Alex posted yesterday about YouTube views as a proxy for the relative support for political candidates. According to this piece at TechPresident, the same may be true of the relative support for new and old(er) media:

read more »

We're often asked how organizations can measure the return on investment from social media. Frank Rich's column in today's New York Times effectively uses YouTube views as a proxy for the overall success of the Obama and Clinton campaigns in tapping the power of the web:

read more »

Okay, so Alex is in Oberlin, Ohio while Rob holds down the fort in Vancouver, BC. You think we're going to let a little thing like 3,300 kilometres of distance keep us from our just-before-sleep banter?

Thanks to the miracle of Skype and a little app called Call Recorder, you get to tune into yet another evening's chat. And tonight we cover everything from air travel in the digital age (turns out it's easier!) to the race for the Democratic nomination... including will.i.am's Barack Obama anthem, the "Yes We Can Song".

By the way, Call Recorder worked like a charm. "Can we record Skype calls at the push of a single button? Yes! We! Can!"

(parent to teen sprawled on bed) Cheer up, sweetheart. Maybe NEXT year the Oscars will have a category for Best YouTube Diary.

I just stepped out of a superb presentation by Eddie Codel titled Using Internet Video to Change the World One Eyeball at a Time. A few of the phenomena he raised:

• Holla Back NYC
• Have Money Will Vlog
• Chinese soldiers shooting Tibetan pilgrims, posted to YouTube
• Expedition 360
• Alive in Baghdad
• (ex-)Sen. George Allen's "macaca" moment

It's that last example that has had me preoccupied for some time, and I raised it at the session.

For the record: I'm not one of the herd that grumbles about how politicians are universally corrupt, venal thieves who can't tell the truth to save their lives. I've known too many who make enormous sacrifices because of a genuine commitment to public service.

But for a variety of reasons, politics often demands oversimplified messages and black-and-white partisan divisions. And – because of the need to build support from diverse, conflicting constituencies among the voting (and donating) public – there are perverse rewards for convenient dishonesty and punishments for telling difficult truths... especially if you think you won't get caught.

Nothing new there: politicians telling people what they want to hear is an old story. But what's new is the ability to catch them in the act. Video cameras are everywhere; many digital cameras can capture video and audio. But even more significant is the world of cell phones.

Mobile phones are nearly ubiquitous, and a large and growing number of them can record video. Those phones are a lot less intrusive than a camcorder; it would be hard to imagine a better means of capturing unguarded moments.

Like, say, a politician telling a voter something that contradicts something the politician had told a different audience the day before. An outrageous slur against an opponent. A career-ending* display of bigotry.

It's only a matter of time before a politician does something George Allen-esque in front of the watchful eye of a camera phone. And then the impact on politicians will be profound. Nearly every moment outside of their own homes (and inside, if they've done something that morning to tick off one of their kids) could find its way onto YouTube, Revver or any of a dozen other video-sharing sites... and onto the computers of thousands of their voters.

So what happens then?

I've seen commentators suggest that it means that politicians will be "on" 24/7 – and that only those who can maintain their duplicitous public façades indefinitely will succeed.

I think (or at least allow myself to hope) differently. I keep thinking of the Hollywood executive in a Wiliam Goldman book whose mind wanders during a phone call; he frantically clamps his hand over the phone's mouthpiece and hisses to Goldman, "Which lie did I tell?"

Ubiquitous video probably will reward the truly nightmarish candidates: the charming psychopaths who really do lie, well and consistently, every hour of the day. But then, the system already rewards them. It's the less accomplished liars – the ones who can't be certain they'll keep their stories straight – who will see the system of incentives and disincentives tilt a little more toward honesty and openness.

And it will be the honest candidates who see the odds starting to break a little more their way. That's my hope, anyway.

Responding during the Northern Voice session, Robert Scoble and Ian King found it naive, and it may be. (Possibly because I stated it a lot more categorically in the session. Then again, I had to squeeze it into a 30-second comment. Hmm – see incentives to oversimplify, above.) But there's critical a difference between being "on", and actually lying. If "on" (which basically means constant consciousness of the strategic and tactical implications of what you're saying and doing) is ultimately derived what you actually believe, well, there are worse things to be.

One other effect I hope this has: an adjustment of expectations. Politicians have unguarded moments. They fart, they swear, they lose their temper and they explode in exultation. But because such moments are pounced on so eagerly by opponents and media alike, politicians do their best to quash them. That leads to a vicious circle: they're extraordinary, therefore aberrant, and therefore both newsworthy and damaging.

That could change as those instants of human frailty become YouTube fodder in bulk. Get enough examples of politicians behaving like, well, people, and maybe those examples will stop being such aberrations. And maybe the unforgiving "gotcha" mentality will loosen its grip on political life.

-----

* This may be that naive streak rearing its head.

I had a great conversation on Saturday night with Kate Trgovac on Sean Holman's Public Eye Radio. The topic was Petro-Canada's foray into the video-sharing world of YouTube, a project Kate got rolling for them before moving on to her new gig. (The videos purport to explain why gasoline prices are so high.)

