Politics has been reshaped by New Media. Sites like UTube present ways to “get the message out” that didn’t exist even ten years ago. In a way this media is reshaping democracy.
The best and most publicized use of new media in the current campaign has been by Obama Supporters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU
Obama Girl is heavy on gyrations and sex appeal, but light on message. This was the award winning political video of 2007. Can you come away from this with one thing Obama stands for? I couldn’t. But if that Babe likes Obama, he must be pretty good, right?
Well, apparently, not good enough to motivate her to actually vote. In the recent New York Primary, Obama Girl didn’t vote.
Then there’s Hillary. For her, Obama Girl is a tough act to follow. Thank you, but I don’t think I’d want to see Hillary in a bikini doing a pole dance. Nor would I like to see her number one supporter, Bill, in a bikini either. Maybe some old footage of him dancing with Monica Lewinsky.
Hillary’s seminal contribution so far seems to be a number of bland ads like the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzBvQ9EeF3k&feature=related
Now there is plenty of message here, but zero sex appeal. Hillary wants to give tons of money to every liberal cause that ever existed. She wants universal Pre-K for example, which won’t do much for kids, but will certainly help the teachers’ union. She wants universal health care, which she tried to ram through when Bubba was in the Oval Office, but failed miserably. Thankfully, I doubt there is any chance that she would be more successful as president. But she sure can make promises. And quite possibly, she is sincere, which in my mind makes her dangerous.
Okay, so the cat is out of the bag. I am not a liberal. Big Surprise. I homeschool and think the public school system should be dismantled. I have lived in countries with Universal Health Care. Be careful what you ask for. Yes, I am voting for McCain.
But back to the main point of this. You have here two examples of polar extremes in political advertising on the internet. In one case, you have a lot of eye candy, but no substance, and in the other you have a lot of substance but no eye candy. Which ad, or which approach is more effective?
I guess the answer depends upon your target audience. The Obama ad clearly targets people who don’t want to think too much, and the Clinton ad targets traditional liberals. From my point of view, neither ad targets people who wouldn’t vote for one of these two candidates anyway. Certainly, I suppose, the Democratic Primary is not interested in targeting Christian Conservatives, Social Conservatives, People who are pro Iraq, homeschoolers, or people with traditional values. These ads are targeting the young and unsophisticated, as well as those with liberal agendas.
Assuming one of these two candidates wins, it will be intersting to see whether they can take new media advertising to the next level, i.e., whether they can come up with somethng that will appeal to Americans in general. Considering the Democrat’s track record in general presidential elections, I do think that would be unlikely.
