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.

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

Below are a couple interesting items regarding Web 2.0 that I found interesting today.

1) Humorous look (albeit sadly accurate!) at the maladies of social media addicts.

Seven psychological complaints of bloggers and social media addicts, from the Online Journalism Blog

2) I like this post from daylife, about the impact and trends in social media, because it includes an article from July 16, 2004, when blogging and social media were still in their infancy. Read the article if you have a chance. There is also a link to a study by Universal McCann called, “Power to the People Social Media Tracker. Wave.3″ It’s an 80-page study, and I’ve barely scratched the surface of it, but so far it’s very informative and useful.

3) I’ve been following this news to see what happens next: The Coast Guard is getting ready to “lay out their policy for blogs and other new media.” Read here for more on it. I’m always interested to see how the various armed forces branches, and other government entities, handle social media. I’ve been busy writing new-media policies (blogging, YouTube, and Wikipedia so far) for the branch that flies and it’s kind of an uphill battle. Just when we think that we have a fair policy that abides by OPSEC guidelines, something else changes and it’s back to the drawing board. So I’m curious if the Coast Guard will have a fair shake and if the OPSEC folks there have been reading the Internet discussions about DoD guidelines and the opinions of the people who serve.

Overall, I guess a way to wrap this up is in terms of the article cited above from 2004. We are now in 2008 and people are still afraid of social media. You would think that more has changed in 4 years. Web 2.0 itself has certainly changed, but opinions are still slow to adapt. That makes the successful implementation of Web 2.0 applications a real challenge. Everybody wants to throw around buzzwords and scream out “We need a presence on YouTube!!!!” or “Where’s our MySpace page?????” But when you go in and try to create that presence or page and you are blocked from doing so, isn’t it a bit counterintuitive? I think it is. So perhaps this is my plea to network security admins, OPSEC folks, IA, and anybody else who makes decisions on what to block from a network–DON’T FEAR WEB 2.0!! It’s not that scary and your network will not break. If you’re really worried, allow us to download Firefox. Or better yet, include it on our desktops. And if you’re trying to block information and applications from the rank and file, always remember that we have ways of working around most of the basic blockages with a little creative engineering.

Our Social Media class is in an interesting timeframe right now considering 1) the professor wrote a book about the Web as it relates to the race for the White House, and 2) that race is currently being run. So what does it mean? The notion that campaigns are reliant on the Web is lost on people like my parents who still don’t have a computer (believe it or not). But here’s another realization: campaigns now need the Web to reach their audience, but there are still millions of Americans who have no connection to the Internet. According to InternetWorldStats, 69.7% of Americans (approx. 211 million people) use the Internet, with 19.3% of those being broadband users. Now, that’s a lot of people with Internet access, but the percentage that use broadband is pretty low, considering that much of Web 2.0 and rich media requires broadband. And then there are the people who have no access at all.

So what to make of it. Well, I believe that the candidates are really using the Web to their advantage and running the first campaigns of the new era, as discussed in the book. But as powerful as a Web presence is, there will always be the need to press the flesh and run a traditional campaign. The privileged class (in this case I mean anyone who has Internet access) is able to see and hear all the latest and greatest regarding the campaigns and they are able to be participants. They can blog, create and/or watch videos, participate in MeetUps, and make online donations. The rest of the people then must still pack the auditoriums or town hall meetings, make a donation via face to face stumping opportunities, or worst of all, remain oblivious to what is happening. And that is a scary realization because obliviousness leads to complacency and nonvoting.

What it boils down to is that racing to the White House via the Web is important. There is no doubt to that fact. But, and so far it hasn’t happened, the candidates cannot abandon the non-Internet, non-tech constituents and voters. The next election is in 2012. The Web will have boomed even more by then (think Web 3.0 and IPv6), but there will still be millions of Americans without the means, or perhaps the desire, to be connected. And that is why I think that for all the technology that exists, traditional campaigning will always still be of great importance and relevance. We’re just going to see a lot more online tactics in the future. Perhaps a candidate can try to help the unconnected masses get to a point where they too can get online. Hey, we can dream, right? 

