NOI “Bootcamp” in session now 2 July, 2007
Posted by Zack in NOI, Online organizing.add a comment
You can follow our progress at the New Organizing Institute blog.
Got Organizers? (We do.) 25 June, 2007
Posted by Zack in 2008, Jobs, NOI, Online organizing, Organizing.add a comment
If you’re hiring for a campaign, or any campaigning organization, please check out the incoming class of the New Organizing Institute’s 2nd annual week-long intensive campaign training. Graduates from this training last year went on to serve as:
- Internet directors with House, Senate and Gubernatorial races
- Campaign managers for state assembly races
- Field organizers
- Communications/press staff
- Internet staff/ online organizers
Contact us at info@neworganizing.com if you would like more info. You can arrange to come to the training and our career fair on Sunday, July 8th, to meet the trainees in person. But you can read about them right now on our website too.
This class of 60 trainees was selected out of hundreds of applicants for their talent, experience and also for their immediate intention to go work on political campaigns in the 2008 cycle. Most of the trainees are recent graduates from college, many just off their first campaign, with a few others looking for a career switch. Most are people who have already been using technology and the Internet to change the way politics are done, either in campus politics or on an actual campaign or two.
The mission of the New Organizing Institute (NOI) is to improve the way in which technology and the Internet are used in politics as well as the non-profit sphere. Our trainings are usually targeted specifically for one of those sectors at a time, with this one targeting 2008 (and 2007!) campaigns and other campaigning political entities.
The goal of our campaign trainings is to push more people into the staffing pipeline who understand what the Internet can do for politics. We take people who already get it, and try to give them an intensive overview of what’s already been tried, what’s failed, what’s succeeded. We add to that some general principles for making their own future trial and error more efficient. And we try to give these trainees a solid foundation in “traditional” campaign skill sets such as communications, fundraising and field organizing, though we treat each topic with an updated approach that takes into account how technology and the Internet have changed the field.
These 60 future rising stars are going to get snapped up quickly. Contact us now at info@neworganizing.com if you’ve got a campaign position you’re trying to fill.
Don’t hire an Internet person 15 June, 2007
Posted by Zack in Online organizing, progressive strategy.18 comments
Every day I have the same conversation with at least one non-profit or campaign. They call and say, “Do you have an Internet person we can hire?” (Today I had four of these calls, and therefore this post.)
“No, don’t hire an Internet guy,” I say. “You need to make your senior leaders, campaigners & organizers responsible for the Internet just as they’re responsible for everything else. The Internet is the biggest, greatest opportunity you have—so why would you outsource it to some Internet person you’ll just stick in a closet anyways?”
But it usually feels like I’m wasting my breath. They call back a few weeks later and say, “We’ve taken your advice and decided to hire an Internet person…do you have any recommendations?”
So I think that all of us “Internet people” need to put our foot down. Let’s remove “Internet” from our titles and resumes. The longer we leave “Internet” on our name tags, the longer we’re enabling all this bad behavior—and devaluing our own contribution to the movement at the same time.
I know people who are the future of the progressive movement. Most of them have “Internet” stuck on them. But they are not Internet strategists, they are strategists. They are not Internet communicators, they are communicators. They are not Internet organizers, they are organizers.
Don’t take that “Director of Internet Communications” job. Take the “Director of Communications” job.
Everybody knows it’s time for a changing of the guard. To stop thinking of yourself as an Internet person is one way to help make it happen.
March 2007: the New June 2003 15 February, 2007
Posted by Zack in 2008, Fundraising, Howard Dean, Joe Trippi, Online organizing.5 comments
Dear candidates and campaign managers:
Why is it, after grassroots donors gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Dem presidential candidates in the 2004 cycle, that you are now completely ignoring them in this cycle? I’m not saying you shouldn’t be courting large donors. But instead of spending ALL your time between high-dollar fundraisers and donor “call time,” why not just spend at least 15 or 20 minutes per day doing things to win the hearts of the mass base of Democratic donors and activists?
