Just a few days ago in a lunch meeting I had with a very large political media (TV) agency, you know the ones where all the money is currently spent, we discussed the impact of the internet on politics. Besides the normal online media discussions regarding PPC, banner advertising, tracking, and ad formats, we also discussed streaming video trends. I primarily used the information found in my post It's A Political Digital World Part 1 and spoke about how using YouTube could cost effectively (ie - free) push out political ads that are not constrained to a 30 second spot.
So, this meeting coupled with all of the articles written recently regarding political consumer generated media, got me thinking about what really will the impact be. First a couple of articles on the subject with a little commentary and then a few facts that the writers of these articles have universally left out.
- At Vegas Blog-fest, It's Not Politics as Usual found over at MSNBC recaps a convention of political bloggers at Vegas and their potential impact on elections. And, if you think it was just a grouping of these bloggers, read on because quite a few politicians were there to mix, mingle, and get support outlining the growing influence this medium has especially for Democrats (I wonder why that is - more later).
- A NY Times Editorial called Could a 15 Year-Old with a Laptop Be The New Campaign Media Guru looks at video ads created by a 15 year old girl that was shown at the Vegas Blog-fest. Hmmm, 15 years old huh? Sounds cute doesn't it? What the article does point out is that anyone with budding creative skills could create their own political ad, post it for free on YouTube, and if it is interesting enough get a ton of views. Forget about whether the information is accurate.
- Finally, the ClickZ article I posted a few days back called Political Campaigns and Nonprofits Sort Out CGM which does a good job summarizing a lot of the test uses of CGM including using MySpace, but I think over-emphasizes the need for a campaign CGM worker. Look it is tough enough to get people to pay attention to online media like search, let alone think there will be a job created in the future.
Now, I think all of these CGC (content) initiatives are great especially the video because it gives people the ability to express themselves and best of all it is free. Create a halfway decent ad, true or not, good quality or not, and you'll get a ton of viewership with the viral components built into YouTube and the word of mouth marketing/linking aspects of blogs. However, who is the primary creators and viewers of these ads (anecdotally of course)? Youth. And do they vote in large numbers? No.
First, the 2004 election data found over at the 
US Census Bureau. It shows that about 42% of all Americans, registered or not, who were 18-24 voted in the election . That is the lowest of any age group. Think it is better out in the West (California), think again. Check out this chart. Now, the 2004 election had a huge spike in youth turnout, the highest since 1992, but is it a trend? Lets look at a different group of data with a slightly different counting methodology found at Circle called The Youth Vote 2004.
As you can see from the chart on the left (look at the trends and not at the actual numbers because they use a different counting method), the 2004 election was a spike as was 1992. However, as a voting group the 18-24 age bracket is the worst performing one when it comes to getting out and voting. Is 2004 the start of a trend? Maybe, but the odds don't look good based on historical data.
Perhaps all of this CGC will energize the youth of America to get out and vote. Giving them the ability to creatively express themselves and then turn around and vote is a very good strategy. That's why the Democratic Party is openly embracing (sorry for typo) this trend. However, since 1972 there has been very little activity that pushed the 18-24 bracket to approach other age groups for voter turnout. Do you think MySpace, YouTube, and Blogs can do it? I'll leave you with this thought courtesy of the Wall Street Journal from June 19th interview with Disney's Robert Iger on Entertainment.
When asked is there a difference between user-generated content and the fancy Disney stuff, Mr Iger replied "....I don't think it holds a candle to what I'd call professionally generated content." Sure he is referencing movies and TV shows, but isn't it all about capturing viewers attention? Anything that gets the 18-24 group to vote is a good thing, unfortunately, the historical trends and the reasons behind it are the 800 pound gorilla in the political CGC room.
PardonMyFrench,
Eric
P.S. Voting is still open on whether to keep my Wall Street Journal paper edition. Post is below.
Comments