"new media" musings

The End

2005-07-26T19:09:00.000-04:00

Just wanted to let you all know that the summer semester is over and my blog, for all intents and purposes, is over as well. I may keep blogging in the future, or I may not. It's going to be a busy year. But thanks for reading, it's been fun!

the future, it's not about micropayments...

2005-07-25T09:05:00.000-04:00

After thinking long and hard on what to dedicate my last official post to, I decided to pick a topic I skipped over last week, but one I actually do have a strong opinion about. Phil and Emi assigned a slew of readings on microtargeting, a concept that has been around since 1998 but that I had actually not heard of until Phil brought it up in class.

There's no way to respond to all 11 articles, ranging from 1998 to 2005, but I'll try and hit the highlights for you.

Our good buddy Jakob Nielsen introduced microtargeting as a way for a user to control his website, and profit from it, without the interference of advertisers. The more advertisements a site has, the less time a user will spend there before giving up out of frustration. I know that those sites that have ads taking up the whole screen or that appear when you accidentally drag your mouse over the smaller ad and cover up what you’re trying to see are especially annoying and can effect how often I visit the site and how long I spend there.

However, I do not agree with Nielsen and his prediction that any site not financed through product sales will soon require an entrance fee of sorts to view the page. I don’t care if it’s only a dime or a quarter, I don’t think the web will ever be run that way. The fact that Nielsen predicted this would happen by 2000 makes me even more confident that there is significant resistance to this idea. Nielsen predicts an average of 10-30 dollars in user fees for the typical Internet user a month.

Charging 25 cents to see a person’s comic strip, as Phil showed us in class is one thing, because that is a site that I will never have to visit. However, charging me to Google that person’s comic strip is quite another story. I can see newspapers possibly using micropayments effectively as well, since users are used to paying for them in hard copy. But the fact that seven years after Nielsen wrote his article, micropayments are still not commonplace makes me wonder if we’ll ever see them on mainstream websites.

In April of this year, Steven Marlin wrote a piece for InternetWeek explaining how micropayments are successfully being used. However, they are only really used for services such as photos, news, music, etc. that people do not mind paying for. If a person utilizes enough of these services, it makes since to get a BitPass account and deduct a quarter from your account each time you want a song. I know plenty of people who buy Itunes debit cards to get music for their Ipod with little to no complaint.

However, I stand by my prediction that micropayments will never be used to the extent that Nielsen originally predicted. Thoughts?

ok, one last free pass...

2005-07-24T19:00:00.000-04:00

There's just one blog entry left! I'm not sure whether I feel relieved or sad...

the clash between freedom and control...

2005-07-23T13:39:00.000-04:00

Over the semester, I have often alluded to Siva Vaidhyanathan's book, The Anarchist in the Library. I will be the first to admit that I did not find much of it very interesting. It was published a year ago, but much of it already seemed out of date. Control of information evolves and changes so rapidly, it's almost impossible to keep up. But in his conclusion, Vaidhyanathan made two observations that stand the test of time.

The first line that struck me as ironically true is the American government's feeling that "Too much truth is dangerous, and lies make us safer." As Americans, we have always prided ourselves on our freedoms of speech and expression and strong sense of democracy for all. But in the past few years, attacks on our soil and a President who seems to believe in the theory of acting now and explaining later, Americans have often felt as betrayed by our own government and by some of our own cultures. Do we still pride ourselves on being a "melting pot" of culture when we now are suspicious of the loyalty of some of our own?

Which brings me to the second observation, how do we control the negative aspect of some cultures while still extolling our democratic values? Vaidhyanathan noted, "As cultures build themselves and proliferate, they pretty much follow anarchists' description of the ideal political state...Culture builds itself without leaders." So what right do leaders have to then dictate how cultures manifest themselves? Just in the past few years, Americans have been witness to detainment of members of certain cultural groups for our own safety, a war being fought in order to further democracy, and not so random security checks at airports. What is the line between a government's limits on freedom and doing what it needs to do to keep its people safe?

I don't know the answer, Vaidhyanathan doesn't know the answer either. But we're both unsettled by what he terms "the clash between freedom and control," and one concerned for the battle for information will effect cultures and politics in the future.

Since I haven't had a day off yet...

2005-07-20T14:45:00.000-04:00

Is persuasion inherently unethical?