And sorry, but your online videos and cool websites do not win hearts. Only genuine attention and creativity from you, the candidates and campaign managers, will do that.
It was genuine personal attention and creativity by both Howard Dean and Joe Trippi that created the conditions in which their campaign raised something like $40 million online. You had Dean speaking from the heart, every day, in a non-phony way, about the base and its centrality to the campaign. It wasn’t just that he said the things he did–it was that he really meant them. He had somehow (and I still don’t understand how it happened) made a break with “normal politician mode” and switched over to normal human being mode. (Yes, of course, the night of the Iowa primary, when the presidential campaign switched from its base-phase to its national-phase, that would have been a great time to start acting a little more like a “normal politician,” but that’s another story.)
For his part, Trippi was making almost all his big campaign strategy decisions with the goal of winning over and mobilizing the base as his top priority. (And yes, it would have been better if he had made a few traditional decisions better, such as fixing the Iowa field operation. But that’s also another story.)
But in this cycle, all of you seem to be acting as though Dean and Trippi proved nothing. And so today I’m making a prediction–one that I hope you’ll prove wrong: no Democratic candidate will be beat Dean’s record of raising around $40 million online before Iowa.
Many among the netroots would be happy about such a failure, since they were so annoyed by all the fundraising in the ’04 cycle. But there are two reasons such a failure would be very bad news for progressives and for politics in general: First, all of you will still eventually resort to ceaseless fundraising in this race–only, without a real connection and without big email lists, you won’t raise very much, so it will all be in vain. Second, if small grassroots donors do not dominate this cycle as they did in 2004, then one of the most beautiful reversals in the history of U.S. politics–that of small donors coming out stronger, earlier and more decisively than big donors–will have been erased.
I think part of what’s happening is that you guys are misunderstanding what happened in the Dean campaign that brought in all that money (or maybe you’re being misinformed). Maybe you think the secret to Dean’s success in online fundraising were his cool online tools (that would explain Obama’s bragging about his tools in his announcement video). Or maybe you think it was his popularity in the blogosphere (that would explain why so many of your are falling over each other to please bloggers).
But if you go back to that game-changing 2nd quarter FEC filing deadline, you’ll see that it wasn’t either of those things. What happened in that incredible moment was that Trippi, with Dean’s sign off, did something extraordinary. He released his quarterly fundraising total a week before the reporting deadline (unthinkable according to the conventional wisdom of primary campaign strategy). Trippi put all the cards on the table and he reached out to the base and said:
“We’re behind the big money candidates. We’re behind, and if we stay behind, this campaign is over. We’re putting our campaign in your hands. It’s up to you whether Howard Dean can compete against the big donors and the establishment. It’s up to you–and you actually have the power to not only keep him in the race, but to make him the front runner.”
The campaign put a progress bar (The Bat!) up to show the base exactly how far they had to go to make Dean the front runner. And the base stood up and delivered.
That was the second quarter of 2003. In this race, everything is moved up a quarter. So that same drama of the last week of June will this time take place in the last week of March. Hey–what do you know: that’s right around the corner!
That strategy can work for any candidate: “establishment” or underdog. If you’re the Big Money candidate, don’t be afraid to own it: ask your base to put you so far ahead (like Bush in 2000) that the contest will be settled early and you’ll be able to conserve your funds for what will certainly be a brutal general election battle; tell the base that’s the key to winning in 2008.
If you’re the underdog, then do what Dean did and ask small donors to drown out Big Money by making their voices heard and their power felt so strongly that the Earth shakes (like it did in 2003). Your finance directors will worry that such an underdog message will alienate large donors–but that’s just silly. They don’t care. They get it. Ask a few of them this afternoon when you’re doing your “call time.”
