The Obama video: media at hyper-speed

by Mathew on February 10, 2008 · Comments

I was talking with a colleague recently about the Barack Obama tribute video made by Will.i.am from the Black-Eyed Peas and Bob Dylan’s son Jesse, and how fascinating it was to watch as it made its way through various media last week, from emails and Twitter feeds to blog posts and then into newspapers and media websites.

When I first came across the video, known as the “Yes We Can” video, people were describing it as compelling and passionate — many seemed impressed by the fact that it wasn’t official, and that it had young men and women of all colours in it, symbolizing the breadth of Obama’s reach and how people connect with his message.

Over time, however, you could see the tide starting to turn. Some people started to talk about how slick it was — filled with celebrities and very commercial, in a music-video kind of way. Then people started musing about how that was part of the problem with Obama’s campaign to begin with: style over substance, etc. The blog NewTeeVee called it an “appalling exercise in celebrity self-congratulation.”

Within a day or two, the video was being used as an example of how “user-generated” media isn’t always such a great thing for a campaign. The political site Hot Air called it “disturbingly cool,” while a blogger at The New Republic wondered whether it might not hurt Obama more than help him. One commenter on Twitter wondered when Obama campaign had started having his videos done by The Gap.

So the Obama video went from blockbuster media event and unadulterated success story to backlash in about 48 hours — less time than it would have taken for a typical campaign video to even be distributed to TV networks a few years ago, let alone watched by almost two million people, posted to blogs, commented on and analyzed. Fascinating.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • My take is that the Yes We Can backlash is more a case study in how the online commentary can over analyze a story to death. Relative to old-style campaigning, the Obama video is massively significant.

    Sure, the video might be over the top and self-indulgent, but the NYT has a great op-ed by Frank Rich (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10ric...), contrasting Yes We Can with Hillary's Hallmark TV special, which was watched by almost no-one and barely discussed anywhere. I think the story remains that on the one side we have a tidal wave of online coverage of a video that cost the Obama campaign absolutely nothing, and on the other a struggling Clinton campaign mired in old-school thinking.
  • I'm going to go *way* out on a limb here and guess that commentary both pro- and anti- Yes We Can video is being made by folks with a political point of view.

    Does the fact that this is the first I've heard of any "backlash" reveal something about my own political POV? Maybe, maybe not.

    Either way, what would the Hillary Clinton equivalent be, and who would be in the video? Would it have had the same effect, if any?
  • Mathew,

    The "backlash" to the video you cite is entirely phony and ginned up for political reasons. I would suspect that every political consultant wishes he or she had thought of it. Remember, we're in the master spin zone now.

    That video has done more to mobilize young people (does anybody have stats on the number of times it has been posted on Facebook pages?) than anything else I've seen so far in this election.

    High school seniors here in Maryland are able to vote in the primary on Tuesday here in Maryland if they turn 18 by November 3, 2008 and that video has become a senior thing -- Yes We Can is now their mantra.
  • I'm not sure it is entirely phony, Cynthia -- some of it came from
    people I know personally, in many cases Obama supporters. But there's
    no question there is a political spin element as well. The main thing
    that interested me was simply the speed, not so much the reaction
    itself.
  • To me, the commentary around the video is typical of most Web2.0 pundits. It is especially obvious when a new service, company, idea, etc. is unleashed and the first wave of Techmeme-linked posts likes it. The second wave, left with nothing new to say, starts looking for ways to criticize it. After about 48 hours, what you have is a lot of noise with a few gold nuggets on both sides.

    In the case of the video, I agree with Cynthia Brumfield's analysis that every campaign wishes they'd thought of it first. That maxim applies to much of the Web 2.0 commentary I see, too, especially with the simpler webapps. I was a vocal, vocal Twitter critic when it first came out, thinking that it was dumbed-down IM. It took me awhile and a pretty vocal blog post about it to come around to the idea that it really did have a great purpose and was elegant in its simplicity. Part of my initial dislike came from the starry-eyed commentary of robert scoble and others about what ground-breaking technology it was.

    With everyone scratching for an angle to blog about in politics, technology and other hot areas, it's inevitable that a cycle such as the one you describe would come about. The real question is whether discerning readers can separate the worthwhile opinions from the ones that are less so, and make intelligent decisions.
  • Well, Karoli -- maybe now that the success-story-to-backlash cycle has
    been sped up to the point where it only takes a matter of hours, we
    can move on to real meaning and intelligent decisions a little sooner
    than in the past :-)
  • That would be nice. :) The real story that you touched on slightly in your post is how the campaigns are leveraging Web 2.0 and mobile resources to keep the masses motivated. The Obama campaign has made great use of YouTube, Flickr, CafePress, Twitter, mobile messaging, blogging and social networking to mobilize the masses into action. For a web junkie like me, it's a sight to behold.
  • Mathew,

    After I posted that comment, I realized that the "entirely phony" statement was bad phrasing on my part. I suspect that some people do find it a little cheesy. But, there is no doubt that it has been effective and there's no doubt that some of the criticism is politically motivated.
  • I think you are probably right, Cynthia.
  • Interesting indeed, but isn't it just an information cascade on the internet? We'll have to wait and see if the "verdict "on this particular video sticks, or what readjustments will take place now that both points of view are available for people to agree or disagree with.
  • well again the bloggers gotta go nuts by being controversial...
blog comments powered by Disqus

Older post:

Newer post: