And as this semester of Digital Campaigns comes to a close, I thought this article is a perfect adieu. A start-up from former Google engineers is gunning for Google’s search dominance.

Cuil Inc (pronounced “cool”) is offering a new search service at http://www.cuil.com that the company claims can index, faster and more cheaply, a far larger portion of the Web than Google, which boasts the largest online index. Cuil has indexed a whopping 120 billion Web pages, three times more than what they say Google now indexes, Patterson said, adding the company has spent just $5 million.

So what does this all mean? Well, for starters, anyone who is gunning for Google has to have brass balls. They are massive (Google, not the balls, which would also have to be massive). They are a Website that became a verb for Christsake! As I wrote about previously, they have the Googlebot! They are so huge that I will not link to their Webpage because if you don’t know what Google is, just give me a call and I’ll come over and hit in the head with a hammer cuz you’re stupid! It just seems to me that going after Google would be a daunting task. OK, so Cuil was created by former Google engineers, which presupposes that they know how Google works. And they’ve already indexed 120 billion Web pages. That’s a few more than I read this week for my final project.

But seriously, in my mind it’s not important that somebody is trying to fight Google. What is important is the relevance of search and how it relates to digital campaign strategy and online business in general. Search can make or break a company, a candidate, an entity, whatever. It’s about your brand. If people can’t find your brand, or the first hit they get is negative, you’ve lost. As practitioners of new media, it is our responsibility to help improve search and maintain a strong online brand reputation. The Internet has gone miles to give voters an impression of their candidates, and what the voters can find is often kept in perpetuity. It is hard to hide from what was posted years ago. Somebody will always find it. Search will always be important, but more important will be what is kept out of search. Ahhhh, think about it.

And to end, here’s the final song quote of the semester that fits today’s mood.

“Oh your collegiate grief has left you dowdy in sweatshirts/absolute horror!”

Vampire Weekend “One (Blake’s Got a New Face)”

Granted I don’t have a sweatshirt on because it’s been in the 90s. But I do have the same t-shirt I’ve worn for the past 2 days. And I could really use a shower. And a detox from caffeine. And some sleep. Collegiate grief indeed.

The countdown? Two more classes, one project done to be handed in tonight, one more huge paper due Wednesday at 7:40 pm. Completion thus far? Ummmm, do ideas count as part of completion?

And here’s your pop culture reference to the blog post title

Unfortunately, I can’t embed the video because it’s been removed from YouTube, but here’s a link anyway.

www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/snl-more-cowbell.html

So Obama and his people know everything that you do. Actually, McCain and his people know what you do too. Don’t be scared though. They only want to help you. Microtargeting and datamining, similar, but not exactly the same, are nothing new. Politicking has really embraced datamining and targeting so they can try to get your vote, and/or your contribution, but the practice has been used for years, by all kinds of industries. As discussed in Applebee’s America, casino’s do it too. Through the use of loyalty cards, Harrah’s Casino used targeting to learn about and market to its customers

Harrahs’s knows all customer’s age, sex, zip code, and other demographics, as well as how much they bet and win when they play in the casino. It’s LifeTargeting Vegas-style (p. 75).

So all of this data gets crunched, analyzed, and used to help whomever is requesting the information. And it keeps getting bigger and bigger. As the article states

The 5 million people on Obama’s e-mail list are just the start of what political strategists say is one of the most sophisticated voter databases ever built. . . . . It’s an ambitious melding of corporate marketing and grassroots organizing that the Obama campaign sees as a key to winning this fall.

This giant database will allow strategists to target and drill down as deep as they want to find out every little habit and custom of any group of people.

By collecting their own data, then bouncing it against publicly available information like Census reports, voter registration files and other databases, Obama aides can slice the electorate up almost any way they want.

I’ve read the various studies that state that, “a white male from Sheboygan with a masters degree will drink Miller High Life while listening to the Stones.” (I just made that up, but it might be true.) And while I might see some patterns that fit me, I honestly believe that microtargeting does not have a fix on me just yet. Must be those aliases I use. There’s micotargetting, and then there’s WOW microtargetting

For example, aides can track what time you open e-mails from them, and if you show a consistent pattern, they’ll start sending them at around that time of day. “The marginal benefit of sending some people an email at 2 o’clock vs. 3 o’clock vs. 4 o’clock might not make sense [at first],” said Michael Bassik, a Democratic consultant with MSHC Partners.

