Election Campaign 2.0

In the course of the semester we explored various concepts of social media. When courting votes in the 2012 election, the campaigns cannot lose sight of social media as an opportunity to influence voters. Social media is all about a dialogue, between the organization and the target audience; creating a community of like-minded individuals and access to the tools of publication and distribution. 

• Dialogue – As we learned from the Cluetrain Manifesto, markets are conversations. The voting marketplace is a conversation as well. Traditionally, elections are conducted with the candidate speaking to constituents, rarely are the constituents allowed to engage in unfiltered conversation with the candidate (election 1.0). In addition, these conversations are hosted in public halls for the mass media to observe. Social Media is the result of a shift in power from the mass media to the consumer.  Social media allows consumers to choose when the conversation happens and the content. The candidate that fails to create an authentic dialogue on-line will have a much harder, if not impossible time creating a dialogue off-line. Obama was able to edge out his competition, because he began an authentic dialogue on-line and took that dialogue to where the people were – online.

• Community & Crowds – In an election the audience can be segmented in many ways, from demographics, regional to psychographics. In the social media sphere the audience should be seen as either a member of the community or a part of the crowd. The candidate that is able to connect and engage both the crowd and the community. The crowd will support the candidate during the election. The community will support the candidate and the platform the candidate supports, even beyond the campaign. The community will carry the message beyond the on-line sphere. These are the individuals that will volunteer at the campaign headquarters, use their own personal blogs to expand the conversation and create the Facebook page for the candidate. Both the crowd and the community will be necessary to advance the candidate. Failure to identify and engage these segments might cost the candidate the election.

• To reach the younger demographic and the older generations that are on-line, the candidate’s message must be authentic and be created in a space that is accessible to anyone. The authenticity creates a sense of transparency, honesty and clarification. The democratic access makes the message, candidate and platform relatable. Relatable people are able to influence people easier and their messages have a higher penetration with receptive audiences.

The Obama campaign has proven that an on-line campaign is not to be ignored. In 2012 social media will be just as important as the traditional media. The candidate that is able to establish their voice in the social media sphere will have a greater influence and acceptance than a candidate that fails to utilize social media.

Will social media be a factor in the 2012 Presidential campaign?

http://brooksreview.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/obamas-unfolding-strategy-for-victory-in-afghanistan/

We, humans have always studied war. There have always been reports from the battlefield. From newspaper articles, radio news reports, embedded television reporters in the middle of the action, to flickr photos and blogs written by those on the battlefield. Much like the Web, War has become a two-way conversation. The Cluetran Manifesto said “Markets are conversations,” war is a conversation with many layers. These layers include political diplomacy, military action, humanitarian aid, population displacement and the rebuilding of nations. The human tragedy of war gets lost as those stories are usually suppressed in lieu of telling the political drama. From Web 2.0 to War 2.0, the conversation about war involves not just the direct players in the war theater. It also embraces the voices of civilians both inside and outside the conflict zone.

Henry David Thoreau understood the need to participate in the conversation of war. In 1849, he wrote, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience.” This piece was apart of his protest to the Mexican-American War. Thoreau had access to traditional media.  His message was powerful but reached a mass audience slowly. With Web 2.0 his message could have reached millions in a matter of minutes. Thoreau wanted be to a part of the national dialogue. Citizens have always wanted to be a part of the conversation but the average citizen did not have access to the tools of publication. Thoreau’s blog may have started like this:

The government itself, which is only the mode, which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

This American government–what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity?

Web 2.0 has opened the conversation to include the other half of the story. The individual tragedies and victories that happen as governments exchange inhumanities. If society is becoming a read-write society, the reporting on war will also have to accept that same ideology. The unfortunate issue about war it that, war is a political event controlled by the state. The state has a vested interest in what is said about its conduct during war. Will the state release control of the conversation?

Matt G, Blogger - Kaboom.com

A milblog, Kaboom: A Soldiers War Journal,  from blogger, Matt G. a soldier in the U.S. Army was ordered to shut down his blog.

Due to a rash posting on my part, and decisions made above my pay-grade, I have been ordered to stop posting on Kaboom, effective immediately. Though I committed no OPSEC violations, due to a series of extenuating circumstances – the least of which was me being on leave – my “The Only Difference Between Martyrdom and Suicide is Press Coverage” post on May 28 did not go through the normal vetting channels. It’s totally on me, as it was too much unfiltered truth. I’m a soldier first, and orders are orders. So it is.
- Matt G. Kaboom War Journal, June 27, 2008

When the Iraq war began and bodies of fallen soldiers began being sent back to the U.S., the media was not allowed to show pictures of the caskets of soldiers returning to the U.S.  Was this a need to control the conversation? Out-of-site, out-of-mind? Why was this topic taken from the round-table discussion?

