Exclamation blog: Stories, Ideas and loud noises
All I Really Needed to Know, I Learned on Twitter
Yesterday was a busy day for me. I was in and out of meetings and wasn’t in front of my computer too much. You know, the kind of day when you’re sitting there in a conference room guessing how many emails will be in your inbox when you get back? 50, 75, 100?
Meanwhile, there were two news developments that I was eager to follow: The Pennsylvania primary and Yahoo!’s earnings. Normally on busy work and news days, I rush to my desk, fire up a browser and scan my RSS feeds and a few sites I know can get me caught up.
But yesterday was different. When I got back to my desk, Twitter was open in my browser and before closing out, I did a quick refresh to scan the latest from the people I follow.
Right then, I had one of those Twitter “eureka!” moments. Rafe sums it up elegantly when he says, “The people who laugh at Twitter do not understand it. Pity them.”
You see, as if a genie granted me three wishes, a handful of “Tweets” gave me the gist of the news I was so desperate to follow all day. Special thanks goes out to CNet’s Dan Farber who was live tweeting the earnings call and providing succinct updates as they happened:
-Yahoo CFO: Traffic acquisition costs are up 4 percent because the company has to compete. about 19 hours ago from Snitter
-Yahoo’s headcount dropped from 14,300 at the end of last year to 13,800, including 600 new hires, offset by the company’s layoff. about 19 hours ago from Snitter
-Yahoo generated first quarter free cash flow of $647 million, up 75 percent ….it includes a $350 million one-time AT&T payment. about 19 hours ago from Snitter
-Yahoo CFO: “Advertisers’ budgets may fall, but the ROI of online ads compared to other media may cushion the impact on our industry. about 19 hours ago from Snitter
-Yang affirms that will choose whatever option maximizes shareholder value, including MS….more money! about 19 hours ago from Snitter
In 5 Tweets, I had all the information I needed. Sure, there was no analysis, but that could wait.
On to the election. I read a quick note from Fred Wilson who Tweeted, “i’ve just learned more about the PA primary on Tweetscan than CNN and MSNBC combined,” and posted a URL with the majority of news updates and comments on the election from around the Twittersphere. After a quick scan, Fred and I were on the same page. Too close to call. Anderson Cooper can wait.
As I left the office to head home and watch the final results come in, I couldn’t help but marvel at how easily I was able to catch up on the news of the day thanks to Dan and Fred.
Sure, the era of information overload has its drawbacks, but sometimes we forget how sweet it is when it all comes together just right. Thanks guys. And thank you, Twitter.
Cooking With Cindy McCain
Cindy McCain wants you to cook with her. As it turns out, though, “Cindy’s Family Recipes,” are apparently, not so homegrown.
The New York Times and The Huffington Post reported that several of the hopeful First Lady’s ‘family’ recipes were in fact lifted word for word from The Food Network Web site.
Campaign officials were quick to blame the interns for being lazy, Rachael Ray chimed in suggesting that her recipes were meant to be “accessible to anyone” and McCain decided that she preferred “lemon chicken and beef stew” after all.
What this bit of news left me wondering about is, what makes an ‘original’ in today’s blogging, twittering, texting and emailing world? Certainly, calling something a family recipe creates the presumption that it’s not in Giada Di Laurentiis’ ammo, but times have changed, no?
My mother used to write down all of her recipes in a leather-bound, yellow-paged notebook that has seen better days. I remember penning my own “apple cake” recipe. Today, I can take a snapshot of that recipe and throw it into my Evernote. Or, I can post the contents of the book into my own personal blog. The amount of information out there seems to be boundless and originality is harder to come by.
How many rosemary chicken breast or chicken noodle soup recipes are truly ‘unique’? Perhaps my mother had one written into her recipe book, which was passed down to her from my grandmother and previously created by her mother.
While I may consider it to be my family recipe, another girl in another town may consider it to be hers. The same was probably true 50 years ago, only today, we know about it thanks to Google, FoodBlogSearch.com, Facebook and the like.
Cindy McCain and plagiarism aside, in my opinion, the Internet has taken a very personal and time-honored tradition into a globally-shared social activity. With cooking social networks, baking blogs and online video demos, the Web has managed to transform a second shift job into a technology-savvy, working professional’s hobby that still manages to honor both its roots and the technology-driven possibilities for its evolution.
Yes YouTube Can?
Can John Legend and Scarlett Johansson have an effect on Barack Obama’s campaign? How about Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? The Pussycat Dolls?
A lot has been written about whether YouTube will influence the upcoming election; it’s nothing new. But has anyone come up with an answer? Many of these videos are judged on how many people have watched, but as anyone in advertising will tell you: eyeballs are one thing, influence is another.
For example, an Apple “1984″ ad spoof depicting Hillary Clinton as Big Brother got more than 7 million views on YouTube and a huge amount of press, mainly around who the creator was. As information came out about the individual who created the video, the fact that it was one random guy who felt like making a smear ad weakened the influence of the video.