When the campaign knows what time I open my email, that’s when it gets a little scary to me. And it definitely appears that the Obama people are really perfecting the capabilities of targeting. Though it’s been used before by other campaigns and corporations, there is a new depth that most people probably never would have fathomed. Which kind of makes me scared for what the future might bring!

“It’s not an innovative campaign, but it’s an extraordinarily professional one,” said Zephyr Teachout, who ran Dean’s online organizing. “They’ve taken all our stupid ideas and made them smart.”

I read this article from Business Week today and watched the accompanying videos that went with it. Granted, in the morning I usually quickly scan a story and then read it in depth later. The article is good, but it’s not the important point here. As I scanned the article, I watched the first video and thought it was a funny “love letter” to Obama from some psychotic fan. It is, but it’s from the McCain camp (you can also view the video on his Website). Watch the video below. So what’s it about? I thought it was a humorous look at how the media is gay for Obama. It shows TV journalists, like Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews, swooning for him. At the end of the video, you see the stamp “Paid for by John McCain 2008.”

Now, I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, poli sci degree notwithstanding: 1) I don’t particularly care for politics and 2) I don’t fully understand politics. If the average person out there views this video, there is no indication that it is from John McCain (unless you watch til the bitter end and see the campaign stamp). Apparently, the message has something to do with McCain whining that the media likes Obama better. Guess what? That might NOT be what the video is about, but that’s what I got out of it. As Joe Average viewer, if that’s what I’m getting out of it, chances are others are too. As the article states

This new “Obama Love” video from the McCain campaign may tickle the nutsy Sean Hannity crowd. But I’m thinking it spells “loser” to independents. C’mon, McCain is bitching because Obama is a better communicator? Because the media is paying extra attention to the first African-American candidate with a serious shot at The White House? One wonders what ads and videos McCain and Schmidt might have run in primary ads if he was up against McCain’s hero Ronald Reagan.

So is this a bit of reverse psychology?? Are we supposed to feel bad for McCain because the media doesn’t love him as much? Damned if I know. Is this supposed to be an ironic video? Again, damned if I know because nobody knows what irony is anyway. (I do know that it’s NOT “like ra-ai-in on your wedding day.”) I guess the moral of the story is that the communications people who pull the strings for the candidates ought to think a little harder about how their message will be perceived. Because as far as I can tell from this video, McCain, like the news journalists, is gay for Obama. Did I get the message right, McCain camp?

BTW–if you don’t get the “gay for” reference, brush up on your Simpsons quotes.

Wow. The excitement today just never ends. Read this story on my other blog to see how my day started. But wait! The boss hits just keep coming. I broke 1,000 visitors to this blog. I was kind of hoping that balloons would fall from my ceiling or perhaps I’d get a free smoked salmon, but alas, nothing.  Oh well. I’ll keep writing. You keep reading, and we’ll aim for that salmon together.

A co-worker sent me this article on Friday. It’s about people getting screwed because of something they posted to social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace. In this case, 

Two weeks after Joshua Lipton was charged in a drunken driving crash that seriously injured a woman, the 20-year-old college junior attended a Halloween party dressed as a prisoner. Pictures from the party showed him in a black-and-white striped shirt and an orange jumpsuit labeled “Jail Bird.”

The result: The prosecutor presented Lipton as “unrepentant”, and the judge sentenced him to 2 years of prison.

We’ve all heard stories about people getting in trouble when somebody Google’s their name, or perhaps they lose a job offer because HR found something salacious online. But going to prison over photos is new. One of my favorite stories is from a buddy of mine who worked on Wall St. A few years ago, his banking firm hired a new college grad. My friend and his co-workers Googled the kids name and the first hit was a police blotter story about him getting arrested for public urination at his college. HR didn’t fire him or anything like that, but he did get ribbed by his co-workers for being busted for pissing.

It seems like you hear more and more stories about people not getting hired because of bad online pictures or posts, so moral of the story is to keep yourself in check. Those cleavage shots while pounding tequila in Cancun might be fun to share with your friends, but the firm you applied to might not like them as much. Mind your online reputation people. Social networking could bite you in the ass. 

As the semester of Digital Campaigns draws to a close (thankfully only two more weeks left–I’m simply not cut out for summer classes!), I’ve been thinking about all the new information and media that is available to people. I’m relatively apolitical, but I’ve actually kept up on what is going on during this election. (I’ll try not to break my arm patting my own back.) Because media now includes “new” media, “social” media, “digital” media, and Web 2.0 in general, anybody running a campaign must be sure to include these new avenues in their fight. Because I enjoy new media, the campaigns have been able to talk to me.

