Thank You, Mr. Nielsen
Friday, July 22, 2005
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Hilarious Campaign Videos: Keeping America's Campaign Workers Sane
While watching some of the funny videos from the 2004 election on IPDI's video library, I was reminded of how thankful I am some of these were circulating during the 2004 election (especially the conservative ones)!
Politics is a serious business. But, you'll literally go crazy without stepping back every once in a while to look at the humor in what you're surround in. During the 2004 campaign, I worked 12-16 hour days for about three months straight (weekends too!). Believe me, I looked forward to those goofy videos of John Kerry smooching John Edwards to the tune of Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On."
I have to say my favorite videos from the IPDI library were the humorous ones. In my opinion, humor is the most powerful tool in online viral marketing. Ninety-nine percent of the emails I forward (and receive) to friends and family have some degree of humor to them. These funny videos are good for us. Every time I watch a humorous political video online, I take a step back and break out of the bubble I have put myself in. I see the humor in what is going on around me. As stressed as we all get in the heat of a campaign or political fight, having a good, hearty laugh is a much-needed stress reliever that I welcome. So I say, thank you to the good people who make these videos. I owe a great deal of my sanity to them.
P.S. If anyone wants to reminisce about the funniest videos of the '04 campaign, About.com put together a fantastic top ten list .
Politics is a serious business. But, you'll literally go crazy without stepping back every once in a while to look at the humor in what you're surround in. During the 2004 campaign, I worked 12-16 hour days for about three months straight (weekends too!). Believe me, I looked forward to those goofy videos of John Kerry smooching John Edwards to the tune of Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On."
I have to say my favorite videos from the IPDI library were the humorous ones. In my opinion, humor is the most powerful tool in online viral marketing. Ninety-nine percent of the emails I forward (and receive) to friends and family have some degree of humor to them. These funny videos are good for us. Every time I watch a humorous political video online, I take a step back and break out of the bubble I have put myself in. I see the humor in what is going on around me. As stressed as we all get in the heat of a campaign or political fight, having a good, hearty laugh is a much-needed stress reliever that I welcome. So I say, thank you to the good people who make these videos. I owe a great deal of my sanity to them.
P.S. If anyone wants to reminisce about the funniest videos of the '04 campaign, About.com put together a fantastic top ten list .
Monday, July 18, 2005
Attack Ads or Creative Editing? You Say Potato….
Factcheck.org's stories on Bush's Misleading Attack Video and MoveOn.org's Creative Editing are not surprising. For years, campaigns, political parties and special interest groups from both sides of the aisle have been putting together attack ads like these to cast the opposition in a negative light. The course of action is predictable; group puts out attack ad using creative editing, opposition condemns it, and the public is disgusted by the "mud-slinging."
Both sides ride the fine line between "creative editing" and flat out lying to avoid any legal action as a result of airing the ad. The advantages must far outweigh the negatives for groups to air these year after year. But, what are the political advantages and disadvantages of airing attack ads?
The advantages are creating fodder for your supporters to distribute, ammunition for their water-cooler debates, and sparking anger (from both sides) that will elicit action. The disadvantages are having the label of a "negative campaigner" and possibly turning off supporters or swing voters who are disgusted by these actions. By identifying the advantages and disadvantages, the question then becomes, what are the negative consequences of airing such ads?
I say there are none. We've come to accept it as normal at a certain level. Negative campaigning has become part of our political process like it or not. As much as we condemn such behavior on the other side of the aisle, we political junkies anxiously await the latest ad attacking our opponent to hit the airwaves further validating our views.
This brings me to my final question to everyone, should we accept this as the way it is, and always will be, or should we actively work to change the system? (Remember your answer the next time your candidate releases an attack ad.)
Both sides ride the fine line between "creative editing" and flat out lying to avoid any legal action as a result of airing the ad. The advantages must far outweigh the negatives for groups to air these year after year. But, what are the political advantages and disadvantages of airing attack ads?
The advantages are creating fodder for your supporters to distribute, ammunition for their water-cooler debates, and sparking anger (from both sides) that will elicit action. The disadvantages are having the label of a "negative campaigner" and possibly turning off supporters or swing voters who are disgusted by these actions. By identifying the advantages and disadvantages, the question then becomes, what are the negative consequences of airing such ads?
I say there are none. We've come to accept it as normal at a certain level. Negative campaigning has become part of our political process like it or not. As much as we condemn such behavior on the other side of the aisle, we political junkies anxiously await the latest ad attacking our opponent to hit the airwaves further validating our views.
This brings me to my final question to everyone, should we accept this as the way it is, and always will be, or should we actively work to change the system? (Remember your answer the next time your candidate releases an attack ad.)
Sunday, July 17, 2005
"Sideways" Copyright Laws
After reading the excerpt from Lessig's The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World, I'm reminded of how carried away our copyright laws can be.
Getting permission to use a song or a specific brand that is prominently displayed in a film is understandable. But the following is a perfect example of our legal system run amuck!
Completely ridiculous! Why don't artists and designers want their designs featured in films and magazines? I would make it as easy as possible to use my product or design in a film. Free publicity is just good business.
This reminds me of a story I saw on the news about the movie, Sideways. The relatively small film became a hit and revitalized the southern CA wine country that has long been over-shadowed by northern CA's Napa Valley. Fans of the movie from all over the world were traveling to Solvang, CA to buy "Sideways maps" so they could visit the wineries and restaurants featured in the movie. Small businesses all over were benefiting from the publicity they received from the movie. Tourists wanted the "Sideways experience" even down to the smallest detail. One restaurant owner said that business had boomed and there was high demand to sit at the exact table as the characters in the movie. Here's my question, did Sideways' production company ask for a cut of the profits these businesses received as a direct result of the movie?
Getting permission to use a song or a specific brand that is prominently displayed in a film is understandable. But the following is a perfect example of our legal system run amuck!
The film Twelve Monkeys was stopped by a court twenty-eight days after its release because an artist claimed a chair in the movie resembled a sketch of a piece of furniture that he had designed.
Completely ridiculous! Why don't artists and designers want their designs featured in films and magazines? I would make it as easy as possible to use my product or design in a film. Free publicity is just good business.
This reminds me of a story I saw on the news about the movie, Sideways. The relatively small film became a hit and revitalized the southern CA wine country that has long been over-shadowed by northern CA's Napa Valley. Fans of the movie from all over the world were traveling to Solvang, CA to buy "Sideways maps" so they could visit the wineries and restaurants featured in the movie. Small businesses all over were benefiting from the publicity they received from the movie. Tourists wanted the "Sideways experience" even down to the smallest detail. One restaurant owner said that business had boomed and there was high demand to sit at the exact table as the characters in the movie. Here's my question, did Sideways' production company ask for a cut of the profits these businesses received as a direct result of the movie?
