Archive for the ‘youtube’ Category

The Double-Edged YouTube Sword

Events in Ontario’s political world brought the effects of new media on public relations into focus yesterday.

Up front: Once again, this isn’t a political blog – I value my job. So, I’m not going to comment on the specifics of this. You can find the two sides to the story here and here, and the video here (I’m not embedding it for the same reason).

What I find interesting is that one comment by John Tory, caught on camera, completely shifted the focus of his campaign for a time. From being on the offensive, John Tory has been forced onto the defensive, issuing an apology and stating that the video was out of context.

This is a great example of the effect of social media on public figures. This wasn’t an official video, but then again neither was George Allen’s ‘macaca moment‘ (video) down in Virginia, which crippled his campaign (note: I’m not comparing the incidents in terms of content). Regardless, within a few hours this video was up on YouTube and at time of writing has been viewed 430 times.

Everything you say, regardless of the situation, may now end up on record. As a public figure, you’re under the microscope 24/7.

Whether for good or bad, you’re accountable for everything you say. Innocent comments can look inappropriate when taken out of context, and funny asides can come back to haunt you.

YouTube can be an incredible positive force when used well, but remember – it can define you in a negative way, too.

Democratic Debate… Or Branding Genius?

Mitch Joel wrote on his blog this week that the real winner of the recent democratic presidential debate wasn’t a candidate, but was YouTube.

I completely agree.

You’ve got to admit, Monday’s debate was marketing genius. Almost all of the reporting (and blogging) I’ve seen on this has been about the companies, not the candidates. To this extent, regardless of the problems associated with the debate, YouTube has come out on top. Even Jon Stewart, who you can usually rely on to cut through to the real issues, focused on YouTube.

(For the record, I don’t rely on Stewart for my current affairs knowledge – it’s a comedy show. However, his show is probably the best thing out there for cutting through marketing and spin).

I could rant about the state of democratic debate when two huge brand names dominate coverage, but I’d rather marvel at the marketing genius that managed to set this up. The two brands managed such dominance of the event that it became, not “the democratic debate sponsored by YouTube/CNN,” but “the YouTube/CNN debate.”

You’ve got to admit, this was fairly cool. The video question format helped not only to engage the increasingly alienated younger demographic, but also brought some relevance to the predictably-themed questions.

Unfortunately, a lot of people/groups missed their opportunies on Monday night:

  • The candidates, rather than taking a few chances in this new format, stuck with their same, old, standard answers to the questions, and did nothing to distinguish themselves
  • CNN, while it did well out of this too, stirred up controversy (deliberately? you decide) about its choice of questions

YouTube, however, came out on top. Google strikes again.