use, the most advanced web tools will lie fallow. The impetus to use technology is always external to the technology; the impulse to connect and contribute begins with the inspiration to do so and the inspiration derives from the message.

Daou is exactly right about the three points on the internet pyramid, and they are exactly the elements I named in my first post at The Next Right.  In another post about Obama's integrated new media campaign, I laid out the impact of blogs as follows...

• Messaging - communication, particularly targeted to specific audiences and influentials, rather than mass communication
• Mobilization - community development and reinforcement, online-to-offline activism; individual mobilization can be due to direct campaign contact, peer relationships, or general community influence
• Money - good fundraising is the result of doing #1 and #2 effectively; donations can reflect an investment in the ideas (#1), or in the relationship/movement (#2)

However, while I agree with Daou that mobilization and money are subsidiaries to message, I would argue that mobilization should be divided into two distinct areas.

• Activist mobilization is tangible, direct participation in politics; things like cavassing, voting, phone banking, volunteering and other political advocacy.  Activist mobilization is a tangible, direct participation in politics. 
• Community mobilization is conceptual buy-in; it is the organization of people around ideas, themes, priorities, ways of thinking.  Community mobilization makes people available and positioned for activist mobilization.

To put this in terms of the modern Left: progressives felt poitically powerless even during the 90's, they developed unifying grievances in four areas (Democratic and Republican Parties, the government and the media), and began messaging about those problems and their solutions.  As a result of the Left's powerful online information activism, millions of people organized around the progressive's themes and agenda.  That was community mobilization. 

It was only after those themes had been spread to, and accepted by, a large community (activists, philanthropists, media, politicians, and the general public) that the Left could create effective activist mobilization. 

Good tools are a force-multiplier, but they are not a shortcut.

Okay, I'm being facetious. The other explanation that I'm self-hating, as a blogger going on seven years and an avid Twitter user with a network of 2,451.

There is a serious point to this, and one that should be dramatized for the candidates running for RNC Chairman: the Internet is not just blogs and Twitter. New media is a big world -- from websites, to e-mail lists, to fundraising, to online advertising, to search engine optimization, to GOTV applications, to internal databases, to APIs, to YouTube, to mobile, to emerging platforms like iPhone/Android, and yes, to social media. Done wrong*, creating a Twitter account and holding a few blogger conference calls is the lowest cost form of engagement and can be a fig leaf for continuing business as usual in other parts of the organization. The hard part is integrating new media in everything the organization does, using it to transform volunteer recruitment, or open a new eight and nine figure revenue stream. Those are the big challenges the next RNC Chairman needs to be worrying about.

To understand where the growth markets are, let's look at how many people the Obama campaign had in each of its online programs, according to recent media reports: