As Online Campaigning Matures, Websites Like YouTube.com Find a Political Niche
10/26/2006
By Cliff Glickman
The Cardinal Inquirer
In 2002, an unknown Governor from Vermont entered the 2004 presidential race with no national name recognition or political infrastructure. One year later Howard Dean was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.
Over the course of the campaign he raised a war chest of over $52 million, and in the third quarter of 2003 alone, he raised almost $15 million, a record for a Democratic presidential candidate. Most of these donations were raised online.
While he lost the nomination, the groundswell from Gov. Dean’s campaign catapulted him to the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee in 2005. No one would argue that his rise should be attributed in large part to his campaign’s command of the online culture and innovative use of the Internet.
The 2004 campaign cycle, in large part because of Gov. Dean’s example, made online politics a fundamental part of the campaign process. As Internet politics grows, numerous websites are now finding ways to become politically relevant, and even strategically mandatory. Websites such as YouTube.com, Facebook.com and MySpace.com are all used by campaigns to share information, as well as find supporters and raise money. Yet the rise of some of these websites is much faster than the gradual growth of past Internet political uses.
Democratic political strategist Donnie Fowler has been at the forefront of online campaign strategy. He points out that although online campaigning is a relatively recent phenomenon, its importance has grown quickly. “In 1996 the Internet was an idea. In 2000 it was an option. In 2004 it was a weapon for those who understood it. In 2006 it is mandatory. In 2008 and beyond, it will be what you do, as essential as walking door-to-door or sending out direct mail,” Fowler said.
This election season, YouTube.com, an online video sharing website, has been a very effective Internet tool for campaigns. According to a joint study by George Washington University’s Campaign Finance Institute and Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet, in 2004 only 5 percent of small political donors and 2 percent of large political donors said online videos prompted them to make their first contribution. Yet just two years later YouTube.com is playing a major fundraising role in a race that could tip the balance of power in the Senate: the Virginia Senate race between incumbent Sen. George Allen, R-Va., and Democratic challenger Jim Webb.
Webb’s online strategists, Brent Blackaby and Larry Huynh, used the online video sharing site to highlight a major blunder by Allen which led to increased national support. After Allen (at the time considered to be a potential presidential candidate), was caught on camera at an August campaign event calling a Webb staffer what many consider to be a racist term Blackaby and Huynh posted a video of the event on YouTube.com. As Huynh explained, the video built a viral buzz in the online community which let people outside the state know about what was happening in the campaign.
Blackaby agreed. “That’s the great thing about the Internet. If George Allen says something crazy, we can be out there the next day disseminating it to a larger public than those who were at the event or who might have seen it on the local news,” he said.
Blackaby and Huynh point to the campaign’s fundraising operation. “Webb out-raised Allen by about $1 million last quarter,” Blackaby said. “You can directly source this difference to the Internet. We put the ‘macaca’ video on YouTube and the blogs started circulating it around. People around the country decided it was a viable option to put money into the Webb race.”
Fowler argues that the rapid rise in use of YouTube.com as a political weapon has three root causes. First, it is free advertising. Second, it goes to a large audience of over 16 million visitors a month. Thirdly, the political world saw its power on the Allen race. “YouTube became influential when it knocked Allen over the head,” Fowler said. “Politicians pay attention when they see there’s trouble coming.”
Fowler also pointed out that the use of YouTube in online politics has happened much faster than other technology. He attributes this in part to its cross-generational reach, unlike other online sites such as Facebook.com or MySpace.com which are in the process of developing a political niche among younger age groups. “There are some older people in politics who can’t use email, but know about YouTube,” he said.
According to Internet industry analysts, the entertainment aspect of YouTube.com is partly responsible for its rapid growth. That could explain its acceptance by the political world. “Consumers clearly view video as one of the most accessible, interesting and entertaining sources of content on the Web,” said Jack Flanagan, executive vice president of comScore Media Metrix, in a statement.
Regardless of the cause, online video has found a place in politics. “The trends we’re witnessing indicate that online video is emerging from its infancy and entering the mainstream,” Flanagan said.
As Democratic strategist Katie Merrill notes, while voters recognize that online politics has grown significantly in the last few years, the 2004 cycle was the year when people began to talk about the Internet as a new political tool. That was the first election where online campaigning was prominent enough to study, and scholars jumped to understand its significance.
They found that financially the Internet not only provided a way for campaigns to reach more people and solicit funds, but also made giving more convenient. The George Washington University study found that in 2004 over half of the Democratic contributors and a quarter of Republican donors made at least one online donation. In 2000, online donors were almost nonexistent.
The study also found that campaigns used the Internet to engage first-time donors. About 17 percent of all small donors (under $100) and 18 percent of larger donors (over $500) were prompted to give their first political donation by an email. A majority of donors who gave over $200 to either Senator John Kerry or President George W. Bush in 2004 did not make any political donations in the 2000 election cycle.
In 2004, online campaigning also revolutionized how people received political information. A study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that the number of people who went online to get any political information doubled from 2000 to 2004. Their report said that 18 million people cited the Internet as helping them decide how they would vote in 2004. The report also found that 75 million people used the Internet in some way for politics during the 2004 campaign.
There is not enough empirical data yet to yield any meaningful comparison for 2006. However, an online media tracker, comScore, reported that during the heart of 2006 primary season last July, political websites had the largest boost in visitor traffic of any online sector with a 25 percent increase.
Link to article