http://www.barackobama.com/learn/about_ofa.php
http://www.myspace.com/barackobama
http://www.youtube.com/barackobama
http://www.flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom
http://twitter.com/barackobama
http://eventful.com/performers/barack-obama-/P0-001-000000162-8
http://www.blackplanet.com/barack_Obama/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/barackobama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Apart from some reasons I’ve mentioned in my previous posts, I think Obama’s Flickr, Twitter and similar sites contribute to ensuring and demonstrating transparency and accountability of the administration through hours of streaming videos, conferences, pictures, addresses etc. It is as if cameras are following the President everywhere.
ReplyDeleteAll this will definitely have the desired effect of creating a positive image, not distorted by too many closed-door meetings.
Comparing the web sites: criteria.
ReplyDeleteDeducing criteria for comparing Obama’s social networking sites can be tricky because the sites share the same purpose – they are outreach tools. However, I believe some basic criteria could be the following:
1) Responsiveness. The whole idea of social networks implies interaction – direct or indirect. As I’ve mentioned in my previous posts people like the idea of befriending their president. It brings him closer to people, conjuring “he-is-just-like-us” attitude in people. But leaving messages on the wall and commenting on pictures is one thing, and actual communicating your concerns and making yourself heard is another. This how we can distinguish sites according to their “responsiveness” e.g. BarackObama.com is always demonstrates how you can communicate your concerns by giving the opportunity to send messages letters to relevant organizations and officials, advising on what to do if you need to ask a question. “Write a letter”-box in capital letters is one first thing you see when you enter the site. So is the image “We don’t quit: send the letter to the editor”. And then there are sites like Flickr.com that are not aimed as much at bilateral interaction between people and the president, but are more about visual material and image-making through pictures and videos. This by NO MEANS is accusable of Flickr: it just has different purpose then other sites.
2) Agenda (Words in bold and CAPITALS). It is a little bit tricky to elaborate on this one: all sites are social networks. Some of them are really almost the same (MiGente, EONS, AsiaAve etc.) and basically copy each other (which is not a bad thing –> see point 3). I started to think about whether some of the sites might be having distinct agendas, when on BarackObama.com, MySpace the word “VOLUNTEER” in different context (tag lines, videos, pictures etc) was either in bold or capitalized (the importance of volunteering for the election campaign and even further on is a common knowledge). Therefore through tracing the most strongly emphasized points, we can compare and contrast the sites according to them.
3) Target audience. Another criterion for comparing can be that of the target audience. This may sound contradictory to the statement that all social networks are outreach tools and therefore have everyone as their target audience. However, Obama’s social networking system take the concept a step further by creating a binary system for outreach. There are cites (like BarackObama.com, MySpace, Twitter, Facebook etc) that attract everyone regardless of race, sex, background etc. On the other hand there are smaller social networking sites aimed at a particular audience and groups – BlackPlane, MiGente, AsianAve, (ethnic minorities), Glee (acronym for “gay, lesbian and everyone else”), LinkedIn (business-oriented social networking site), EONS (for baby boomers) etc. The content (videos, pictures, news) doesn’t really vary from site to site, featuring quotes and articles related to the network only sometimes. However, employ this binary principle of social networking extends the outreach.
4) Multimedia content. Hours of streaming videos, thousands of pictures. The quantity, though, does vary from site to site (compare, for example, Flickr vs. MiBaranga). Hence, multimedia content would be a legitimate criterion for comparing the sites.
ReplyDelete5) The place a site occupies in the system of Obama’s social network. As we can see, different sites can be targeted at different audience, may have slightly different purposes and vary in multimedia content. This means the sites occupy different niches within the system of Obama’s social networking. The system is not horizontal – the most informative site is, of course, BarackObama.com. The rest of the sites probably started from there (all of them are listed on BarackObama.com), forming a kind of hierarchy, dominated by BarackObama.com. This means we could compare the sites according to the role they play in this whole system of social networking, according to the amount of people visiting it, the importance of launching the site etc. (The last one, however, can be arbitrary and not objective, since all of the sites have contributed to creating Obama’s image, attracting people and communicating with them)
I think that responsiveness, audience target (or target audience) and the use of multimedia are quite appropriate but the second (agenda) and the fifth ones are questionable. Probably, you try to reformulate them.... Because agenda is content...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was having difficulties with them, too. Maybe they are not as much of criteria as just my (arbitrary) observations. Social networking is challenging.
