website statistics

Archive for the 'YouTube' Category

YouChoose… To Watch Hillary?

This past weekend, Jeff Jarvis pointed out that Hillary Clinton’s entry for the YouTube YouChoose Spotlight — help choose the campaign theme song! — has been, by no small margin, the most successful entrant. Here’s a chart generated by techPresident/TubeMogul:

techPresident, TubeMogul and PrezVid bring you this chart

[Remember: These are cumulative figures; people are not still watching past Spotlights in great numbers.]

My guess in April was that Romney was lucky to go first, but looking at the whole picture (on techPresident you can drag the scroll bar) it seems that yes, Romney did very well, but Edwards did slightly better (saying something about both their online support). Meanwhile, McCain and Kucinich got some lift but not much (saying something about both their lack thereof).

How many videos is that specifically, and how many views for each? Here’s a handy guide, presented in order of candidate particpation (numbers were accurate as of Tuesday morning):

Romney 441,504 35,594 2,615 11,754 Edwards 371,970 6,412 McCain 301,113 10,871 1,137 1,179 Kucinich 294,352 1,541 511 831 Hunter 292,253 Hillary 546,691 128,632 Huckabee 92,505

It’s no surprise that the candidate’s follow-up videos were much less-viewed than the originial, but Hillary’s sequel did much better than any of her rivals. And yet her first YouChoose video received just 18 responses, far behind the 71 responses to Romney.

Meanwhile, her actual YouTube account is entirely locked down. Where most other candidates list friends, subscribers and some even their own subscriptions, Hillary’s YouTube account has none of these: the communication is strictly one-way.

Yet her subscribers number about 3,470, second only to Obama’s approximate 5,940 (and he hasn’t participated in the YouChoose Spotlight yet). This is interesting — because it challenges the arguments made by Dana Boyd at this year’s Personal Democracy Forum that the “digital handshake” — candidate interactivity and reciprocity — is necessary for an effective online campaign.

These big numbers probably represent curiosity more than anything; and assuming that YouTube’s viewership is less politically charged than the political blogosphere, it helps to have an early presence with casual voters. She needs to keep them. After all, the other big online news for Hillary in this month’s Daily Kos straw poll was that her netroots support doubled: from 3% to 6%.

Note to Paulites: Your man trails Giuliani by ~1400 to ~1100 subscribers. Better get on that!

Update: Blog P.I. gets results! As of Thursday night, Ron has 1334 while Rudy is mired at 1452.

Romney’s Little Dividend

Mitt Romney’s YouTube adventure has been an unqualified success — so says TubeMogul, a startup premised on online video analytics. Their post on Romney’s participation in the 2008-based YouChoose channel includes a couple charts, including this one I’ve intentionally deprived of context:

Romney on YouTube (chart)

What does that represent? That red line actually isn’t Romney, although it’s nearly identical to Romney’s line (not pictured). No, it’s the number of YouTube videos viewed over the past month — all Republicans compared to all Democrats. As TubeMogul points out, this upends the conventional wisdom that Democrats have unrivaled dominance in all things Web 2.0.

But will this only be a blip? Will Romney’s viewership return to previous levels? What happens when Barack Obama takes his turn? Romney doesn’t have the wide appeal (let alone name ID) of Obama, but he does have the most committed online activists of any declared candidate. On the other hand, most of the YouChoose respondents appear to be YouTube regulars, not political junkies. I suppose there is a fairly good chance the novelty will wear off after a few rounds — especially for politech reporters and bloggers like yours truly — so the Romney camp was lucky/wise to get/seize this opportunity.

It’s also worth pointing out that this is the second time YouTube has played a (not always) supporting role in the Romney campaign. Earlier this year, his rapid response to YouTubing (TubeMogul would say politubing) opponents helped turn an unmitigated disaster into a mere experience they’d probably like not to repeat. No other candidate this cycle has been so closely associated with online video — and that’s couning Hillary’s online conversations.