2005-07-17T14:43:00.000-04:00

I've never really considered the ethics involved with Internet technology, perhaps because I've always accepted its persuasion techniques as an annoying fact of life, but after reading Fogg's thoughts on the issue in his book Persuasive Technology, I see how there should be some cause for concern.

I am very aware not to click on pop up or banner ads advising me that I have $1,000 or a free ipod waiting for me, but is a 12 year old? I know that my family computer back home in NC is so laden with viruses from programs my brother either purposely or inadvertently downloaded that it is often impossible to get online at this point. Like anything in life, many people fail to read the fine print associated with downloads or promotions, which can turn out to be an extremely frustrating and/or expensive mistake. And there's not much a person can do to combat it. A computer isn't a person, you can't take it to court. Whenever I call Dell for technical support, an automated voice reminds me as I'm holding that they are not responsible for any problems cause by third party software and all they can do to help is recommend programs that may or may not help.

Fogg also made a suggestion in which a company could use the Internet as a tool for operant conditioning (Bandura's theory concerning the use of reinforcement or punishment to promote certain behavior).

For instance, a company could create a Web browser that uses operant conditioning to change people's Web surfing behavior without their awareness. If the browser were programmed to give faster page downloads to certain Web sites - say, those affiliated with the company's strategic partners - and delay the download of other sites, users would be subtly rewarded for accessing certain sites and punished for visiting others.

Fogg considers this possibility unethical and so do I. What worries me most is that chances are good even people that are fairly technologically knowledgeable like myself would likely have no idea it was happening. Between work and school, I am a busy person with no time to wait around for pages to load. As the Web becomes increasingly savvy and more people of all ages and cultures log on, ethical red flags will continue to be a cause for concern. It's great that the Net is unregulated and a true platform for freedom of expression but are the costs getting too high?

So that's not really what he said?

2005-07-16T10:07:00.000-04:00

I've never actually been to factcheck.org. I remember Cheney's gaffe during the vice-presidential debate however, so I read with interest the analysis of the MoveOn PAC Internet ad pitting Edwards vs. Cheney. As is their style, they summarize the ad, offer the full text, analyze it, and then edit it to show the true context of the words. As is done in most campaign ads, the "Compassion" ad took from speeches both men had given earlier and used snippets, splicing them together to portray Edwards as trustworthy, caring, and hopeful while Cheney's words provoked fear.

As a student of political communication, I am well aware of the techniques and tactics used to make political ads and take them with a grain of salt. I also assume most of America sees enough of these to understand that they are partisan and can not be taken literally. Factcheck may go to extremes in spelling out what was exactly the original context of the speech. The ad designers did nothing wrong in editing the way they did, and even included the proper disclaimer. I would be more upset if a partisan organization did NOT produce and ad like "Compassion."

However, the service that Factcheck offers is a good one. I noticed that you can sign up to receive all of the factchecks in your email as they are released. I think that doing so is a smart move for any swing voter, well really any voter, but in particular a voter who can be persuaded. It shows integrity to do whatever you can to gather all of the facts in order to make an educated decision. Next time campaign season rolls around, I'll have to remember to see what Factcheck.org is up to and encourage my non-political management friends to check it out as well.

Is it really for their own good?

2005-07-15T18:28:00.000-04:00

As someone who studied both politics and communication in college, I am well aware of the extensive monitoring of the Internet by the Chinese government. However, Internet Filtering in China 2004-2005: A Case Study did offer me some information.

I did not know that while the BBC was blocked, most Chinese citizens can still access American news sites like CNN, MSNBC and ABC. I actually find that quite surprising considering the extent the Chinese government went to cover up the SARS outbreak among its citizens. It was one of the biggest stories in the American news media throughout the height of the outbreak. The document stated that most Chinese citizens were informed through receiving text messages from friends in other countries and then spreading the word. I suppose it's likely that the pages on the American news sites referring to SARS were blocked, or that they appeared temporarily unavailable during that time. I would be interested in finding out more about that situation.

Another item I found particularly relevant was that Chinese blog service providers prevent posts with certain keywords or edit them out. Now that I regularly keep a blog, the thought of whomever runs Blogger editing each of my posts that spoke negatively of the government appalls me. It almost defeats the purpose of keeping a blog. As tightly regulated as the Chinese media is, blogs in theory could offer an alternate opinion. However, since citizens are unable to offer any opinion deviating from the official Communist party line, I don't see much point in their existence in China.

the legality of it all...

