Overheard in the future...
"Why did Obama's campaign website hompage have prominent links to YouTube and Flickr?"
"So people could see Obama videos and photos."
"How's that different than the main links to photos and videos on the Obama site?"
"Well, YouTube and Flickr are communities; the campaign needs to be where the people are, beyond the campaign's website."
"I don't get it."
"YouTube and Flickr are popular ways to see photos and videos. The campaign needs to reach beyond the campaign site and be part of those communities."
"If I click those links, I'll see Obama photos and videos from other people then?"
"No, you'll get photos and videos that the campaign puts there."
"The photos and videos on the campaign site?"
"Yes, the photos and videos that the campaign decides to put up on those sites."
"Weren't those sites, YouTube and Flickr, about people uploading their own photos and videos. Isn't that why Time Magazine made 'You' its 'Person of the Year' back in 2006?"
"Yes, and the Obama campaign wanted to show it was part of that trend. They said 'This Campaign is About You' and those logos and links supported that positioning. But campaigns need to control what's happening."
"It made the campaign look cooler to the small percentage of the population who care about both Flickr and YouTube, but did those links really do anything useful, drive more people to support Obama, or get people more informed or involved?"
"Not really."

Comments

[peter caputa]

I am a total believer in "marketing people" using social networking sites to genuinely interact with the community. Which most marketing people don't know how to do. From this little future-talk, it seems that they are clueful. But, something seems hollow about it. I can't put my finger on it, though.