P.S. The previous installment’s title was based on a Frank Capra film, this one, Vincente Minelli, for no particular reason I can think of, but next time I’ll look for something directed by Elia Kazan.

Mr. Romney Goes To GooTube

YouTube's YouChoose '08 Spotlight on Mitt Romney

GoogleTube really appears to be making a go of its YouChoose ‘08 political channel, and this week Mitt Romney became the first participant in the YouTube Spotlight. This basically means the former Massachusetts governor and (depending on the measure) second, third or fourth place candidate for the Republican nomination recorded a short video (at right) asking the YouTube community “What Do You Believe Is America’s Single Greatest Challenge?” and what would you do about it?

This survey of people with webcams was posted Wednesday, April 11, and as of Sunday, April 15, it has been viewed about 285,000 times and picked up 54 video responses. More replies are doubtless on the way [update: yep], and I’d be surprised if anybody watched them all. That job would probably fall to Stephen Smith, and in case he hasn’t sat down and picked through them all yet, I’d like to save him the at least some of the trouble. I spent a rainy Saturday watching all the videos and took notes about each contribution. Surprisingly, all or nearly all are earnest replies, suggesting the possibility (even probability) that YouTube has removed attempted griefers. Even the Lonelygirl15 wannabe who said “preventing death” was our greatest challenge seems to believe what she’s saying. But they are not all quality, and where appropriate, I have noted the fact. And to those of you who have disabled embedding, come on. Here’s what I found:

Takes over a minute to actually string together a complete sentence, observes there are “so many challenges”

Jeff Jarvis asks what Romney thinks is the greatest challenge, also asks “which Mitt Romney” he’s asking people to vote for — the “reasonable fellow” from 1994 or the “Mitt Romney we see today”

Checks and balances, reforming education and health care, repairing US image in the world, end Iraq war

Small business owner David All worries about Democrats’ economic policies and Republicans losing support of twentysomething voters

(inaudible)

Coming to an agreement with the religious radicals in Iraq

Protecting our Constitutional rights — free speech, privacy, right to bear arms

America’s reputation abroad

Too many challenges (Iraq, education, health care, energy)

Iraq, Social Security, Medicare, gas prices

Listening to other people, listening to each other

Disappointed two-time Bush voter Bob Hanson: Red vs. blue divide, racial animosity

Getting troops out of Iraq, America’s reputation in the world, health care, homelessness, taxes

Alan from Utah: Education

Lack of vision for the future, better leadership, pessimism in Washington

Would-be Lonelygirl “absurdum00″ says “Death is an incredibly tragic occurence that we must work tirelessly to prevent”

Poverty and education

Education and poverty (see Poverty and education)

Southerner Lee Dean: mass media doesn’t represent average Americans (except maybe Fox News), a dozen others, Part 1 of 3 (10:03)

“Greatest challenge: The restoration of America’s image. Proposed solution: Jumpstart Israeli-Arab negotiations beginning with Syria”

illegal immigration — no amnesty, fixing the visa system

“Answer: gaining a better understanding of the impact our lifestyle has on the world around us”

Schoolteacher: Improving public schools

Ending reliance on fossil fuels, plug for TheOilDrum.com (no sound)

Education (9:51)

Illegal immigration — no amnesty, no work program

Protecting and honoring the rights of the individual, reining in big business

Racism (Don Imus and Sparkling Wiggles)

Justin Hart, Mitt Romney supporter: Politicians’ casual disregard for the people they represent, on the threat of JIhadism and spending in Washington

Keeping the big picture in mind when making decisions, reading “The World is Flat”

Imus getting fired

Adopt the Fair Tax

Focus on domestic issues like poverty and hunger

Getting the U.S. out of the United Nations

More sea to shining sea, less bombs bursting in air (Canadian)

The U.S. should be a “beacon of light and hope in the world”

The Corporate Agenda

???