Recently, Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas produced a video (embedded above) that included 37 celebrities in support of Obama and was based around a speech he gave in New Hampshire. In just one week since it was made public, it has received 3.5 million views on its home site, Dipdive.com, and more than 7 million views on YouTube — one week, 10 million views. Plenty of eyeballs, let’s move on.
What stood out about this video was that it felt like the first political video that really carried some weight. While talk of young voters influencing elections has been a hot topic the past few presidential races, the reality is that this is the first year we are seeing a serious increase in young voter turnout — the New Hampshire primary showed a 14% increase in voters 18-29 over the 2004 race. The Huffington Post agrees that this year, young voters will be a decisive group.
As a member of this voter demographic, it is pretty clear that while there is significant motivation to vote, for the most part we don’t necessarily dig deep into the issues or policies of each candidate… And let’s be honest, they don’t differ that much. On the democratic side, more of the talk is about who would be best to beat the opposition in the general election. Whose character would most likely get ripped to shreds? The fact is, many decisions are being made and answers are being found through non-traditional and non-qualifiable mediums, like YouTube.
So, back to the video. Based on Obama’s “Yes We Can” speech, the video uses one of the most influential groups of people on young people today — celebrities. These aren’t the ones getting pulled over for DUIs or in bitter custody disputes. These are sophisticated, well-respected (and very attractive) celebrities fully endorsing Barack Obama and evoking emotions and memorability that hasn’t been present in other political videos. It doesn’t reek of propaganda and the celebrities come off as passionate and physically invested in the Obama campaign.
I do not intend to endorse a candidate here, but want to point out how the simplicity of the “Yes We Can” video combined with the emotion and passion it evokes succeeds in not only attracting more than 10 million viewers in a week, but more importantly, helps influence a now powerful, and easily influenced, group of voters.
It’s a successful combination of eyeballs and influence. While Obama Girl will make you laugh, “Yes We Can” brings out a whole different set of emotions, Obama supporter or not.
G’Day Mate! Social Media and Politics in the Land Down Under
Approximately one month ago in the land down under, YouTube launched its Australian site. In his inaugural Aussie video, YouTube’s News and Politics editor Steve Grove noted that the site’s launch corresponded with the heart of Australia’s elections for Prime Minister. In sharp contrast to the seemingly endless American campaigns - which practically begin for the next election before the last ballot for the previous election has been cast - Australia’s federal election season is just six short weeks.
This truncated season - combined with the fact that Australia’s remarkable lack of population density makes it difficult and time-consuming to physically meet large groups – may explain why the Australian candidates have so enthusiastically incorporated YouTube into their campaigns.
In a Reese’s-style conundrum (you got peanut butter on my chocolate…) the internet is becoming politicized and politics are moving online.
In addition to professionally written and produced content à la BarelyPolitical, the growing prevalence of sites that allow people to submit their own content and have that content made globally accessible and easily searchable has forever changed the face of politics.
You don’t even have to have the body of Obamagirl to get noticed. Even the most seemingly banal videos can change the course of a campaign and thus a nation. Nominally, a video of an obscure Australian politician making a commonplace speech would not be particularly interesting. But when the person behind the speaker – the guy eating his own earwax – decides to run for Prime Minister, the hits start pouring in.
In American politics, examples abound. John Edwards’ haircut, George W. Bush struggling with a locked door, and Virginia Senator George Allen’s famous “macaca” comment.
These videos can be provided by anyone with a camera and a connection to the internet. Often times you don’t even need a camera – but just a VCR and a willingness to slog through hours of boring tapes, trolling for embarrassing gaffes.
Indeed, technology has advanced to the point that we don’t even have to wait for politicians to embarrass themselves. We can do it for them using iMovie or even free video editing software.
It is hard to measure the influence that these videos have exerted on the political fates of those featured. Indeed, who has heard of an exit poll inquiring whether a particular YouTube video effected the voter’s decision? (On a side note, while these sorts of questions may eventually be asked I do not think that people would admit the extent to which they were swayed by a single video clip) Yet with millions of views it is clear that these online videos can’t help but influence some voters’ perceptions.
(On a side note, Australia’s Federal Elections were held over the weekend and the earwax eating candidate - Kevin Rudd - emerged victorious with nearly 54 percent of the vote. This is merely a factual observation and is not intended to make a statement on the impact social media can have on political elections.)
In spite of the large impact that online videos can have on the political process, I believe that they play a more important role as a means of participation than they do of persuasion. In sharp contrast to the silent onlookers of yesteryear who were only allowed to express their opinion once at the very end of the process (with their ballot), today’s voters can become as involved with the political process as they wish by creating their own content and editing and commenting on that of others. The proliferation of YouTube, blogs and other social media outlets has exponentially increased the avenues of participation.
And we all know that Web 2.0 is all about participation…
