Millions for issue advocacy are being spent on all sides of the healthcare debate. The ability to separate oneself and message is key to rise above the chatter and get noticed. Online videos have become a tool for all as groups try to get their voice heard. Using humor, sprinkled with sarcasm, and a bit of irony can’t hurt.

In a humorous sketch on funnyordie.com, Will Ferrell and other celebrities do a mock-serious critique on health insurance companies.

A video entitled “Overpaid Celebrities” came out soon after as a response to the Funny or Die spoof.

The group Catholic Vote Action put out another video mocking the Ferrell skit.

The death of Walter Cronkite not only marks the loss of a great news reporter, but it also appears to symbolize the conclusion of a time when Americans received the majority of their information from newspapers and the evening news. Cronkite gained America’s respect because many saw him as a fair and accurate reporter, not an ideologue. America called him ‘the most trusted man on television’-more so than any network news anchor today. Over the past decade, the internet has eroded the prominence of the evening news by creating a venue for bloggers, online news outlets, and independent journalists to play a significant role in the dissemination of information.

Data still shows that the internet is not king…yet. A Rasmussen survey from July still indicates that more Americans put their trust in network television than the internet for the news. The poll of 1000 adults had 46% agreeing that network television is a “more reliable source of credible news information” followed by 35% siding with the internet and 19% that are unsure.

Also, according to Rasmussen, women are more likely than men to trust the network news. Men are evenly split. At the same time, Democrats favor network news two-to-one compared to Republicans and politically unaffiliated adults who see the two mediums as equal in terms of reliability.

What does all this mean? Two things. First, the data represents an overall decline in the ratings of the major news networks: ABC, NBC, and CBS. Second, it lends credibility to the idea that the declining ratings of the networks have been because of a perceived bias in reporting.

More than half of the Americans surveyed go online almost every day and see online reporting comparable to their local newspaper, contributing to the decline in network viewership.

Furthermore, last August, only 10% of voters said they watched any of the three major anchors every day for information about the election. Where were they getting their news? One place was talk radio, which was grabbing viewers at a rate of two-to-one compared to network news.

All indicators point to the decline in the traditional format of the network news. Many believe the internet and other outlets will eventually replace the TV networks as the standard bearer of news in America. The issue is not if, but when and to what degree, the internet and others will rule the news business.

Who will be the next Walter Cronkite?

You may want to look on YouTube before you turn on your TV.

General elections in Germany are only seven weeks away and one clever candidate has found a way to draw a lot of publicity to her campaign. 
 

That’s Chancellor Angela Merkel in a somewhat revealing, low-cut dress. Across her cleavage, the slogan “We have more to offer.”
 
The picture is at the center of a new campaign strategy for Vera Lengsfeld. She is a fellow member of Merkel’s conservative CDU party running in a left-leaning district of Berlin. Being a conservative in a liberal district, and running against a popular Green Party incumbent, Lengsfeld needed a way to grab voters’ attention. And she has certainly found it. Lengsfeld hung 750 posters with the picture in her district, creating quite the media buzz. Local news stations are covering the story, posters are going missing as people take them for souvenirs, and 17,000 people have visited her campaign blog since they were posted.
 
This certainly plays into the old adage that “sex sells.” But is using sex in political ads appropriate? Advertising guru David Olgilvy’s one rule on using sex in an ad campaign is relevance. Does Merkel’s cleavage have anything to do with the candidate the poster is trying to promote? No. Will it really persuade voters that Lengsfeld is better qualified to represent them in Parliament? Probably not. Lengsfeld is a long-shot candidate needing exposure and desperate candidates turn to desperate measures to get the attention they want.
 
But with the way people view politicians in America today, candidates here need to tread lightly when crafting campaign strategies. Shock-value ads may get attention but do they pay off with votes in the end? Not if you want to be taken seriously and have your platform resonate with voters.
 
While showing Hillary Clinton in a revealing top is the last thing any American wants to see, the thing to take from this ad campaign is how to (appropriately) use new and provocative images to grab people’s attention. The same stock photos and outdated slogans need to be retired. Its time for a more creative approach if you want people to look, listen, and ultimately vote for you on election day.

