When I followed Barack Obama on Twitter during the campaign, his profile had a tool that automatically followed you back. It’s silly, but I got excited when I saw that email in my inbox. That got me emotionally involved in the campaign.

But anyway, as you say, that’s not the point any more than when we hear Martin Luther King do his “I have a dream” speech and complain about the PA system.

This is meant to be quick and dirty video and it is. For more examples, check out how Avaaz is using video to allow people in need to make an ask for themselves: quick and dirty, direct to camera, one take….. video is the new telephone.
http://autoscopia.com/?p=58

So my question is, why does this video look so technically bad? It must be intentional, what with the extremely poor lighting and fidgeting speaker. One of my interns with her camera phone could have made it look better. However, is that the point?

In this video, they do a good job of providing a reward. The reward here is a pat on the back for a job well-done. And with that pat comes the next task… also part of the reward. “You’ve done a great job and we need you to do more.”

They’ve also provided emotional reasons for action with logical alibis to do so. They emotional reasons are obvious, Obama’s whole campaign is about “change.” The analytical alibi to support the emotional brain’s desire to act is shown graphically in the difference between the RNC and DNC bank accounts. Negative ads? Against a wall of money? Oh my gosh, we have to give more now!

Nicely done, Obama.

Sorry, I just finished reading Joe Trippi’s “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything” and I’m all wound up. It’s about the internet-driven Dean campaign of 2003.
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Will-Not-Televised-Everything/dp/0060761555
I’d wager the book is quicker and more fun than following the current campaigns. It’s certainly a great introduction. I’m sure the Obama people read it.

Anyway, I’m right with you about the video. Excellent! And it’s worth keeping in mind that if charities aren’t using video as ‘just another communications medium’ in an ongoing dialog with supporters, then before long commercial brands will. And they aren’t in a position to use it well – they have nothing to talk about. Actors portraying CEOs will come on and read from scripts prepared by a PR firm. It won’t be authentic, earnest, relevant, or entirely truthful. It will be like TV on the internet. They’ll talk and we’ll listen. The next time we’ll switch it off and learn to avoid such things.

On the internet, charities have no choice but to lead.