2005-07-13T19:04:00.000-04:00

As someone with very little background in law, it had never really occurred to me that movies had to run every single item that appears in them by a copyright lawyer in order to include it in the picture. However, after reading Lessig's piece, it makes perfect sense. I remember all the movies I watch and groan 'product placement' when I see a character obviously drinking a Pepsi or typing on a Mac. Of course, some of it is product placement, but some of it may just be because it was the brand that gave permission.

As of yet, the Internet doesn't really have many laws to regulate it. Last night in class, Carol Darr was speaking about how hard it will be to try and do so. For example, I could easily take the Coke logo and place it in my blog. I could then write an entire paragraph telling you how much I hate Coke. The truth is though, Coke can't do anything about me using their logo. Streaming video allows anyone with a basic knowledge of technology to create their own mini-film. These films use all types of music and pictures, and none of these novice filmmakers got permission, nor did they probably even consider that they might possibly be doing something that could be illegal.

It looks like I'll be doing more legal reading in the next week, and I'm interested to see what more I don't know about what's legal and illegal when it comes to the media and the Internet. Stay tuned.

the generational divide...

2005-07-10T11:39:00.000-04:00

Jakob Nielsen did a study on the usability of websites for teenagers. He found that teenagers are easily bored online, and that the best way to capture their attention is with simplicity and interactivity.

I may no longer be a teenager, but as someone who grew up online I can appreciate his points. Television bores me and I no longer spend much time watching it, but I can waste hours online just searching and visiting different sites. The ones that pull me back offer me a wealth of information, are frequently updated,and include pictures or video but no overwhelming graphics.

My grandmothers have both purchased computers in the last five years and they use it strictly for e-mail or keeping up with friends' deaths in the obituary columns. They have no need for graphics and pop up ads just confuse them. Perhaps if more sites took their needs in mind, then they would explore the Internet a bit more.

If, as Nielsen found, teenagers need large text and simple layouts just like the older generation need, then who are those super fancy flash sites designed for? Hopefully web designers read Nielsen's columns and take note that wasting a companies money on bells and whistles just isn't necessary.

let's talk about race...

2005-07-09T10:19:00.000-04:00

Ok, so the great thing about the Internet is that everyone is equal, right? I mean, for all you know I could be thirty, Hispanic, and male. Of course, if you actually read what I've said this past month, you'd probably know that I was female and in my twenties. But what about my race? I may have alluded to it when trying to prove a point before, but if this was just a normal blog, you'd probably have no way of knowing.

The Internet, and more importantly blogs and chatrooms, offer a person a clean slate. You can have a non-descript handle (identity) and go from forum to forum espousing your views and your next door neighbor or landlord would have no idea it was you. Henry Jenkins wrote a piece in 2002, before the blogosphere exploded, commenting on how everyone assumes that they are talking to another white person in a chatroom. I take this to mean that if you're white in a chatroom you think you're talking to another white person. I'm not sure if he means that if you're black in a chatroom you also assume that everyone else is black, for example.

I have never really participated in a chatroom, but as a member of the blogging community, I can honestly say that I make no racial assumptions about the bloggers I read. I'm much likely to make gender assumptions, and have that color the way I read a person's remarks, than their race. I don't think that being racially blind is necessarily a good thing. But when you see a blog that is obviously catering toward one race or another, for example, Black Independent Voter Network, that does effect how I read it, or if I read it. I tend not to even look at that blog because I have the presumption that my comments wouldn't be valued there, even though most people would probably not know my race based on one paragraph of commentary.

Therefore, I think that it's better for blogs to remain racially neutral, unless they are trying to cater toward a specific racial audience. If the post calls for qualifying your comment with your race or gender, than do so, but otherwise I like that people can say what they think without being prejudged by how they look or act.

Will mobile phones bridge the digital divide?

2005-07-08T21:45:00.000-04:00

So even if it were possible to wave a magic wand and cause a computer to appear in every household on earth, it would not achieve very much: a computer is not useful if you have no food or even electricity and cannot read.