Takes two minutes to not answer, asks Romney what he thinks (British)

“Keep up the good work, you got my vote, godspeed brother”

Alternative energy, banning lobbying, health care, racial equality, genetically modified foods

Abolishing Corporate Personhood (doesn’t mention Romney by name)

To sum up:

The single greatest challenge facing America today is Iraq, health care, education, fossil fuels, illegal immigration, corporations and Don Imus.

The Google Primary II: Buy Your Rivals

Yesterday I managed to get a whole post out of the observation that most, but not all, of the top tier candidates are buying up their own names on Google AdWords. In this post, I’ll try to get some mileage out of reporting something more interesting:

The candidates who are bidding for their own names on Google’s advertising program are also bidding on their opponents’ names.

To take one example, when you search for Mitt Romney on Google, one of the ads you’ll see in the AdWords column along the right-hand side will be for John McCain. So I ran searches for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, and then I compared the results. If the image below hurts your eyes to read, right-click on the image and open a larger version into another browser tab. Here’s what I found, in the order listed:

2008 presidential candidates on Google AdWords

When you run these searches, slightly different ads come up each time. It’s probably in Google’s interest to mix it up some, not to mention a number of advertisers may be bidding the same amount on some of these phrases. Therefore, the image above is only meant to give a general idea of what ads will appear. For example, since I Photoshopped that together last night, I’ve now seen a Giuliani ad appear in a Romney search. It isn’t reflected above, but it has been factored into this post.

Okay, but who all bought who? Here’s whose name/keyword was bought by whom — keyword, then campaigns:

Clinton
Obama
Giuliani
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Giuliani
McCain
McCain
Romney
Giuliani

If you’d rather see who bought whose name as a keyword, try this on for size — campaign, then keywords:

Obama
Clinton
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Giuliani
Hillary
McCain
Romney
McCain
Giuliani

You can probably do all the same armchair analysis here that I can. Obama’s camp believes he can win over Hillary Clinton people (supporters, or those interested enough to Google her name), Romney’s team hopes to win over McCain people, McCain aims to pull support from both his GOP rivals, and the Giuliani squad is on a comparative buying spree, to the point of wooing some Hillary supporters. For some reason, nobody is bidding on either Edwards or Obama.

Meanwhile, in a post seemingly anticipating this one, Oregon Dem consultant Kari Chisholm observed:

The point of a Google ad isn’t to find people who know they’re looking for you — they should be able to find you just fine. It’s to find people who are looking for something else; and your candidate is the answer to their question. This will work even better for the second-tier candidates who aren’t getting much media attention.

I didn’t find any second-tier candidates bidding on the top-tier names, but he’s right: They should be. I also didn’t venture any further than the top six candidates as generally agreed upon by looking at polls, fundraising and what how the Washington Post/New York Times axis treats the various contenders. Another mini-study such as this might turn up some interesting results for other candidates, and other phrases that on which campaigns have bid.

Additionally, election campaigns are not the only customers bidding for higher-placed ads on Google AdWords — they are joined by various for- and not for-profit enterprises, who seek to associate their products and programs with the candidates listed. Here’s what I found, based on the screen caps taken on Saturday night:

  • YouTube — that is, Google — bought everybody. They also bid the most. Hmmm.
  • The Pew Forum, not (yet) owned by Google, was the only other website/organization to bid, and bid high on the words.
  • The Center for American Progress’ Campus Progress bought Obama, and Obama only.
  • Something called Ascend Alliance — which appears to be a student exchange program without the students — has bought Romney, but no one else.
  • The do-gooders do seem to like Romney: the One campaign claims “Romney wears ONE band.” The ONE blog provides evidence, although it could simply be that he held one in his hand.
  • Human Events bought Giuliani and more curiously, Obama as well.
  • Cringe-inducing pro-voting groups have attached themselves to Edwards (generationengage.org), Rudy (declareyourself.org) and Romney (megadittoes).
  • Moviefone and Tickets-for-Events.com are both betting that people mistake John Edwards for John Edward of “Crossing Over” fame (or “fame”).
  • Hillary, Obama, Edwards and Romney all have obviously for-profit concerns bidding on their words — selling buttons and T-shirts, mostly — perhaps saying less about how well they think those candidates will sell than about how the others will not. The market has spoken — and Republicans aren’t moving units so well these days.
  • Hillary, Obama and Romney are all popular enough as keywords that a link at the bottom of their columns will take you to more ads, if you wish.
  • Trouble for Romney: one of the websites bidding on his name is ConservativesAgainstRomney.com. Lucky for Giuliani, sister site ConservativesAgainstRudy.com does not appear to be bidding on his name.
  • On the other hand, the Conservative Book Club appears to have bid on Romney and Romney only, so he should be reassured that not all conservatives are against him.