Of course you should keep doing your high-dollar fundraisers. You absolutely should set up pyramid schemes like Bush’s Pioneer/Ranger racket. But you should also take some time out of every day to call upon the base, directly, honestly, like a real human being speaking to other real human beings. Yes, that means sending them notes via email that you write yourself, and personally posting on your blog. But it also means that when you’re making those critical decisions that shape your campaignâ€â€in the back of the plane with only your top consultant and top advisorâ€â€you should be asking: Is there anything we can do here to involve the base? Is there any way we can do this differently to involve them and rely upon them?
Politics will benefit regardless of which of you puts your campaign in the hands of the base–just so long as one of your does it. But if no one does it, then it turns out that what happened in 2003 didn’t change politics after all.
Don’t just hire a blogger, BE the blogger! (A community manifesto for 2008) 9 February, 2007
Posted by Zack in 2008, Online organizing.4 comments
The BloggerGate controversy raised a lot of interesting questionsâ€â€but one I didn’t hear was: “Why aren’t the candidates their own bloggers?” And this goes for email tooâ€â€the alternate title for this post could be: “Write your own emails, damn it!”
This is not a criticism of Internet staff on campaigns (I’ve been there, I know it’s not up to you). This is not even a criticism of candidates or campaign managersâ€â€it’s just an attempt at a wake up call: This is a whole new medium, a whole new channel for your own voiceâ€â€you don’t ask someone else give your speeches or appear in your TV ads. So why have someone who barely knows you writing personal messages in your name that go out to millions of your most passionate fans and volunteers?
The list below is just a first quick take. Go to the New Organizing Institute wiki and add your own reasons, change the order, and modify the current ones. Let’s make this a community product.
Top Ten Reasons For Presidential Candidates to
Write Their Own Emails and Blog Posts:
- The people who have signed up on your email list and who read your blog are your die-hard supporters. These people love you and are going to pour their hearts into your campaign over the next year (or two, if you win). These people deserve better than canned messages written by an “Internet guy” who doesn’t even know you.
- If you write the messages yourself and really put something of yourself into them, then your supporters who receive them will be far more engaged in your campaign  that means they will do more work and donate more money.
- If you can spend six hours per day on high-dollar fundraising, you can take 15 minutes to jot out a note to your supporters.
- As someone running for president, you have one of the most interesting lives out of anyone in the world. And yet the canned emails and blog posts we get from you reflect none of that. You have ten amazing stories to tell every single day: tell them!
- Having some “Internet guy” write your messages is soooooo 2004! People are sick of those canned, formula emails. No one reads them anymore. Actually, no one read them in 2004 either. So wake up to this new medium and put yourself into it the same as you do with, say, television.
- Now that everyone is opting out of public financing, you need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars between now and November 2008. Everyone in America is disgusted by that. The only way you will get our full participation in helping you to get to that goal is by making a real connection with us and winning our trust that you won’t blow it all on sucky adds like they did last time.
- Because you’ll have fun doing it!
- ?
- ?
- ?
Go to the New Organizing Institute wiki and add your voice.
Will Obama put on the makeup? 4 February, 2007
Posted by Zack in 2008, Online organizing, progressive strategy.37 comments
Everyone knows the story about the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate. Nixon showed up at the debate pale, with a terrible 5:00 shadow, and his shirt didn’t fit. He refused to wear makeup to improve his appearance on TV, fearing embarrassment in the press. Even though his performance was comparable to Kennedy’s, he lost the debate in the voter’s minds because he just looked awful.
It was a matter of failing to understand the new medium of televisionâ€â€of failing to understand it personally, at the highest level of the campaign, at the level of the candidate, campaign manger and senior aides. They knew how important television wasâ€â€but they still thought of it as some new fangled thing external to politics. Sure, they had media consultants, but they weren’t around when he was putting on his shirt that night, and when he was being asked whether or not he wanted makeup. It wasn’t enough to have TV consultants, Nixon and is inner circle of two or three top aides needed to understand the medium themselves.
Today, of course, all candidates and campaign managers know they must understand television, and media consultants sit within the inner-most circle informing and overseeing every single decisionâ€â€even down to what shirt to wear for debate night.