Any proper discussion of the burgeoning Web 2.0 scene has to include a discussion of politics, especially in light of the current election year. We are discussing online politics and the affect of new technology on campaigning in class right now. Our class is taught by Garrett M. Graff, who was a driving factor in creating Howard Dean’s web presence during Dean’s push for the 2004 presidency. Graff wrote a book entitled “The First Campaign” about that race. (Garrett, do I get extra credit for shilling your book??!!) Anyway, the details of the Dean campaign are relevant because it is amazing to see how much of the presidential race is run on the Internet. The 2004 campaign was a great start to what has become one of the most important politicking tools.

One thing that amazes me is that I only vaguely remember the Dean campaign’s online push (sorry, Garrett!). It’s not that I don’t rememember it, I guess it’s that it seemed so logical that it would be online. I guess if I try to think back to 2003, everything seemed to be online already. Napster had come and gone, blogs were getting somewhat popular, and MoveOn.org was a major force and a source of political information. The big factor though was that you could see every move that happened as it happened. And I think that’s where the online political movement really shined. The fact that people could mobilize for a cause was also a huge consideration. The use of MeetUps meant that people could rally together simply by checking out a Website. That kind of speed and organization was never available in previous campaigns.

I remember one of my co-workers showing me Dean’s site at the time. This guy was about 6 or 7 years older than me and was just starting to come into his own technologically speaking. But I remember when he told me how happy he was that he could donate to Dean’s campaign and get his news online. A few weeks later he received his campaign materials in the mail (bumper sticker and whatnot) and he was so pleased! I nodded my head and probably went back to reading up about Phish (who also had a very important Web presence). See, the problem is that I’m one of the most apolitical people I know. I just take so little interest in American poliitics that it kind of boggles even my mind. Hell, I have a B.A. in Political Science for Christ’s sake!! One would think I have more interest, but no. Anyway, the notion of indifference has gotten me thinking as we study online politics. 

So, can all the new technological bells and whistles help people take a more active roll in and care more about politics? I’m not sure. To an extent, yes, but I also think the people who want to be reached will be reached. Those who don’t will still be inactive. Because of a constant barrage of online news about the presidential campaign I do read more about politics, so maybe the bigger picture will help people like me take bigger steps later down the road.

So a big buzz blog going around currently (oh daaaaaamnnnn, did you feel that alliteration? Awwww yeah. . . ) discusses how much time social media takes out of your day. (The intial post I read on the subject was on ReadWriteWeb (click above), and it referenced the original post.)  According to the post, I am a Community Director. While I feel I’m not qualified to direct traffic (which I actually did for a summer in Connecticut), I guess the amount of time I put on Web 2.0 does make me a director of sorts. I’m the technology lead for our new media group at work and I start new Web 2.0 applications from scratch. That’s directing, right?

Here’s the main thing though. Between the hours spent working Web 2.0 for work and personal time, it really adds up. As an example, today I was researching Wikipedia for work. Between checking various entries on the site, reading policies and other information, and emailing other people I know to get their opinions on the subject, 3+ hours had passed. And I’m still not done. Damn! I’m supposed to be cleaning my desk to move to a new office tomorrow! The time suck that Web 2.0 can create is staggering. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy it, but I’m scared of any new technology at this point because I can’t handle any more commitment. That’s part of the reason I haven’t signed up for Twitter yet. I just feel that Twitter would really begin to take my time.

To that end, I’ve always wanted to list for myself the various ways I connect online or in some electronic way. Without further ado

1. Work email
2. Company email (different than work)
3. School email
4. Yahoo email
5. Second Yahoo email account
6. Google email (rarely used)
7. Yahoo chat
8. Work chat (rarely used)
9. Facebook
10. LinkedIn
11. MySpace page for work
12. YouTube page for work (x2)
13. Wikipedia page for work
14. Blogs (x2)
15. del.icio.us entries
16. Communities of Practice at work (x5)
17. Work Website for which I’m the Webmaster/Content Manager
18. Text messaging on Cell phone
19. Discussion boards (x2)
20. Internal work wiki

I feel like it’s confessional here! These forays into Web 2.0 (and other general technology) barely scratch the surface for some people. But as you can see, Social Media, New Media, Web 2.0, whatever you want to call it, all takes a lot of time. And it gets harder and harder to figure out how to plan that time accordingly.