Anything I missed? Let me know in the comments.

Update: Credit where it’s due: Jeff Jarvis had this idea last week, although we went about it in different ways. Meanwhile, Kate Kaye at the ClickZ News Blog decided to see which candidates had bid on certain issue-related keywords:

iraq war, troop surge, social security, poverty, global warming, climate change, new hampshire, homeland security, terrorism, immigration, us attorneys, alberto gonzales, iran, iran nuclear, nuclear weapons, china trade, trade deficit, wmd, afghanistan, pelosi syria, british sailors, retirement, gay rights, women rights, feminism, labor rights, minimum wage, living wage, abortion, pro life, roe v wade, draft, military draft

So who bought those key words? Apparently none of them.

I Want to Work for a 527

Ask any campaign guy/gal who has multiple races/cycles under their belt and they’ll tell you that most candidates suck.

They don’t work hard, they meddle too much, they say dumb things on camera or they’re just insane. The real fun is the shadow groups — the 527s and 501(c)3s.

Here’s why:

Why is Americans United for Change is running TV ads against the Senate Minority leader in Kentucky? There’s no way in hell Mitch loses; he’s one of the smartest elected GOP political minds and he can easily raise money. But, that ’s not the point. Campaigning has grown into something completely different than winning and losing single elections: It’s now almost sport.

Back in 2002 a group of rich Democrats and consultants got together and said to themselves, “we want influence.” They created this 527, originally, to protect Social Security from the Republicans’ “privatization.” Now, they still have this 527 and still continue to have influence with their money and with their consultants. Somebody just stood up one day and said, “Let’s rip Mitch’s face off!” for probably no reason except that they can.

And that’s the beauty of this for people like me. No candidate, no pressure to win the race, no worry about the candidate’s wife or best friend telling me how to do my job, no grueling travel days and no limiting contact with pesky reporters. Just a bunch of paid professionals sitting around a table making a couple of rich dudes happy.

Sign me up!

The De Vellis Files

Just as quickly as the Hillary/Obama/Apple/1984 YouTube spot made the NBC Nightly News and questions were raised about the identity of its creator, the anonymous “ParkRidge47″has been identified and has already made a now-cursory stop at Huffington Post:

Hi. I’m Phil. I did it. And I’m proud of it.

He’s Phillip de Vellis and he’s now formerly with Blue State Digital. They made the right call in letting him go, already handling this with more confidence (not to mention web savvy) than EchoDitto did with their resident McCainiac, Nicco Mele. Apart from getting fired, de Vellis will probably emerge a winner. Unless, of course, Hillary Clinton actually wins the presidency.

But this isn’t the first time Phil de Vellis been suspected of surrepititous intra-party hacking hackery. The name stuck out to me because I reported on that alleged subterfuge early last year, when de Vellis was with the Sherrod Brown Senate campaign. The details are too tedious to recount here, but an IP address associated with the Brown campaign was identified as the source of some nasty comments — and some Ohio bloggers accused de Vellis of being responsible.

You can read the full back story here and here, but this will do:

[C]omments from anonymous users with names like Thisblogishorseshit and JewsforJesus started making antagonistic comments. Both suspected Brown’s new Internet spokesperson and blogger Philip de Vellis. (Brown oversees the pro-Dem blog Grow Ohio.) De Vellis was a recent hire, and had been dispatched to put Brown’s side of the story on the blogs. They couldn’t prove de Vellis had done so. Their evidence was circumstantial at best — with one big exception.