A new trend, in what Politico’s Eamon Javers calls “fickleness” among consumers and voters, is causing grief among advertisers and pollsters alike. Javers suggests the American people are now, “less beholden to old attachments and more willing to make dramatic changes in lifestyle and preferences.”

Javers points to a series of examples ranging from switching cell phone providers to the increasing divorce rate among marriages of 50 plus years to the overnight popularity of Barack Obama and his administration. The implications of such trends are unclear, but such a drastic change in the collective social behavior could be threatening to the traditional American political system.

There are indicators that the erratic nature of public thought and opinion has forced those invested in political outcomes to be more creative and innovative, in order to maintain an edge.  This has lead to a push for politicians to create an active presence on social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.  These outlets have allowed politicians to speak directly to their constituents and voters on pressing issues – providing immediate feedback and opinion before they even vote on a piece of legislation.

Javers uses Apple’s destruction of the iPod (with the introduction of the iPhone and iTouch) as an example of a corporate strategy that encourages the death of loyalty to a flagship product for another newer and better product. Political trends often ride in the wake of private sector trends.  If such movement is as rampant as Javers claims, and companies are feeding into this rapid change trend, political behavior and political tactics are sure to follow. Could loyalty to a party or cause become a thing of the past?  Could voters’ never ceasing hunger for new issues and new leaders change the way parties and political movements operate?

The concept of voters looking for the next big thing, could effectively weaken a long-term party or political agenda.  This could make it difficult for legislators to collaborate and make actual progress. A major effect could be the increase in ever-changing interests leading to the decentralizing of coalitions and parties (i.e. the current healthcare debate).  This also raises the question: will today’s issue matter come November?

Politicians’ careers might become endangered if they stick to principles.  They might find longevity by becoming dependent upon keeping up with fast evolving voter opinion. This is in the same vein as obsessing over polls or following the wind.

Be on the lookout for parties rolling out agenda’s as fast Apple operating systems.

Current Assemblyman, Chuck Devore, representing California’s 70^th district has an uphill battle in front of him. He is running for the U.S. Senate in California against political heavy-weight Barbara Boxer. His litany of life-long accomplishments pitted against Barbara Boxer’s political machine will make this a must follow race in 2010.

However, his New Media Director for the campaign, JUSTIN HART, is shaking things up a bit. He has introduced an innovative fundraising strategy for the campaign that looks promising.

It’s called ChuckBucks.

The site combines ease, transparency, and flair to let campaign donors know exactly where their money is going. The genius is in allowing potential donors ‘pick’ where the money is going by selecting a campaign expense to pay for. The engagement factor is key. When people are invested directly in something, they feel more a part of it. The more excited supporters the better. Finally, the air of transparency builds trust with the donor knowing that their hard earned money is going directly to a specific purpose and not lost in the war chest.

Next, the campaign’s new media savy includes a Twitter feed that lets people know who and how much has been donated. It then links to the individual’s Twitter home page. The focus is on small donations to build grassroots support-much like Barack Obama’s plan in 2008.

In an interview with Wired Magazine’s Epicenter blog, Hart explains,

You’ve got to rise above the noise. You can’t just do it and not have an angle, or a specific thing that makes people want to donate. If you’re a charity, for example, is there a unique angle you can pursue as far as new contributors — new contributors from a specific city, or something around a special event that you’re doing? If you just lay it out there, no one’s really going to pay attention… For us, of course, being conservatives and
Republicans, and having lost the November election, with technology being one of the tools used by the victorious side — not only to vanquish us, but to vanquish Hilary Clinton earlier… conservatives are taking that message to heart. For them, I was kind of this symbolic, poster child of our way back out of the wilderness.

With ChuckBucks’ launch today, we will soon find out whether Hart’s savy will translate into dollars. Yet, the innovative approach and creativity is second to none and will likely be mimicked by campaigns in the future whether or not Chuck Devore is able to take down the Barbara Boxer behemoth.

A new television ad campaign launched Monday by the RNC accuses President Obama’s push to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system as a “risky experiment.”