For the Internet in politics, it’s 1960 again. And I can’t tell you how painful it is, as someone who knows the power of this medium, to watch a candidate with as much potential as Obama just blowing itâ€â€just like Nixon did with TV in his first run.
Obama and his senior aides aren’t doing the deep thinking they need to do on their own about this medium. They, like most of their competitors, have delegated “the Internet thing” to staffers who are far outside of the inner circle (“senior staff” is not the inner circle), and have refused to take personal responsibility for understanding the potentials of the medium on their own. In Obama’s case, it’s inexcusable because the Internet is just dying to make him president.
The result is that he is making major campaign decisions without regard to potentials for base building on the Internetâ€â€most important among them: how to launch the campaign. I know that they would say, “We ARE taking it seriously!” I’ve heard this from campaigns a thousand times. And they think they mean it. But the “Internet strategy” is still something separate, and still not something for which the inner-circle takes full personal responsibility. They need to think about the Internet with the same intensity, curiosity and rigor that they apply to television, polling, speech writing/making and debate performance. This is the cycle when it is just complete idiocy to treat base-building through the Internet with one iota less seriousness than those other critical areas.
One reason it’s so hard for traditional campaign people to understand the Internet is that, for campaigns, it is primarily a grassroots organizing medium. Obama was a grassroots organizer for three years after college. If he puts that organizer hat back on, personally, and figures out this medium, then he should have a great advantage.
If he did that, here’s the kind of thing he’d start coming up with. On February 10th, when he will announce his candidacy, there’s an incredibly simple tactic he could employ to build a massive instant supporter base onlineâ€â€one that would supply hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground as well as tens of millions of dollars in the primary:
Obama should announce that he is determined to run, but he should say: “I’m only going to run if one million people sign up to work on this campaignâ€â€one million because that’s only a down-payment on the movement it’s going to take to win this election.”
The rest of his announcement speech should be all about the amazing grassroots movement it’s going to take to winâ€â€not just the primary, but to beat the Republican money machine in the general.
He should keep his Exploratory Committee in place for the three weeks that it will take him to get to a million. The whole time, the press will be grilling him, “Will you really drop out if a million people don’t sign up?” He’ll have to answer without hesitation: “Yes! Because it’s going to take a massive grassroots movement not only to win this electionâ€â€but to change the country.” (His traditional campaign advisors would be pulling their hair out in terror and confusion.)
The press will not shut up about Obama’s crazy “million person” sign up tactic. And that’s exactly what will drive the people to sign up. Each day they’ll give the tally. As long as the number is under a million, then the press attention will only grow. There’s not a lot of risk here. Some kid on Facebook had the same idea‗A million strong for Obama”â€â€and more than 200,000 people have already signed up…just some random kid, not Obama. A million people would sign up in no time for Obama if he asked.
Oh waitâ€â€it may not be obvious why it’s so important to have those million+ supporters signed up. What would such an online email base bring? For starters: a ton of volunteers on the ground, a vibrant community of activists all across the country, an instant foundation for a “First Four,” and even a Super Tuesday, field campaign (provided they have a field director who knows what to do with all those email addresses!).
But here’s what the campaign really wants to hear, and what is in fact true: those million signed-up supporters will be worth tens of millions of dollars every quarter from now right up to Iowa. And the million is just a start: if he plays his cards right, that list will double, triple, even quadruple before Iowa.
If he doesn’t pull that “million” trick, he won’t have a million until Iowa (the signups will come in at an enviable rate, but not all at once). He will still raise a lot of money online, but not enough to out-do the massive fundraising power of…well, you know who.
But just you watch: He and his campaign manager are going to leave it to “the Internet guy” to sort out. And the problem isn’t that “the Internet guy” is not smartâ€â€in fact, he’s brilliant! But he’s not Obama. And he is not sitting in that inner circle. And, no, I don’t mean “senior staff”â€â€I mean the candidate’s kitchen table when he’s hammering out those giant decisions such as: “How do we launch?”