Monday I got to hear Randy Covington, Director of the Ifra Newsplex at University of South Carolina, speak at a new media workshop that I organized for the Air Force and Army. He showed us a lot of great examples of some of the new media techniques that Websites (particularly news sites) are incorporating to keep material fresh. A lot of the more memorable examples incorporate a nice mix of the Web 2.0 applications we’ve learned about, without going overboard.

One part of the workshop that I found fascinating was when he showed us graphics of how the human eye reads a Website. I found this particularly helpful as a Web developer and even used it today during a Webpage re-design. The Poynter Institute does a project called Eyetrack, which tracks how people view Websites. They use headsets to see what we see. I found it pretty surprising. The graphic below shows how the eye starts at the top-left quadrant and then takes a z-shaped trajectory before exiting up and to the top right. The Website has tons of great information that can be really helpful if you work in Web design, or just want to understand more about Webpages and viewer habits.

We the Media by Dan Gillmor was a great starting place for looking into the world of Web 2.0 and social media. Thanks to an open source where everybody can throw in their opinion, people have become citizen journalists and the Web has become their outlet. The appeal is that everybody can contribute their thoughts, or they can sit back and read what others have to say. Plus, you can do all this while remaining anonymous if you so desire. That is a huge draw for many people. Traditional media used to be available in limited format (i.e., print newspaper) available only to people who lived in certain areas. Now everybody has access to everything that is put on the Web. There are no more boundaries limiting people. There are also new kinds of media. Instead of being limited to the writings of the New York Times or Washington Post, people can now check out a blog on any topic of their liking and read what others are saying. This is liberating for people. And if those people want to write their own blogs on a topic, they now have the means to let everybody know how they feel.

I for one use media daily. Whether it’s listening to a radio station from Seattle, or reading the news from London, LA, and Buffalo, I have unlimited resources at my fingertips. I can even use these resources to conduct research to help me with my job. Plus it’s much easier to collaborate with colleagues in other cities using Web 2.0. Wikis are a perfect example of a resource that has made it easier to collaborate on a work project. Everyone can add their input regardless of time zone.  I generally read both traditional media (in the form or newspapers, books, and magazines) and new media. For example, I subscribe to the Washington Post, but I also read articles online. There is still something I enjoy about the tangibility of a real paper or magazine.

Overall, I believe that citizen journalism has been one of the most important outcomes of advances in Web technology. Nothing is kept in the dark for too long, and news comes faster and with more opinions. If used responsibly, that is a powerful tool.

During the course of the SMICC Web 2.0 conference, speakers have been using the current political race as an example of using new technology. The fact that yesterday was Super Tuesday also gave the discussions more relevance. One speaker mentioned how Obama’s campaign was able to raise millions of dollars by receiving a huge number of little donations. Those little donations quickly added up. This success was, of course, Web driven. That same speaker also mentioned how much the use of the Internet for campaigns has blossomed since the Dean campaign. So fear not, the trailblazers from the Dean days are still remembered

 What else about politics? Here’s an interesting take on what I learned the other night. (And before I begin, these are not my opinions or views. I am merely reporting anecdotal facts from conversations with people.) Monday night I ended up bar hopping with some waiters and bartenders that I met while eating dinner. All in all a very nice bunch of people and we had a blast (though my body didn’t think so the next day!).  Just for some context, here is the makeup of the group. 3 women (white) and 4 men (one Frenchman, one Chinese immigrant, one Mexican who was born in the US, one white). Of the men, one couldn’t vote because he isn’t a US citizen, and the other wasn’t going to vote for reasons known only to him. Every one of these folks were registered Democrats and were very adamant about voting in the Tuesday elections. None of the women were fans of Hillary and didn’t want her to represent the female gender. And in general, all 7 were of the opinion that the US is not ready for either a) a woman president, or b) an African-American president.