Just as campaigns of old had to rely on what was then the ”new” media, such as radio and television, to reach their audiences, young people must now be reached via online content. I read this headline in a press release last week, “Mochila and BarelyPolitical Team Up to Drive Awareness of Online Political Coverage Among Generation Y Web Users. Young Voters Driving Engagement and Increased Traffic to Online Political Sites.” The release included stats from a Pew study that reinforce just how important online campaigning has become:

A December 2007 survey from the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that more and more young voters are flocking online to get informed and engage with others about the campaign. Two-thirds of Web users under 30 said they use social networking sites for campaign news, compared to only 20 percent from older age groups. Plus, 40 percent of those surveyed under the age of 30 have watched candidate speeches, interviews, commercials or debates online, substantially more than other demographics.

So, this blog here had a good point about whether social media experts are the new Webmasters (i.e., on the road to becoming obsolete). Because I missed the dotcom boom and bust, all I can think is, “Dammit! Too late to the party again?” No matter. I think the future will be people who actually remember how to write and speak face to face. We’ll be needed to fight the robots. Interestingly, it appears that social media experts should have jobs for at least a while longer as we study digital campaigning. Consider that campaigns are just in their infancy of Web 2.0. Yes, digital campaigns all began in 2004 with the Howard Dean campaign, and yes, there have been great strides, but seriously, campaigning is barely scratching the surface of what Web 2.0 has to offer.

The current presidential race has embraced digital media, but it was mostly the Democrats who took off with it. The Republicans were slow to come to the party, and that ultimately can be a big factor in the election. If you look at Obama’s campaign Website, he is indeed everywhere. If there’s a social media application to use, he’s using it. As Cyrus Krohn, Director of the Republican National Committee’s eCampaign Division, informed us in our class, “Republican leadership was slow to embrace technology.” Now they’re playing catch-up. There are many tools out there being used for campaigning, and anyone who studies new/social/digital media knows that micro- and moblogging will really come to the forefront in the upcoming months and years. Twitter anyone? Yeah, everyone is using it now. For class, I just created a digital campaign strategy for Mark Begich, Mayor of Anchorage, Alaska. He’s running against Ted “Tubes” Stevens for U.S. Senator. Anyway, Begich, whose digital campaigning is pretty solid, uses Twitter. Earthshattering? No. But consider that a mayor in Alaska is using it for his Senate bid, and think about all the other seats for Senate, the House, local government, etc. Lots of opportunities for Twitter and the rest of Web 2.0. So I think that social media experts will have jobs for a while.

And here’s some fun stuff about Google Maps.

A couple weeks ago, I had a solid string of classes because we had a couple of speakers. First off, Michael Silberman, National Meetup Director from Howard Dean’s presidential bid, came to speak to our Digital Campaigns class. Michael had written a chapter, called “The Meetup Story”, in the book Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope by Zephyr Teachout and Thomas Streeter, et al. What struck me first is that Michael is younger than me–probably at least by 8 years. That is weird because I’m used to being talked to by somebody older than me. He even makes a reference to his age in his chapter

“Without fail, the first words out of my new acquaintance’s mouth would be “Oh, I can’t believe how young you are!”

Of course our professor is younger too, but I’ll let that slide. The reality is that it was the people who are Micheal’s age that really got Web 2.0 and new media off the ground. I’m late to the game.

Anyway, it was pretty cool to hear about a particular function of a campaign by somebody who had been there and worked that campaign. The best takeaways that I got were as follows:

1. Using a tool like Meetup often comes about in a true grassroots function. It seems like many ideas do indeed come from grassroots. Though technology is important, don’t forget the basics.
2. A major challenge was trying to straddle traditional and online engagement. The Dean folks had to come into a town without actually being there. Goes to show that it is important to align yourself with others that you can trust who can act in your stead.
3. The Web is mostly effective for the challenger, not the front runner. Challengers have less to lose and are more willing to take chances.
4. Be cautious of what you put into a campaign. Your heart and soul must be in it or people will know you’re not being sincere. And your campaign will fail.

The other speaker I saw that week was in my Digital Communications Strategies class. Dan Solomon, co-author (along with Brian Reich) of Media Rules! Mastering Today’s Technology, spoke to us about HOW to get our organizations to listen and implement the strategies we create. We’re reading the book in class and it has a zippy tone to it that makes you want to yell at your boss because he or she doesn’t get it. When Dan spoke, you really could understand why the writing moves as it does. He’s got fire!