A good time was had by all... and something Kate said struck me. She likes the initiative, but finds the Petro-Canada videos themselves to be too corporate.

She's right – and on many levels.

Being "too corporate for YouTube" isn't just a question of slick production values. Greenpeace UK's anti-SUV video and the trailers for An Inconvenient Truth are highly professional, yet have had tremendous viral uptake. And with inexpensive or free video production tools in the hands of so many users (even if the skills to use them well aren't quite so broadly distributed), a large and growing number of user-contributed videos are looking awfully good.

The issue is more one of value to the user. Petro-Canada's videos are ultimately self-serving (with the exception of one that offers tips for reducing your vehicle's gas consumption). So, for that matter, is the supporting Pump Talk web site: the subtext is "There's a good reason you're paying us lots of money, and you'd better get used to it." And although the company's communications shop tries to position this as employees communicating with the public, the results are anything but; this is straight PR-department copy with a light folksy patina.

Even that might work if Petro-Canada had a base of loyal, enthusiastic customers like, say, Apple does. Apple's fans were more than happy to hear and repeat tropes from Apple's PR department, such as the megahertz myth. Even straight advertisements have gone viral. (It isn't hard to find lots of enthusiast sites still pointing to the very first Mac TV ad, "1984.") In that case, the value to the user is being armed with support and validation for their enthusiasm and loyalty.

Humour works well too, as do pointed jabs at a shared antagonist, catching an opponent in an unguarded moment and appealing for support for a sympathetic underdog. Best of all is actually useful information.

And a lot of the most successful material on YouTube – apart from the strictly entertaining – has a subversive tone to it. Those video-makers are sticking it to The Man, as are their viewers when they watch and forward it.

All of which gives Petro-Canada a problem:

• Raving fans for a gas station chain are few and far between.
• The clips the company has created aren't funny.
• The corporation and its customers don't have a shared antagonist or opponent.
• Petrocan's hardly an underdog.
• With one notable exception, the information isn't really useful.
• And forwarding a video clearly scripted by Petro-Canada's corporate communications department isn't taking a swipe at The Man; they are The Man.

Does that mean YouTube is a mistake for PetroCan, or anyone else who doesn't have a certain amount of street cred? No. There's little to be lost by posting the videos, provided the company is actually interested in pursuing a dialogue (their failure so far to respond to two-week-old critical comments from users raises a few questions on that score).

But they could still do a lot more with this.

One example: If you want to convince me about oil prices being out of your hands, don't have that information coming from a Petro-Canada employee who's in an obvious conflict of interest. Find someone else who doesn't have a dog in this fight – say, an economist with a gift for plain speech. (They do exist. McGill has been running a captive breeding program that's showing tremendous promise.) Have them hash it out with an angry consumer, and put that up on YouTube.

Or create a pumptalk tag, and announce you'll respond – either through comments or with a Pump Talk video – to anyone who creates a video question or commentary with that tag. And include those videos in your own video replies. Set some ground rules to weed out cranks and verbal abuse, and you have a conversation going on.

Again – provided they respond to the comments people are leaving on the YouTube pages, Petro-Canada hasn't lost anything by doing this:

• There's a certain talking-dog effect around YouTube, so the very act of using the site buys them some interest.
• It's not like every YouTube user is looking to smash the corporate state, so they will reach some people.
• And those videos will be very handy for front-line employees; faced with angry customers, it's great to be able to point them to a resource that answers their questions. (It's not hard to imagine a beleaguered Esso or Chevron cashier passing along the URL, either.)

There are lessons here for more than just large resource companies with vast networks of retail outlets. If you're trying to use YouTube, think about these factors first:

• You're starting a conversation. Are you prepared for that? How can you make the most of it?
  
• Think about what your videos will do for you... but even more important in a viral era, what they can do for a viewer... and why anyone would want to pass your clips on to a friend.
• Is your video interesting? How about to someone outside your organization?
• What about your video is authentic, and gives voice to something genuine and vital about your organization?
  

Just as it has with every other new web technology, YouTube's omigod-you're-on-YouTube- that's-so-kewl phase is rapidly coming to an end, just as it is on the wide range of other video-sharing sites. And just as it has with every other new web technology, now comes the hard part: compelling content and vibrant community.

 

---

A little background for those who haven't followed the rise of YouTube: YouTube's combination of easy video uploading and republishing and social networking features has made it the platform of choice for unsigned bands, microbudget filmmakers and others hoping to get their efforts in front of some eyeballs.

Some videos get forwarded and reforwarded in a snowballing process called "going viral", and are viewed tens or even hundreds of thousands of times. The site makes it easy to send videos by email or publish them to your blog, adding to the potential for viral contagion.

Some competitors include Google Video, blip.tv, VideoEgg and OurMedia. 

Just a quick note – I’ll be on Sean Holman’s Public Eye with Kate Trgovac, to talk about Petro-Canada’s YouTube gambit. We’re on at 8 p.m., right after the news. That's 1070 kHz on your AM dial in sunny Victoria, or listen live online.