Let’s dream, and imagine that Obama did do the “million thing,” instantly growing an industrial-strength supporter base online. Then he will need to continue, everyday, to drive the communication with that base himself. (And this is something that all candidates need to hear.)
There is a standard form of political email communication that has been established in the world of non-profits and political campaignsâ€â€and it is death. I must confess that I’m one of the half-dozen or so people who brought this form into the position of total domination that it now holds. But before you hunt us down to punish us for the damage done to your inbox, please understand something: we were forced into that awful, soulless form of communicationâ€â€forced to send out all those crappy, disembodied emails because the candidates and their inner circles (on whatever past campaign) could not be bothered with something as “trivial” as emailâ€â€even when the email was going to millions of supporters, and raising tens of millions of dollars.
And the medium was still so new and fresh that we got away with it. Dear leaders, we “Internet people” did the best we could without your involvement. We raised a lot of money with those ridiculous emails signed in your names. But guess what? People hate them now. We scorched the Earth. There’s not one sucker left who will take seriously an email signed, “Barak” that’s actually written by Obama’s, “Internet guy.” OK, to be honest, there are a few suckers left. You will raise some money. But not enough. You need $100 million before Iowa. I bet you there’s not even $20 million for you if you do it the old, stupid way and simply bombard people’s inboxes with disingenuous, fake crap. And, as you know, $20 million isn’t enough this time around.
So, candidates, that leaves you with one option: write your own damn emails. And why not? You’re spending several hours each day right now doing “call time”â€â€harassing big donors for $4,400 checks. But how much do you actually raise per hour that way? $30,000? $40,000? But if you built a genuine relationship with your email list, then each email would be worth twice thatâ€â€even if you didn’t ask for money in the email (but only included a “donate” button at the bottom). And each time you actually ask, so long as you have a good reason, you’ll make millions per email.
Building a “genuine relationship” with your supporter base online doesn’t mean simply writing the same boring emails, but writing them yourself. No, it means writing to your supporters from the campaign trail in the same way that you might write to your spouse (without the smoochy stuff) or to a close friend: tell them the exciting things you experienced that day, what they made you think of, a joke you heard, and what occurred to you is really at stake. Some emails could be four pages, and some could be four sentences. Maybe sometimes you should just send a picture you snapped yourself.
If you write to people like that, I promise you, they will go nuts. You will have something amazing on your hands. And you will have taken politics up to a whole new level of honesty and integrity.
I’ve had a chance to make this pitch to many candidates and politicians over the last several years, but I’ve always felt like I was talking in a foreign language. I say, “Write to peopleâ€â€connect with peopleâ€â€yourself.” And they say, “So, what blogger king should I hire?”
But who knows, maybe Obama is the guy who will get it. After all, he used to be a community organizer. (Senator, can you remember the neighborhood leaders you worked with back then?â€â€back before you got surrounded by lobbyists, consultants and those cynical, hollow-headed people who make up so much of the political world? If so, then just write to write the emails as though you were writing to those leaders, and you’ll do a fantastic job of it. This is an amazing medium, and you, as an organizer, should be able to perform magic with it. Remember how, to get people to show up to the organizing committee meeting, you used to have to call many of the members individually? Remember the conversations you had with them? Remember how well you knew what made those people tickâ€â€and how you let them see inside you too? So, it’s the same thing here. You’re going to have these millions of supporters. But if you actually want all of them to work for you and donate too, then you’re going to have to connect with them one-on-one. The amazing thing, my fellow organizer, is that this new medium allows you to connect just as personally and just as directly as you used to on the phone and even at the doorâ€â€but with an unlimited number of people at one click of the “send” button.)
If candidates think they can outsource their emails to “Internet guys,” then why not outsource their role in ads to actors? When they do “call time” to large donors, why not use someone who does a good voice impersonation? You can’t outsource a real personal connection between yourself and your supporters. Come on people: you’re our leaders, this is a new medium for leadership, pick it up with your own two hands and see what you can do with it.