The takeaways were

1. Think about the framework of how the new thing should work.
2. Time horizons are important-don’t wait so long that you become irrelevant.
3. Learn from extreme examples. What really drives change?

• Need to be social and connected
• Meeting of survival needs
• Irrational fear

(Those last three bullets really should be taken to heart to help get across your ideas to your boss or co-workers.)

4. Content is different over different media, depending on your technique. You need to think about your media before you implement a plan.

5. People need to work together, but often fail. Why? People won’t cooperate and share.

Those major points reinforce what happens when a plan is actually tried. If the Dean campaign folks had been resistant to trying Meetup, they would have lost a huge opportunity to get the word out. Luckily, they were able to take a then-revolutionary idea and make it work. Solomon drove home the point that you can’t know if something will work unless you try it. Unfortunately, many of us have to answer to somebody else and don’t get the chance to try. Web 2.0 is growing, and yet there are numerous organizations that are behind on using it. If these groups do not at least try to implement a new tool, they will never know if it works. That sounds pretty basic and obvious, right? Well then why are there still so many organizations resistant to change? The Dean folks began a revolutionary movement in digital campaigns that is bigger today than they probably ever imagined. And the reason was that people had the vision to use technology and the higher ups allowed them to do so. If we could all be so lucky at our workplaces!

Here’s a little taste of the excitement that we could all use

So, the class assignment for the week is to discuss whether James Kotecki, aka Emergency Cheese, was a journalist prior to his joining The Politico. Further, we are asked “What’s the difference between what he was doing in his dorm room and what Chris Matthews does on Hardball?” (Aside to Garrett: Please think of a new way to phrase that next time. I prefer not to think about what people are doing in their dorm rooms.)

In his own words, Kotecki states

I’ve gone from being very skeptical about the media to seeing a lot more of it to now being part of it. It’s been a really interesting transition. I have a much more nuanced view of it. The way that the market is structured I realize why they ask the questions they do, why they feel like they have to ask the most obvious questions because most people are hearing these answers for the first time.

Anyway, let’s start with the second part of the question. Frankly, aside from dribs and drabs of it, I’ve never really seen Hardball, so I have no idea if Kotecki is similar to Matthews. I HAVE seen the spoofs of Hardball on Saturday Night Live and those make me laugh, so in that regard, yes, Kotecki is similar to Matthews. Darrell Hammond does a great Chris Matthews. But seriously, I get the premise of Hardball, and yes, Kotecki is doing the same thing. In fact he’s doing what any pundit does–take a topic, an issue, a person, and dissects and discusses. That is the point behind analysis. Kotecki simply happens to do his version from a dorm room while using a computer and video camera. Matthews has a studio and a TV crew. Otherwise, they are both accomplishing the same goal.

Which leads to the other part of the question: Was Kotecki a journalist? I would argue that yes, he was. First, let’s visit our old friend Wikipedia for a definition

A journalist (also called a newspaperman) is a person who practises journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people.

Does Kotecki accomplish that? Yes. He views current videos on YouTube, disseminates the information, and then discusses it with his own video response. Sounds like journalism to me. So why is there even a question about it? Well, as mentioned above, Kotecki was making his videos from his dorm room. Traditionalists will argue that that does not constitute real journalism because Kotecki is just a person who likes politics and discusses them from his room, while videotaping himself. They may argue that it is a form of fanaticism, not journalism. But the key idea is that because of the advent of social media, Kotecki is in the vanguard of what would be “new” journalism. He is conducting a conversation using the new mediums that are available to all of us. He took citizen journalism to a professional level by voicing his opinions. Hell, he managed to get Ron Paul to come to his dorm for an interview!! If that’s not journalism, then I don’t know what is. See the video below

And what of social media? It’s a new frontier. Anyone can be a journalist, videographer, photographer, writer, or whatever they want. Social media has changed the rules so that everyone has a chance to get into the game.

As my hero and savior, Hunter S. Thompson, said, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.” Some people still say that social media is weird–well, here’s the perfect opportunity to turn it pro. Kotecki did with his video analysis.