Is it a good idea to educate and engage the public about war? Postings from the front-lines give those of us “safe” at home an idea of what war is. The public needs to understand what it is asked to support when their government decided to wage war on another nation. This understanding goes beyond watching buildings blowing-up on the evening news report. The public needs to understand that there are innocent people in those buildings. Those innocent people are paying with their lives for the decisions of governments. It is important to count the human cost of war. Not just in terms of lives, but in terms of dreams deferred, goals never realized, families separated and homelands torn asunder. The stories captures in the war blogosphere help society understand the devastation that it causes in individual lives and the ripple effect war has on neighboring nations. The effects of war are long lasting and effect generations of people long after the last battlefield bullet has arrived to its final destination. These effects are documented in the Burning Baghdad blog, in a posting by River, October 22, 2007, River describes the effect of war on Iraqi refugees living in Syria. The post provides insight into the frustrations of the refugees placed in difficult circumstances and neighboring government’s frustrations with controlling and aiding  a displaced foreign population.

When a government declares war, takes military action, the people should have and have always wanted a voice in that conversation.It is only right in a democratic/open society that we the open are aware of the activities taken in our name.

In the blog Linda explores the motivation behind the piece. Some say it was for sales. Well, isn’t that the point of promotions and celebrity endorsements – to make a sale? Some people feel that is was Nike supporting Tiger through a very difficult time.
Several people expressed disappointment in Tiger. They claimed he presented himself as a clean-cut, family man. Companies seek celebrity endorsement based on that celebrities performance/talent in the public arena. Last time I checked being clean-cut and a family man was not a talent companies were willing to pay for.
Tiger Woods fame and reputation was built on his prowess on the golf greens. Brands sought Tiger to connect his talent to their products performance and quality. The media focused on his personal life. How many golfers have their personal lives as exposed as Tigers has been, even before the scandal? None.
Lets be clear, I am not saying what he did was acceptable. I am saying that Tiger endorsed additional scrutiny on an intensely personal matter because of who he was, not because he was caught taking performance-enhancing drugs. The public built the image and the media sold it to us all, hook, line and sinker. If the scandal center on an issue that reflected on his performance I know that the Nike commercial would not have been produced. Tiger would have compromised the very element that his fame and fortune are based – his ability. His marriage is not part of the elements that built his brand.
This is why Nike stood by it’s man. Tiger’s activities did not directly impact is reputation as a Golfer. His reputation as a family is another issue.
I think the as was smart. Using his father’s own voice to question or scold him about his scandal was great. There are so many insights to be gained. Most importantly it began to move the conversation about Tiger to the area of sympathy and “lets move on.”
He was publicly scolded by Nike, though his Father – Genius!!

I HATE THIS! Please stop dangling the carrot in front of me. I want it soon or don’t tell me about it.

I am willing to wait for material goods and memorable experiences, but the “anticipation campaigns” marketers use currently, are torturous.  My two latest obsessions are the video for Alicia Keys’ latest hit, “Put it in a Love Song” and the Countryman from Mini Cooper.

Alicia Keys released the song “Put it in a love song” on January 20, 2010. With two power house performers (Alicia Keys and Beyonce) the buzz around the video has been building ever since. YouTube hosts many videos of the videos production and even Wikipedia has a page dedicated to the song with a section about the video. Rio news casts have covered the videos production, but here I sit with no video after much hype and anticipation.

I thought the point of the music video was to help sell the song, by providing a visual story to help explain the piece.

Either way I am over being teased and toyed with. Release the video already!

Next on my anticipation hit list is Mini Cooper. I have always enjoyed the Mini Cooper’s look and fun spirit, however being a person of a certain size and height I felt uncomfortable purchasing one. Buzz about a Mini Cooper “Countryman” began in late 2008. Automotive blog sites mentioned that Mini Cooper was working in a Mini SUV.

In 2009 more details and photos are “leaked” to the blogosphere.  Throughout 2009 the Mini SUV buzz grows, with a final reveal at the 2009 Geneva Auto show.  With blogs and YouTube videos, Mini Cooper has my attention. But, here I set with no Mini Cooper to purchase until 2011. OMG!