ReplyDeletePerhaps P.5 can be changed to "Popularity and/or Page Viewing Frequency. The number of members (friends, participants) varies from site to site. Can this be a legitimate criteria?
Also, I forgot to add to p.1 (responsiveness) that it works both ways. Not only can one interact with the government. The people behind these sites also can get fast feedback and opinions from the citizens. Sites can be used as opinion polls.
In my opinion sites of Obama's Network, in their basic organisation, continue traditions of "old" types of media - TV, Radio, Newspapers and so on, according to the media history. Yes, they represent the new media generation and they are true signs of the new age of IT. But they are NOT social pages in their basic form. Just take any PRIVATE personal account on any social project. It does not look like the account of Obama. It is a place of a real interpersonal communication with rumours, arrangements, chatting etc. Obama's social sites contain the IMpersonal content within the personal surrounding. E.g. you can not just post "How are you?" on the Obama's Facebook wall. In fact, you can do it but you do not expect an answer. And such kind of sites is not the Obama's invention. Before him many artists had done the same thing in order to promote their name. So, the purpose of this network is obvious - to make the name of Obama familiar to as many people as possible. But in fact in the core it is the tradional media PR. And considering this Network we should not forget about the tradional approach i.e. we have to consider it according to the traditional criteria, BUT with adjustment for the fact that there is a new media with new ways of production and absolutely new audience. In my opinion, there are three main points of comparison:
ReplyDelete1) Site comprehension, i.e. the quality of information presented by the source. This information has to be full and actual.
2) Site popularity, i.e. the site should be visited by and should be available to a wide audience. Put it simply, the site should be seen by as many people as possible.
3) Site responsiveness. Under this I do not mean the quality of response to the public opinion (However, I could include it in this list) but the speed of response to the changes of the presidential policy. The site should provide the updated information, i.e. changes or new tendencies, as fast as possible. And, what became more important now, users should check this information on the site as soon as possible.
These are three criteria I highlighted to compare the sites within the Obama's Network. I have not studied complete statistics but I consider three sites - Facebook, YouTube and Twitter - as the flagships of the Obama's Network. But within a certain area local social networks compete with them in regard to influence on the public opinion.
In my opinion politicians who ignore new media, such as social- networking cites are missing most of their audience. The people that are engaging today in political life are no longer consumers but participants. Nikita mentioned in his answer that celebrities had started using social-networking cites for their promotion long before politicians. I agree with this but also we should take into account that when a popular music singer debuts a new song, it could raise awareness for a political campaign just by having links on to its pages on MySpace. I can’t agree also that MySpace and other sites have just the aim to make the name of any politician familiar to the audience and is another form of old media.
ReplyDeleteFrom my point of view political social-networking sites (participation in political life that is available for everyone) are becoming part of democratic development. In other words people get more involved in politics and they have more opportunities to choose appropriate candidate and to propose their own suggestions.
So, comparing the web-cites of Mr. Obama we can deduce the following criteria:
1) SITE RESPONSIVENESS is very important even psychologically: when only text is available, participants judge trustworthiness based on how quickly others respond. It is so nice when you can communicate with the president and receive answers from his command. They can help you to find organization or information you need on-line. But it is important to bare in mind that different sites have its own purposes.
2) MULTIMEDIA CONTENT Visual objects should be appropriate and convenient. Also we should remember about the great impact of colors, music, etc. In other words the architecture of sites should be correct and applicable for political propaganda.
3) SITE POPULARITY Promotion is a must for social-networks on politics. Different links on pages of celebrities and other huge supporters by no means help to raise Obama’s electorate. From my point of view site’s popularity mainly depends on its CONTENT.