-->
On March 1st, the Associated Press released an article, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17397560/, that discussed the recent effort YouTube has made in attempts to increase voter education. While Politicians have made their way on to YouTube in the past, whether it be against their will or not, the website is now purposively collaborating with politicians encouraging them to take full advantage of the exposure YouTube creates. Candidates will have their own ‘channels’ where viewers will be able to post comments to which the candidates can respond. Now, instead of having to deal with the embarrassing and negative videos that often get posted on YouTube, candidates can decide what they would like to show people. Regardless of your political standing, I think we can all respect the candidates’ newfound acknowledgement of viewers individual concerns. While participation for some may be out of necessity, ensuring their position amongst their opponents, this does not dismiss the fact that “the viewer” or in this case the voter is finally being acknowledged as that of a voice worth listening. This open dialogue is undoubtedly risky, and gives voters the freedom to say just about anything they please. I think we can all imagine the negative feedback that could develop around politics. According to the article political candidates are even creating their own profiles on MySpace. The significance of this effort is unbelievable, when I came across the article I couldn’t believe candidates would agree to be a part of something where voters can comment without restriction. Although, participating on CGM sites that encourage viewer feedback pose high risks and decrease candidates control, the exposure and respect gained from participating on these sites has proven to outweigh this. I think that this is a great idea and I cannot wait to see the effects. Anything that encourages people to vote and increases people’s awareness of the political world is a positive thing in my eyes. I know too many people my age who don’t take voting seriously, and I think appealing to such popular sites as MySpace and YouTube with atleast serve as a reminder of its importance, if nothing else.Tags: WOM word of mouth Word-of-Mouth Marketing buzz marketing viral marketing marketing communication Northeastern University
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Broadly, the purpose of this blog is to educate and help people learn about WOM, buzz, and viral marketing. More narrowly, this blog will support a special topics class I will be teaching at Northeastern University (CMNU914).
Links
Labels (In Progress)
- 300c
- Apple
- Blogger Relations
- Blogs
- Branded Entertainment
- buzz
- CGM
- Citizen Marketers
- Class Agenda
- Cluetrain Manifesto
- e-commerce
- Engagement
- future
- Guest Lecture
- matchstick
- McChronicles
- McDonald's
- Northeastern University
- timing
- Tracking WOM
- Viral Marketing
- wom campaign
- Word of Mouth
- Word of Mouth Episode Survey
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(72)
-
▼
March
(16)
- Class 21 Agenda: Workshop DWOMP Process
- Reflection On Jodi Long's Visit To Class
- The Power of Internet Buzz: Always
- CGM + Nick Lachey = Success?
- Politicians Realize Importance of CGM sites
- Reflections on Ed Keller's (The Keller Fay Group) ...
- Bad Thing But Good Management
- Class 19 Agenda: Integrating WOM Into the Media Plan
- Class 18: Organizing WOM: Company Roles, Structure...
- Dealing With Negative WOM on the Airwaves
- A Case Study on Building Morale
- Class 17 Agenda: How To Manage Negative WOM
- The Value of Reading... And Ice Cream
- Establishing a Human Voice to Maintain Credibility
- Class 16 Agenda: Living in a Branded Society: Soci...
- Ethics of WOMM
-
▼
March
(16)
5 comments:
This seems like a really creative way to get young people not only interested in voting but to increase their participation in the political arena. By allowing comments and ratings on the website, everyone can easily view the videos and express their opinions. This is important since the politicians are choosing what to display in these videos and on the site. By allowing for feedback, it creates another outlet for communication between individuals on this topic.
It will be interesting to see how they will deal with the negative feedback, which will undoubtedly arise. Will someone be monitoring it to make sure there is nothing posted that is too controversial or offensive? If so, how will that affect the authenticity of these sites?
I wonder that myself, the article didnt go in to detail about who will be monitoring the sites. I honestly am worried about what could result from allowing all feedback to be displayed. We've all heard what people can say when their words are driven by passionate political views that affect their everyday lives.
It would be interesting to follow up on this and track how the website manages negative content. We might notice that some candidates might use the site to their advantage to bash other candidates. Also, I agree that it is important to create channels of communication so that the greater population can express their feelings toward a candidate. This new technology might capture an audience who never pursued their right to vote, or become involved.
During the last democratic primaries, Howard Dean was, as far as I know, the first presidential candidate to really make use of the internet to build a real grass-roots campaign by cultivating advocacy and generating excitement around his campaign. His stunning rise to prominance out of nowhere was attributed by many to his successful use of technology that other candidates had, more or less, stayed away from. Sure, Dean made a series of gaffes that make him an unintentional mainstay on Youtube, but he proved that the modern era of technology can have a great impact on politics. Utilization of Youtube can only enhance this effect.
Post a Comment