Please stop the anticipation campaigns. My instant gratification consumer habits can’t take it. Give it to me now! It is fine to tease and create buzz and anticipation, but stop the six month to 2 year waits. The consumer world no longer works this way anymore.

I want to see the video and I want my Cooper SUV.

I choose to explore voice of the island nation of Dominica. The blog page has not been updated since the last posting from October 23, 2009. A review of the monthly archives revealed that the postings are neither consistent nor are they frequent. The posts have been translated into 5 languages and I wonder if this translation process slows the posting process.

The section entitled: Updates about Dominica were a little confusing. This section is populated with articles from an external site “Dominica Weekly,” and is not really connected to blog.

A review of the bloggers exposed that many of the bloggers were not from Dominica, but rather covered the Caribbean as a region. This may explain the infrequent postings. The blogging about Dominica might be the situation many 3^rd world countries find themselves -wanting to be added to the global dialogue, but lacking the resources and voices to contribute to the conversation.

The important concept is that social media has given Dominica a platform to inform the world what is important to them.

The blog covered many topics including: Cricket, Identity, Hurricanes and Inter-Island Business. Blogs are categorized as: Arts & Culture, Diaspora, Finance and History.

I read the latest blog titled “International Creole Month,” posted October 23, 2009. The post discussed the declaration of October as Creole Language Month.

Creole has always been recognized as a dialect born out of the mixing of cultures. With a push to study and officially recognize Creole the posting highlights the efforts of various governments including the Dominican government to reserve the “vernacular language.”

Efforts to preserve and recognize Creole have been taken up by various municipalities including: France, Canada and Martinique.

I find it interesting that the Dominican bloggers have not translated their posting into Creole. I wonder if enough people that claim Creole as their mother-tongue are creating and reading enough blog posts to effect a change in the translation services of Global Voices.

Global Voices tag line of “The World is Talking, are you listening?, means Dominica should speak more often to stay relevant in a world that moves fast. It also has the added issue of how to incorporate Creole into the dialogue it has with the world, to maintain it’s authentic voice.

Saturday night, April 3^rd. Founding Farmers Restaurant

The night was warm, the air smelled of aromatic food and The Heights was filled with way too many loud, gregarious young professionals. The place was packed, the wait was long and the only alternative was the “Communal Table.”

Never having the Communal Table experience and hungry as a hostage, my friends and I elected to share the communal table.  The communal table is a long, oversized, banquet table in the middle of the restaurant. Multiple parties of complete strangers are seated at this table and asked to break bread at the same table.  “Talk about awkward!”

The communal table might work in most countries were the population doesn’t have a wide personal space requirement, but here in the good ol’ US of A this is not the case. Setting next to strangers causes a recoil response. I was very self-conscience about where I sat, giving more space between I and the stranger to my right. The experience took me back to the High School cafeteria, where your clique established the table they would not share with outsiders.  I felt as though I was in another group’s territory.  I didn’t want to set with this group of people not a part of my crew. Call it childish, but that’s how I felt. Eating is can be a community event. Generally, I know the people in my community. I felt more like a part of a crowd, strangers gathered together for one purpose – eating.

I remember when dining was an event for a specific group or couple. It was impossible not to over-hear the conversations down the table. The other parties at the table were having discussions about their private lives, politics and work.  Call me catty, but I like to talk about some the people in the restaurant. It’s hard to talk about what the tacky lady has on when she is in ear-shot of you. 

Overall the experience was not bad, but for me it will take some getting used to. I view meals with friends as a time to strengthen our community. I really don’t want a crowd experience I appreciate a community experience with great food.

Wikipedia is a fantastic tool with many opportunities to act as an academic outlet for topical interests, a communal gathering of knowledge, a social gathering place for those with a passion about a topic and a resource for the world to learn.

In last week’s class, Professors Graff and Krempasky explored the issue of Wikipedia’s credibility. The concept of crowds versus communities plays a role in the credibility of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia crowd comes to Wikipedia and makes a few additions and edits, then leaves; never to be seen again. The crowd is a limited frequency, short-term experience. The crowd adds knowledge but they do not enrich the experience of the site. The Wikipedia community not only adds to the knowledge of the site, but also enriches the experience. The community is the segment that polices the information on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is top-of-mind with this segment when breaking news happens. The Underground bombings in London is a great example of the Wikipedia community adding knowledge to the site on a long-term basis. For breaking news Wikipedia is a great capture of witness accounts, notes and an immediate release of information. With any unfolding event there is speculation, unclear/unfounded facts, and just plain misinformation. During the unfolding event the release of unfounded information can be a double-edged sword. Incorrect information can cause panic and make a bad situation worst.