[Blogger Russell] Hughlock compared the IP address on the comments to the IP address from e-mails he’d previously received from de Vellis — and found an exact match. We contacted the Brown campaign ourselves about it, and while they were reticent to discuss accusations made by bloggers aligned with their opponent, they did take partial responsibility for the postings. De Vellis denied being the author, and pointed out the IP address listed on the comments serve the entire staff of about 30, but the campaign has acknowledged that the comments did indeed originate from their office. De Vellis said he was certain no one on Brown’s Internet team had posted any of the messages, but said: “We haven’t done an in-depth investigation.” Rather, the Brown campaign quietly circulated a policy memo: Interns and staffers may no longer contribute to any blog save for Grow Ohio. This is a direction other campaigns will follow, lest they have to learn the same lesson.

Who knows if De Vellis was responsible for the furtive comments back then. But I’d say the last sentence holds up pretty well.

P.S. Buckeye State Blog, who remembers him as well but not fondly, doubts de Vellis’ authorship claim: “Phil claims he made it? I say don’t buy everything you read.”

P.P.S. Joe Tobacco points out in a comment on this post and at Cadillac Tight that Jerome Armstrong points out today that he personally hired de Vellis for the Brown campaign. He stands by de Vellis, and is unhappy with Blue State Digital for letting him go:

I know the founders of Blue State Digital, and this was a petty move on their part– an over-reaction to say the least. Phil’s a big reason why Sherrod Brown kicked ass in Ohio in 2006, he made a remarkable video adaption, and BSD could have simply said they accept his resignation.

As I argued last summer, statements like this lead me to doubt Armstrong is as savvy as he’s given credit for. And just like that time, one only need look to the first comment of that very MyDD post for a more practical assessment:

This baseless, pointless ad divides the Democratic Party, and undermines Clinton’s chances if she eventually wins the nomination.

And as to the firing itself, Krempasky is spot on:

[W]hen it became clear that an employee made the video, given their client base and relationships - it makes total sense to sack him.

Does Armstrong understand that Obama is more important to BSD than Phil de Vellis? Maybe Armstrong didn’t give it that much thought. But maybe that’s why it’s so easy to dismiss him.

Etiquette

You think you might have your cell phone turned off while you’re on the floor of the House of Representatives debating the war in Iraq. Or not:

Listen during the silence. Apparently, the House Chamber is actually a movie theater, and at least one member of Congress is that one guy. And that guy is a jerk. (Via Atrios.)

And don’t miss the chyron about midway through the video:

C-SPAN: Gonzales has Bush's "confidence"

Okay, now he’s toast.

Did Ann Coulter Just Undo the Damage Done by Amanda Marcotte?

David Bonior dispatched for e-mail response to Ann Coulter's slur on John Edwards

The last few weeks have not been good ones for the Edwards campaign, with professional blowhard Bill Donohue shouting the unfortunate comments of short-lived Edwardsville blogress Amanda Marcotte into the New York Times and Washington Post — and Marcotte herself prolonging the story in Salon and the Austin Chronicle. Nor were they helped when Lindsay Beyerstein of Majikthise filed her own Salon column confirming Elizabeth Edwards’ involvement in blog strategy and claiming she had warned Edwards staffers of how a netroots hire could go wrong.

One reason the incident has been so bad for the Edwards campaign is that it turned an asset — his widespread support among liberal bloggers — into a liability. While few among the netroots actually abandoned him, it exposed the possibility that a wedge could be driven between them — and his campaign hasn’t regained its footing since.

Until now, that is, and John Edwards has none other than Ann Coulter parody Ann Coulter to thank as the leftosphere is working overtime this weekend to turn this year’s CPAC — where Coulter referred to Edwards as a “faggot” — into the political equivalent of this year’s NBA All-Star weekend in Las Vegas (Pacman Jones or no). Call it a reverse Perlstein: the leftosphere always liked Edwards. Now they finally have a reason to rally around him again.