Three other women I spoke to at my conference also mentioned that they don’t like the fact that Hillary could be the woman who represents women. They don’t like her stance and find her to be a bad representation of women. Again, these opinions all came from Democrats. I found this very interesting. Of these women, one just got her citizenship last year (she’s Filipino) and was very excited to vote. She told me a great story: When she went to her citizenship ceremony last year she was sitting next to a couple of other women who were being sworn in. One excitedly asked the other, “Are you going to vote now that you’re a legal citizen?” The lady responded, “No.” The first lady was incredulous and told her that she HAS to vote now because it’s her duty as an American citizen.

I enjoyed that because it shows that the folks who work to legally get the right to vote (immigrants, etc.) take it as an honor that they should vote. I believe too many Americans get too complacent about the notion of voting and shirk their duties.  As we all hear and everyone should believe: If you don’t vote, you have ZERO right to voice your opinion about what’s wrong with America. Get out there and get your free sticker and then you can bitch about how the man is keeping you down.

1. Web 2.0 is very relevant to the campaign
2. Dean and his aides are still seen as trailblazers
3. People should vote
4. Anchor Steam is a great beer.

Thank you. This has been your public service announcement for the day.

I arrived in San Fran Sunday for the Social Media for Internal Communications Conference–How to Engage Employees, Drive Change and Improve Your Bottom Line Using Blogging, Podcasting, and the Latest Web 2.0 Technologies. Yeahhhh, that’s a mouthful. For now we’ll just call it SoMeInComCon HoEnEmDrChImpBottLinUsBloPodLatWeb2.0. Still too long? Alright. I’m going either with SoMeInComCon or SMICC. That’ll work.  

Until I have a little more time to get into the specifics of what’s been discussed so far, I’ll just give a few generalizations that I’ve noticed

1. The Web 2.0 community is tight-knit insofar as the “gurus” on the subject. A number of the books from our class have been mentioned over and over. There’s been mention of “Search”, ”The Long Tail”, ”Wikinomics”, and “The Wisdom of Crowds” to name a few
2. A lot of people (or their companies) are using Web 2.0, or they want to start using it, but not a lot of people know how!   Why? It’s new, it’s constantly changing, and a lot of people are afraid. These have been the constant refrains I’ve heard in the sessions.
3. Ahh, that reliable standby from The Cluetrain Manifesto: Markets are conversations! If no other point has been driven home so far, #1 from the Manifesto certainly has been. Everything related to Web 2.0 is a conversation. Whether between your company and your customers/clients, or between employees, or between management and employees, conversations are key. You have to talk and listen, otherwise Web 2.0 and Social Media/Networking will not work.

 Those are just a couple of the notables. One speaker really hit home a point that I enjoyed. He was describing how the Mayo Clinic is maintaining brand awareness through use of Web 2.0. He said, “To NOT use Facebook and the other new media out there would be a form of media malpractice.” I enjoyed that. My interpretation is that if you’re not trying some of the hundreds of Web 2.0 applications that are out there, you really are missing the boat and performing an injustice to your company, your clients, and yourself.

The hard part though is using the applications correctly and in a way that is beneficial. Trial and error is another constant that I’m hearing. Sometimes you’ll flop, other times your new tool will be a success, but it’s better to just try something and see what works than to do nothing.

So, that’s just a little taste of what this conference is about and I’m hoping that I’ll get a good amount of information that I can use at work and in class.

As an aside, it’s great to be in San Francisco. The weather is beautiful and I really enjoy this city. Plus it’s kind of interesting to know that this is the hotbed of much of the Web 2.0 technology that is being created.

And one more aside: I would think that WordPress would update their dictionary to include terms like blogging, podcasting, and other social media terms. Just my opinion.

Stay tuned. . .