While the wisdom of crowds has been proven to be better than the individual, it is the dedication and investment of communities that proves to be sustaining factor for Wikipedia. These communities are very passionate and knowledgeable, but there is no accountability on the part of Wikipedia. While the community self-polices/fact checks the information on the site, there is no guarantee that the information provided is accurate. Wikipedia is a great tool to begin research, I would stop just short of using it as a stand-alone resource. I would need to back up the information with another resource.

In terms of breaking news, traditional media outlets have fat checkers, access to real information and professional, trained reporters that can get the real story in a tight situation. Most of the breaking news found on Wikipedia are bits and pieces from the traditional media outlets. Wikipedia’s advantage is that local inforamtion can be captured, recorded and shared instantly all over the world.

Human beings have always sought a relevant and trusted body of knowledge. These bodies of knowledge have taken the form of village elders, griots, oracles, parental advice, universities, libraries, pamphlets, books, web sites and finally the Internet search. The 20^th Century general body of knowledge could be found in the bookcase of the average middle-class home. In the digital age of the 21^st Century that body of knowledge can be accessed on-line and one version is edited by the whole world. The question posed for this week’s blog; which should be considered more trustworthy: A published encyclopedia or Wikipedia?

When researching a topic various tools can be used to gather information including experts, magazines, newspapers, encyclopedias and the internet. In my professional and personal research I have used both Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias.

NOTE: I will refer to published encyclopedias (printed book) as Traditional encyclopedias, as the term published can be used for Off-line and on-line publishing.

Traditional = fact checked, monetary interest in selling book, established reputation for accurate information.

Traditional encyclopedias were the status quo for a general body of knowledge.  They are tried and true, even considered status symbols. The Traditional encyclopedia is a great source of credible information that has been fact checked, edited and beautifully bound. That beautiful binding also binds the Traditional encyclopedia into information stasis. Once the encyclopedia is printed and bound, the information in the book is relevant to the time it is printed. If the information in the traditional encyclopedia changes, there is no way to update the Traditional encyclopedia without printing a new updated volume. This limits the Traditional encyclopedia’s relevance and timeliness.

The Traditional encyclopedia is a time honored tradition in many homes, because is has a reputation for accuracy and relevance. Publishing houses invested grand amounts of time and resources to update their encyclopedias yearly. Editors, writers and fact checkers were part of a process that gave researchers confidence in the information.

Enters the 21^st Century and the on-line age. Wikipedia represents the new arrangement of an old song. The encyclopedia went from the bookcase to on-line, from an expensive, elite, controlled process of checking facts and figures to a free, open source, digital product that relies on the Wisdom of Crowds for information.

Wikipedia is a fabulous example of crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is mainly an on-line phenomenon that gathers people from all over the world based on a common interest. For the first time in human history people can gather in a crowd for meaningfully engagement from anywhere.

Wikipedia is a great resource where people with a real passion for a topic can share their knowledge. This often provides more, in-depth information than a Traditional encyclopedia could ever provide. The wisdom of a crowd is generally greater than the individual. In the book, The Wisdom of Crowds examples time and again show that on average the knowledge of the crowd was better than the individual. The book uses “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” as an example. One of the lifelines offered in the show is the “Ask the Audience.” More often than not the audience is correct.

Crowdsourcing and the wisdom of crowds should make Wikipedia a perfect general body of knowledge. A globe full of people gathering together on-line with a common interest and passion to offer information regarding a specific topic should make for a dynamic and rich information source. But without official and accountable safeguards, checks and balances, fact checkers information on the site is always a question mark of credibility. Wikipedia has suffered a few blemishes on it name including the fantastical biography page for John Seigenthaler Sr. on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has the advantage of being an Internet based encyclopedia, where people with an interest and passion for a topic can contribute and update a topical page. The disadvantage of Wikipedia is that is an open source project that anyone can contribute, corrupt, taint, add to and enrich. We all have heard that one bad apple spoils the bunch. One bad piece of contributed information on Wikipedia calls the credibility of the rest of the information into question.

I have been instructed by many academic instructors not to use Wikipedia as a research source. I don’t think I would use it as a credible source of information for a professional assignment, due to the trustworthiness issues of the contributed information.