Put press picts on your web site 15 November, 2006
Posted by Zack in Online organizing.add a comment
Kos gives some compelling graphic examples of why it’s so important for campaigns to put great picts on their websites for download from the press. (Though I have to say, I’d feel a little funny voting for the guy in the third one.)
He gives an example of a good press page here.
Learn how to do it even better in 2008 8 November, 2006
Posted by Zack in Online organizing.add a comment
The big story you’re not getting in the post-election coverage is that in 2006, Democrats finally came up with an answer to Karl Rove’s get-out-the-vote “72 Hour Program.” Rove built a volunteer-driven machine from the ground up, backed by the full unity of a ruling Republican Party. The Democrat’s answer was was much harder to come by. But this year, finally all cylinders were firing at once — and what an amazing sight it was to see:
- Individual campaigns took field seriously by hiring some brilliant young field directors early, and investing serious time and resources into volunteer-driven organizing.
- State parties began to act like functional organizations thanks to Howard Dean’s reconstruction effort of the last two years.
- The Democratic party and outside groups got serious about data and micro-targeting, and got it right.
- MoveOn.org ran a massive GOTV phone mobilization program that called several times the margin of victory in most key races.
- A legion of smaller grassroots organizations all over the country (for example, the League of Young Voters) ran innovative voter registration and GOTV programs.
- Local groups of activists, forged in the 2004 campaigns of Dean, Kerry and others, brought unprecedented strength to the elections — with big help from several national grassroots organizations, Democracy for America first among them.
- The fruit of consistent work by training organizations such as Campaign Corps and Wellstone Action paid off in big, visible ways this cycle.
- Blogs and others sources of netroots power fought smart and hard in hand-to-hand combat with local press and Republican campaigns. (Kos, MyDD, TPM — but so many others too!)
- Politicians — like John Kerry, Maria Cantwell, and Bill Nelson — replicated the MoveOn/ActBlue fundraising slate model and raised millions for their colleagues. (MoveOn and ActBlue raised tens of millions directly for candidates — up to a third of total revenue for some candidates, miraculously closing the money gap with the Republicans.)
- And Democrats would have nothing to celebrate today if it wasn’t for the quiet bedrocks that they take for granted but which influence far more votes that everything else combined: the sophisticated and powerful AFL-CIO GOTV program; EMILY’s List’s deep pipeline of talented candidates; African-American base vote operations all over America — to name a few.
But look: with all that we did together, we still only just squeaked through. In 2008 — assuming another batch of Republican pedophiles don’t surface the week before the election — we’re going to have a much harder campaign. We’ve got to get better. We’ve got to refine what we just did. We’ve got to learn from each other, improve our systems and make two-year plans that start now for winning it all in 2008.
Here are some events where we can do that together as a movement. If you played a role in the 2006 elections, then you’re invited:
San Francisco. November 11-12
New York. November 18
Bloomington, IN. November 17-18
Columbus, OH. December 15
Washington, DC. December 2-3
These events (with the exception of DC — see below for details) are free and open to all progressives who participated in the 2004 or 2006 elections — or even those who plan on being a part of 2008. These are “open space” conferences that allow all participants to hold sessions about their speciality, to present findings, tell stories, or important questions. You attend only the sessions that interest you — and there is plenty of time for learning to take place in hallway conversations.
I suggested this idea to some colleagues a couple months ago and the idea has really gathered steam, with the New Organizing Instutute and Emerging Progressives taking the lead in organizing. I got the idea after attending a thing called “Foo Camp,” which is an important and fascinating gathering in the world of cutting edge Internet start ups (don’t ask me how I got invited). What makes the gathering so interesting is that people in all sorts of positions are free to learn all sorts of things directly from each other. In one session I attended, Amazon.com founder Jeff Besos was sitting to my left and a 16 year old hacker was sitting to my right. An MIT Engineering PhD student was teaching us, and 20 other people about some insane things none of us had ever thought about. The weekend was an endless flow of one fascinating conversation after another. Multi-billion dollar businesses and important non-profits have been born at this gathering over the few years it’s been going.