The incident won’t necessarily help him with Beltway handicappers who fault the campaign’s decision-making, although they should be reassured that Edwards quickly released an e-mail letter from campaign chairman David Bonior, pictured below, and worked it into a fundraising pitch, asking for “Coulter Cash”:

John Edwards fundraising pitch for Coulter Cash

Note that they are making the video available on their own site — this is to their credit, as traditional campaign wisdom holds that you don’t want to keep a negative story going. But this attack was so meanspirited and witless and obviously saying far more about Coulter than Edwards that there is virtually no downside.

The rightosphere can denounce her all they like — calling her a “verbal suicide bomber” and likening her to David Duke and Michael Moore — but they can’t make up for the YouTube-ready audience laughter and applause that greeted Coulter’s remarks.

For the same reason, Howard Dean’s call for the GOP frontrunners to denounce Coulter’s remarks was pretty smart, too. He got his presidential denunciations on short order, but some conservatives refocused their ire on him and effectively defended Coulter. Liberal bloggers may have painted a picture of the conservative blogosphere as a mere appendage of the right-wing establishment, but there’s no way Glenn Greenwald will let Ed Morrissey speak for the movement on this one.

Only CPAC can do that now. Will the conference organizers announce that Ann Coulter will not be invited next year? Her post-9/11 “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” column got her axed from NRO, so they would even have the cover of precedent. Or are they too fearful losing Coulter’s College Republican fan base?

P.S. What do we make of the fact that PoliPundit blogger and Duncan Hunter campaign paid staffer Michael Illions is one of the few conservative bloggers publicly standing by her, while this same week the Hunter campaign cut loose two South Carolina operatives for making bigoted statements? Just asking.

P.P.S. Beyerstein got at least one thing wrong in her Salon column — Matt Stoller, whom she cited twice as a better potential hire than herself or Marcotte, missed the boat entirely as this was breaking last night:

I called a contact at the Edwards campaign for a response. Nothing yet. It would be stupid to respond to Coulter, but it’s a good idea to hang Coulter around Romney and Giuliani’s neck.

Right. Certainly nothing you’d want to use to solicit campaign contributions…

This is Why Crazy People Don’t Get Elected

Anyone even remotely connected to politics knows that Dennis Kucinich is a joke. And when you’re a joke, nobody attacks you because it’s not worth their time.

But in this day and age, it’s just too easy to create multimedia, and Jeff Jarvis shows how easy it is to demonstrate that Kucinich is a nut:

This is why people are careful about how they appear and what they say. When you’re normal, this sort of thing doesn’t stick. But when you’re nuts, it works like a charm.

The Time Machine

Are we this good or is Time just that predictable? On October 9, the day Google announced its acquisition of YouTube, we wrote:

[I]t’s only been about 10 months since Time Magazine declined to choose an individual for its much-devalued Person of the Year award, so it only stands to reason they’re back in the hunt. It’s also been nearly a decade since Time named someone (or thing) from the tech industry — Jeff Bezos in 1999 — and more than 20 years since they named the PC its “Machine of the Year.” Also, it’s not an election year, so it won’t be the winner of the presidential election. It’s time for another gimmick!

At left, our Photoshopped prediction from two months ago. At right, Time Warner’s actual latest cover, announced this weekend:

Time POY Prediction: You       Time POY Reality: You

Although Blog P.I. doesn’t make prognostications a regular part of what we do, we have made a few good calls — Not Paul Begala told you here first that Jon Tester wasn’t getting an Appropriations seat, and again relying upon this year’s breakout phenomenon, we did start talking about the “YouTube election” well ahead of most.

But if we can’t even pick a fantasy football team that makes the playoffs, we’re not going to stake our rep on predicting the future. So the answer is yes, they really are that predictable.