Wikipedia is a great source of initial information. A wonderful starting point to whet the research appetite, but I would never end my research with Wikipedia. I would trust Wikipedia as a starting point only, but would trust a Traditional encyclopedia more as it has accountability, but would be mindful of the datedness of the information it would provide.

I played two games, Food Import Folly and Point of Entry. Both games are based on real-life situations the federal government tries to handle on a daily basis.

Food Import Folly:

In this game you are the director of the FDA. With only two port inspectors and five ports of entry, you must protect the United States from contaminated food imports with limited resources and time. Each level introduces a new year of imports, the same limited resources and increasing imports to inspect.

While playing Food Import Folly, I actually felt the pressure of trying to keep up with all the imports and the occasional food contamination alerts. With only two FDA inspectors and non-stop volume of imports it was overwhelming. At times I would be so concentrated on the port on one coast I would forget about the other ports of entry. I felt uneasy with allowing so many shipments to pass through the dock without inspection. As I progressed to higher levels/years, the pressure increases. The resources remain the same, but the import volumes skyrocket and the contamination alerts double. I ultimately failed the final level (I tried several times). I am not sure that the failure was do to my skills or a part of the conversation, that the system is unsustainable and will eventually collapse, no matter how hard you try.

Point of Entry:

Based on recent immigration legislation, this game explores the Merit-Based Evaluation System for awarding green cards. In Point of Entry you compete against an imagined co-worker to award the most green cards.

To be honest I was confused and frustrated with this game. The merits that determined the points made little sense. There were criteria that I would have assumed to be worth more points, but in fact counted for “0.” Not only was I under a time constraint, but I also had to compare points and score higher, by ten points than my co-worker. There seemed to only be a numbers game, little else is considered with this game.

Both games are great dialogues.  They both seek to place the player in the scenario with all of the pressure, uncertainty, frustration and potential failure that exists in real life. The game developer develops the parameters and context of the conversation. The player tests the parameters of the conversation. With the games players can get a sample of the issues the INS and FDA face. It is often though games that solutions are developed and scenarios tested. This conversation allows the public to not just talk about the issues, but also experience “play the game” and provide solutions, other system flaws, understanding and agreement.

This nonverbal conversation is great as it allows for a teachable moment beyond conversation. The lesson is in the experience of the moment. The experience is key to understanding and engagement. The player comes away from the conversation not only with a better understanding of the issues, but a greater understanding of how they would approach the problem.  Persuasive games allows the player to take-away not only knowledge of the issue, but empathy for the situation as well.

Google has evolved to become an advertising behemoth and a meta-data archive of the world’s most pressing questions and interests. The potential Google has as a marketing research and socio-anthropological tool is remarkable. Its database and systems record every search, e-mail and blog posting each individual has ever made, using its Google products. Marketers can now see the topics people are talking about and issues that stir passions strong enough to inspire people to write blog posts. The database is a digital archeological dig of human questions, interests and “intentions,” a permanent record of moment by moment and person by person digital activity.  

This information can be used for good and mutually beneficial purposes for the consumer, businesses and government. Information, thoughts, questions, intentions and interests – all are captured, stored, archived, categorized and organized in the servers at Google forever.

Lucky for us mere mortals Google has pledged “Don’t Be Evil,” both in their code of conduct and their corporate culture.

The question, “Should we be afraid of Google?” is a two-sided coin of possibilities. One side of the coin represents the good possibilities. The other side of the coin represents the bad possibilities. To date Google has kept its word of “Don’t Be Evil”, but there are small cracks in that ethical façade. The scanning of e-mail content for advertisement purposes can be a slippery slope. Scanning personal e-mails may begin as a means to better target advertisement, but can quickly expand to include political (Patriot Act) and professional agendas (human resource request employees activity on the internet).

History has many horror stories of personal information, actions, interests and intentions being used as a means to exile, arrest, limit, kill and visit the most inhuman treatment on people. Information is power and that information can be used to strip a groups’ or individuals’ power over their lives.

Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish Inquisition)

McCarthyism

Hollywood Black List

Salem Witch Trials

The aforementioned historical events, were triggered based on the use of a person’s actions being noted, testified and used against them. In these events people’s lives were at the least changes forever, at worst destroyed or taken. We live in an age of Fear. With the threat of global terrorism and local criminal activity the environment is ripe for information that Google collects and stores to be requested by federal agencies and the start of a new “Salem Inquisition.”

 Fear is a product of the unknown. The unknown potential for evil activity with personal information is frightening. We should embrace the good that the Google database can provide. We should also be keenly aware and vigilant of the potential evil that the database contains.