This ad is sending a strategic message with word choice. Bold words like “bailouts,” takeovers,” and “spending spree” emphasize what this administration has already delivered. Describing the proposed health care reform as a “risky experiment” purposefully concerns viewers. Experiment implies a trial of something new to determine whether or not it works. Experimenting with a policy that will affect 267 million Americans and cost trillions of dollars is dangerous. No one wants their health care to be put in jeopardy by a reckless reform that took just months to put together but will be affecting us for decades to come.

The ad is being broadcast in Arkansas, Nevada, and North Dakota; the video is also available at BarackObamaExperiment.com

The RNC runs the website designed to raise opposition to Obama’s health care reform. The site allows visitors to share the link through social networking sites, it provides phone numbers to radio political talk shows, it provides sample letters to send to newspapers, and it encourages people to contact their elected officials, even providing talking points on the opposition.

It’s beginning to be an all-out campaign against Obama’s government-run health insurance plan. And separating this campaign from the RNC’s website makes the issues less about partisan politics and more about the issue at hand. As the health care debate heats up, we can anticipate seeing a lot more ads like this.

In the months prior to the November presidential election, voters became accustomed to ads created by and in support of Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Six months after his swearing in, President Obama now faces a declining approval rating, reflecting a different sentiment than the enthusiasm that surrounded him in January.

As a result, Obama is again looking to ads; this time, attempting to rally support for healthcare reform. The ads, which began airing yesterday on cable TV, will run in Arkansas, Indiana, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, North Dakota, Nebraska and Ohio for two weeks and feature private citizens detailing their struggles with the current system.

Organizing for America, the successor to Obama for America, is funding the ads. Given its’ former role as Obama’s campaign organization, OFA’s backing makes the ads more political and less an attempt at mustering bipartisan support. This suggests perhaps ads from an opposing viewpoint would also be appropriate.

***Update: Contrary to earlier reports, the ads now claim DNC sponsorship.  Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid slammed the Committee Thursday night calling the ads “a waste of money.”

Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, though seemingly immune to socio-economic divides, are experiencing the consequences of differences in race, class, and income.

Moreover, such social tools are making inequalities, perhaps thought defused, active culprits again. Net researcher Danah Boyd spoke on the phenomenon last week at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York saying, “Social media are making the old social divisions obvious in totally new ways.”

While ComScore data released in June showed both Facebook and MySpace with 70 million users, Boyd argues teens’ social identities impacts their decision to join one network over the other. One teen Boyd interviewed went as far as to pinpoint what social groups Facebook appeals to versus MySpace.

Findings showed, the more affluent and educated groups tend towards Facebook- what Boyd calls the “modern incarnation of white flight.” Boyd also points out that unlike e-mail, a communication barrier exists between the two as messages cannot be sent back and forth.

Advertisers who rely on the internet as a medium that bridges inequalities will no doubt be disappointed at Boyd’s findings. Such information suggests advertisers will have to utilize more targeted strategies in executing their campaigns since the internet fails to serve as an equalizer.

Here is an interesting snapshot posted on Facebook.  If you look closely on the left side of the gas pump you can see a red and white sticker outlining the effect on the price of gas if a particular gas tax supported by Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick, was signed into law.

Despite signing the 2010 budget that imposes more than $1 billion in additional taxes on state residents, including the first increase state sales tax in 33 years, Patrick continues to strongly support raising the gas tax.

In true colonial spirit, people opposing the gas tax increase have placed these stickers at gas station pumps explaining how Deval’s proposed nineteen cent increase would put the tax at staggering 60 cents a gallon.

This is an interesting and effective approach to highlight a political issue.  The “opposition to the gas tax” sticker couldn’t be placed in a better spot with a more a captive audience. As Massachusetts motorists fill their tanks, they are asked to imagine what their bill will look like if the price were to go up even more. 

This has the potential to resonate because it addresses what’s actually on the audience’s mind at that moment – paying at the pump.  What makes it effective is the innovative approach. The sticker reads like a public service announcement rather than a partisan attack on the governor responsible for the higher tax. It doesn’t look like a political ad so people aren’t tempted to ignore it. 

Traditional political advertising can sometimes carry negative connotations with the prevalence of attack ads and partisan politics.  Thinking outside the box with strategically placed ads like this are the future of smart political advertising tactics.