When I left, it occurred to me we really need something like that in politics — and also something like the open and decentralized gathering that spun off from Foo Camp (called “Bar Camp“…long story!). Bar Camps have been organized around the world, getting together similar kinds of groups everywhere from Austin, Texas to New Delhi to Shanghai.
Our Washington DC Roots Camps already has attracted an amazing mix of top political leaders as well as young (and young at heart) innovators from all levels of all kinds of organizations. Because of overwhelming interest, we’ve had to make the DC event invite-only. We did that to ensure places for a representative group of people who really distinguished themselves in the work they did in this cycle — and that includes everyone from candidates and campaign managers all the way “down” to local volunteers. The DC event is designed to be a unique opportunity for people at the “top” to learn from rock stars at the “bottom” of the campaign world — and, of course, visa versa.
After every election there are many debriefs and evaluations. But normally everyone present is from only the top couple of layers of leadership. The purpose of these unique debriefs is to bring together innovators from all levels of the election.
At RootsCamp, Tom McMahon, the executive director of the DNC, will be sitting alongside Democratic Party star precinct captains. Eli Pariser, the director of MoveOn.org, will be sitting along side star phone captains from MoveOn’s Call for Change Program. The people working on Dean’s DNC Voter File project and on the private voter file effort will be in the same room! Ned Lamont hasn’t confirmed yet, but I’m going to personally remind him that I reserved nedlamont.com for him two days after he announced he was running and hopefully that’ll get him. We all experience these campaigns from totally different perspectives. Roots camp is the place to get ourselves together to figure out how to do it better for ’08.
All sorts of wonderful, creative madness is going to take place at Roots Camp. So get yourself there: All you have to do is sign up at the links above.
Webcameron update! 2 October, 2006
Posted by Zack in Online organizing.add a comment
Webcameron update! I just watched Tory leader David Cameron’s latest video. And I have to say — while the first several videos of Dave doing dishes and bouncing around in a “green tuk-tuk” are begging to be parodied — these new ones are pretty solid.
There’s no question he’s on to something amazing here.
Watch this latest one. He’s speaking to the camera right after giving his big speech at the Tory Party conference (i.e. national convention). He makes some really good-sounding points. He’s really speaking from the heart. But God knows how the Conservatives will “really fix problems, not just send out a press release like labour does.”
THEN, at the end of that video, he has a remarkable conversation with his web guy. (Meet Sam Roake, the new 26-year-old wunderkind of British online politics.) When blogging and podcasting, politicians face all kinds of difficult questions: e.g how to respond to all the hundreds of comments?
So what does Cameron do? Has an on-camera discussion with the web guy about what the “community wants,” and puts it back on them to suggest the best way for him to interact within the confines of a busy schedule. Brilliant!
PS: Translations for the video…
- “Beetah” = Beta
- Diary = Schedule
- Party conference = National convention
- “Beuuhggy” = “Boggy” — in this case mushy.
Webcameron 2 October, 2006
Posted by Zack in Online organizing.1 comment so far
WOW! I mean, really — WOW.
It’s TOO much actually. If telling us “what’s up with the Conservative Party” is so important, then why do the dishes at the same time? This is the kind of train wreck I fear might happen if a politician actually read my article on communicating with voters authentically.
We KNOW there’s a director there telling Dave’s kids when to yell “dahh-dy” and when to hush up. It’s…well, as my wife just said watching it over my shoulder: “painful to watch.”
But it sure does blow all other political podcasting out of the water in terms of the risks that it takes. Please, someone, parody this! Any British Labour donor out there want to write me a small check — and I’ll arrange something great. I’m thinking: instead of Cameron’s children, have miniature Conservative old codgers running around screaming for his attention as he frantically tries to do the Tory dirty laundry. I promise I’ll find real upper class Brits so you won’t have to listen to any American attempts at your accents.
