News and commentary about the intersection of information technology, politics, and policy presented by the members of Digital Politics, a course at Hamilton College.
I thought it was great! Not as big as "Yes We Can" but I think the work that they did targeting college aged students and young musicians and listing the issues most important to that constituency was a very smart ad move.
I kept wondering where the video was going, if they were trying to be funny, and when it would eventually get to the point. If you do stick it out, however, I think it is good that some of Hillary's messages are clearly laid out at the end.
Hillary’s entire video targets teenagers and young adults. Obama's "Yes We Can" video seems to appeal to young adults and teenagers, but it seems to be naturally appealing. During the first half of Hillary's, she is trying to establish herself as someone who is "cool," whereas Obama's "coolness" is already established and is reinforced by the celebrities who appear in the video. If I had to guess, I would say that Obama's video would be more effective among individuals of all age groups. His message is articulated throughout the video and (as was pointed out in a previous post) the video encourages the viewer to watch/listen to the speech that inspired the song/video. While one may comply with the Hillary video's request to visit her website (to read about how she is planning to accomplish her goals), Obama's is much more compelling- it makes the viewer curious enough about the speech to choose to watch it (which is also more interesting than reading about policy proposals on a website). Furthermore, the "PAID FOR BY HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT" at the end of the Hillary video seems like it might turn young voters away, since it adds to the phony/trying-too-hard feel of the video. Obama's video, which was created because the creators were truly inspired by Obama’s message, would probably be perceived as much more heartfelt and inspiring.
The two videos could also be seen as a manifestation of why some believe Hillary would make a better president than Obama. Many Obama critics believe that he is the king of rhetoric, while Hillary is the real agent of "change." Hillary's message (when it finally shows up) is a list of issues that she plans to take on as President, whereas Obama's message of hope is abstract. This difference partly explains why Obama is more popular with idealistic young people, while Hillary gets a lot of support from an older (more cynical?) demographic. (It also doesn’t hurt that Obama is the King of Facebook!) I think the Hillary video is a lot more interesting when compared to Obama’s, because a lot can be inferred about the two candidates and their campaigns.
This add, like jacob said, needed to have hillary at least rocking out and if not at least an appearance by her. She seems to be losing the you-tube war against Obama. (Not positive about his rock star abilities though)
Jacob, why am I not surprised that you found this video to be a great move? Hmmm…
Jenna, I think you raise a nice point about how the two videos resemble each person's candidacy: Barack, the king of rhetoric with an abstract vision of hope vs. Hillary, the clear cut policy woman.
I agree with you that Barack's video is more inspiring and heartfelt --but then again, it was created by his followers and believers. Hillary's video was the product of her campaign (This is also why you don't see a "paid for by Barack Obama” tagline at the end of the ‘Yes We Can’; Hillary was required to put that up by law). Also, I don’t think Hillary was going for the heartstrings with her video in the way that Will.I.Am was with the Obama video... she made her attempt at being heartfelt when she whimpered on National television before the New Hampshire primary!
Please see my latest post for continued thoughts about campaign ads. Thanks!
6 comments:
I thought it was great! Not as big as "Yes We Can" but I think the work that they did targeting college aged students and young musicians and listing the issues most important to that constituency was a very smart ad move.
But wasn't it a b-o-r-e?
It had a slow start, it would have been better if they had Clinton rocking out, but I was a fan of the end.
I kept wondering where the video was going, if they were trying to be funny, and when it would eventually get to the point. If you do stick it out, however, I think it is good that some of Hillary's messages are clearly laid out at the end.
Hillary’s entire video targets teenagers and young adults. Obama's "Yes We Can" video seems to appeal to young adults and teenagers, but it seems to be naturally appealing. During the first half of Hillary's, she is trying to establish herself as someone who is "cool," whereas Obama's "coolness" is already established and is reinforced by the celebrities who appear in the video. If I had to guess, I would say that Obama's video would be more effective among individuals of all age groups. His message is articulated throughout the video and (as was pointed out in a previous post) the video encourages the viewer to watch/listen to the speech that inspired the song/video. While one may comply with the Hillary video's request to visit her website (to read about how she is planning to accomplish her goals), Obama's is much more compelling- it makes the viewer curious enough about the speech to choose to watch it (which is also more interesting than reading about policy proposals on a website). Furthermore, the "PAID FOR BY HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT" at the end of the Hillary video seems like it might turn young voters away, since it adds to the phony/trying-too-hard feel of the video. Obama's video, which was created because the creators were truly inspired by Obama’s message, would probably be perceived as much more heartfelt and inspiring.
The two videos could also be seen as a manifestation of why some believe Hillary would make a better president than Obama. Many Obama critics believe that he is the king of rhetoric, while Hillary is the real agent of "change." Hillary's message (when it finally shows up) is a list of issues that she plans to take on as President, whereas Obama's message of hope is abstract. This difference partly explains why Obama is more popular with idealistic young people, while Hillary gets a lot of support from an older (more cynical?) demographic. (It also doesn’t hurt that Obama is the King of Facebook!) I think the Hillary video is a lot more interesting when compared to Obama’s, because a lot can be inferred about the two candidates and their campaigns.
This add, like jacob said, needed to have hillary at least rocking out and if not at least an appearance by her. She seems to be losing the you-tube war against Obama. (Not positive about his rock star abilities though)
Jacob, why am I not surprised that you found this video to be a great move? Hmmm…
Jenna, I think you raise a nice point about how the two videos resemble each person's candidacy: Barack, the king of rhetoric with an abstract vision of hope vs. Hillary, the clear cut policy woman.
I agree with you that Barack's video is more inspiring and heartfelt --but then again, it was created by his followers and believers. Hillary's video was the product of her campaign (This is also why you don't see a "paid for by Barack Obama” tagline at the end of the ‘Yes We Can’; Hillary was required to put that up by law). Also, I don’t think Hillary was going for the heartstrings with her video in the way that Will.I.Am was with the Obama video... she made her attempt at being heartfelt when she whimpered on National television before the New Hampshire primary!
Please see my latest post for continued thoughts about campaign ads. Thanks!
Post a Comment