After weeks and weeks of fighting with Comcast, a compromise was finally reached and I received home Internet. It doesn’t mean that Comcast does not still suck royally, but at least I can now finish my blog entry that I started almost a month ago comparing left vs. blue blogs. To refresh, I picked FireDogLake (FDL) and Redstate for the study. So here, in summary format, is the findings of what made news between July 1 and July 4, 2008.

Day 1

Redstate included a number of slams agains the following: a Democrat congressman, Obama, and Harry Reid. And the Dems were slammed for being bad on oil. Sen Hutchison wrote a post about sanctions against Iran for nuclear violations. Fundraising was discussed fundraising, which is a big issue during the campaign, to be sure. The most interesting post discussed how this election won’t be fun because it will be a “fishbowl” election. There will be a great deal of scrutiny of the comments made by the candidates, and everyone with access to the Internet can join in by viewing videos on YouTube. An interesting note in the post states that YouTube was founded in February 2005,

Which means that Bush/Kerry was the last American Presidential election in history where a politician’s contradictory statements could not be disseminated by his or her opponent across the country instantly, comprehensively, and for free.

There was also an interesting story about Google’s attempt at socialism, which included this quote

Google is the Obama of corporations — it issues small platitudes about “Internet for everyone” and expects the collective Web 2.0 community to faint.

Also, be sure to read this post about comments made by retired General Wes Clark about McCain’s military service. And then take a look at this satirical post referring to the same topic. The FDL version is pretty funny.

Firedoglake had a couple of stories about FISA, some information about nuclear programs, oil, medicare, and Guantanamo detainees. FISA was one of the biggest sticking points on FDL. The issue deals with surveillance and immunity of telephone companies. Another big article deals with And so after one day, it appears that one major difference between FDL and Redstate is that FDL has many more issues-based posts. Things that would be of interest to the average man or woman–health, rights, liberty, etc. We’ll see if this continues to hold true.

Day 2

While reading for Day 2, I decided on a new tact for this assignment–I’ll read the posts, decide if anything is overly “out there”, figure out the differences in reporting between the two and try to figure out the relevance.

Redstate predicted a flip by Obama about his opposition to the war, and they end the quote by stating that not to call him on it because “If you do, you are a dirty racist.” Interesting tact. Even more evident is that Redstate practices pretty strong mudslinging, as well as some strong opinionated comments (i.e., “The man is a compulsive befriender of dirtbags. His campaign excels at having dirtbag surrogates.”). They also decided to write about his mortgage. Also, there is a lot more about retired General Wes Clark’s comments about McCain’s military service. And more accusationsof Obama flip flopping–this time about trade.

FDL had an interesting post about the “Politics of the Prius.” Something about waterboarding. More about FISA. And again, they cover health, mortgages, and civil liberties. Interestingly, one of the regular contributors (Spencer Ackerman) posted about a friend (Brian Beutler) of his who got shot. The comments are even more interesting because people took a post about real-life drama and used it as a sounding board to rally for better health insurance in America.

Day 3

Redstate had a couple of stories about the rescue of the hostages freed by FARC in Columbia. And of course, criticism of Obama. Senator Thompson posted a speech he was going to give. And more criticism of Obama flip flopping on an issue (this time around it was about getting out of Iraq).

FDL reported that adult Websites are seeing an upswing in business since the economic stimulus checks began arriving. They also summarized some of the news that was also on Redstate (FARC, McCain’s staff shake ups, etc.). Added more about FISA. And there was a good article about the loss of jobs that the US will be facing.

Day 4

And so begins the Fourth of July. RDL gets all patriotic on our collective asses and rallies the troops to do something patriotic. They also give us some celebratory FISA. And this tribute to Jesse Helms.

Redstate began with a large post about Obama’s alleged flip flopping. There was also a vastly different bit of coverage of the death of Jesse Helms. There was also some patriotism in the form of a post by a soldier and a mass re-enlistment of soldiers in Iraq.

So what’s it all about? Well, as stated above FDL and Redstate are vastly different. Redstate definitely seems to engage a bit more of the chest thumping and extremism. FDL is only slightly less biased, but seems to be a bit more even handed. Bias is obviously the name of the game if you’re writing about politics. If you’re a Dem, you’re going to be biased towards your party, same goes for GOP. But as stated, Redstate takes it to a different level. FDL likes to focus more on the human-interest type stories, namely the things that most Dems are concerned about (good life, health care, equality, etc.). Regardless of bias, both sites do a good job of presenting the views of their respective parties. Ultimately, that will provide the interest that people are looking for that will make them want to continue reading.