According to a friend of mine who has spent a lot of time in Africa, often times when men are given access to computer over there they simply go to porn sites and indulge themselves. I definitely think that the idea from The Economist, that mobile phones can help close the digital divide, is promising. For investors especially, since introducing mobile phones will allow markets in the developed world to tap into the resources of poorer countries. By investing in lesser developed countries, we can allow their markets to grow and develop. Mobile phones are already fairly popular in Africa, for they aren't very expensive. Also people who don't have electricity can use them because they run on batteries.

What mobile phones can do for Africa that computers and the Internet can't, is to capitalize on resources that the Africans and others in similar situations already have. As the article said, what good is giving a computer to someone without electricity or who cannot read? You are ultimately adding to the problem by slowing down progress.

Mobile phones can also help those living under communist rule. When those living in communist North Korea get black market cellphones from their friends in South Korea, they are able to text message and attempt to organize mass protests (smartmobbing) or to just communicate with friends. In a country where the Internet is regulated and calls made on land lines are monitored, cell phones enable a person to keep in touch with the democratic world. Governments have not really found a way to regulate text messaging, and hopefully they will never be able to.

Technology (and globalization) has the advantage of making the world bigger and smaller at the same time. After the recent London bombings, for example, those in the African cities saw the news on TV, and could spread the word into the smaller villages where people may go for days without hearing. The Internet may never reach every person, because it isn't necessary or important in some cultures, but with technological innovations such as mobile phones, hopefully people can be more aware of each other and the world.

the power of the influential...

2005-07-06T19:27:00.000-04:00

In February 2004, the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet released a study, Political Influentials Online in the 2004 Election, which demonstrated that citizens involved in presidential politics through the Internet were almost seven times more likely than average Americans to act as opinion leaders among their friends, colleagues and families. The research established that one of the best ways for political candidates to reach the people who reach everyone else is through the Internet.

What the study found was that by properly using the Internet, a campaign can reach these online influentials and propel their campaign forward. As the article noted, these people are no longer just cybergeeks. Pretty much everyone in the Political Management program is there because they strive to be, if they are not already, influentials. By keeping blogs we are commentators on how we view politics, the media, and the Internet. Many people like to be looked to as experts or at least as someone whose opinion is valued on a particular topic. As we have learned in class, and as Carol Darr, Julie Barko, and Brandon Robinson reported in Putting Online Influentials to Work for Your Campaign, campaigns have and must continue to use some of the same techniques.

One of the easiest and best ways to harness the power of an influential is by giving him the opportunity to join and lead. Websites from presidential hopefuls to mayoral candidates can put a volunteer form on their website. With this form, they can determine who is excited to help the candidate. By putting a checkbox asking if they would like to become a precinct leader like Congressman Adam Smith did or by recognizing a volunteer of the month like Senator Harry Reid, campaigns are giving their volunteers power and influence. Something else campaigns have discovered is the power of the forward. A typical influential is the one who spreads the word about the new hot restaurant or bar. The influential in the Internet age forwards newspaper or magazine articles or encourages their friends to view certain websites or to get involved in the campaign that has recognized them as a precinct leader.

I, along with most people I know, constantly check their email. My Outlook is always open when I have my computer on, which is pretty much every waking hour. I have three e-mail addresses, one for school, one for work, and one that I don't mind giving out to websites or strangers. Between the three of them, I average over 100 e-mails a weekday. I probably forward at least five e-mails a day, and e-mail an article or two a week. I don't think I'm unique in these habits, and I don't even consider myself particularly influential. I therefore see the future of campaigns to become consistently more grassroots based with influentials leading the way, and those candidates who embrace the Internet to be most successful.

the bad with a little bit of good...

2005-07-03T11:52:00.000-04:00

For my strategic plan assignment for class, I was assigned the Independent Green Party of Virginia. It is not a very attractive site, but its most ineffective aspect was that it is extremely unorganized and its setup just does not make sense. From the web address (votejoinrun.us) to the lack of homepage, from the ever changing headings to the lack of findable sections, the webpage is overflowing with structural flaws.

The first, most basic improvement would be a web address such as igva.com, or something else that alludes to the name of the party. For someone who doesn't know the purpose of the party, the current address seems a bit ambiguous. Not to mention it takes some searching through the site to discover the purpose. You have to click on the Run for Office link on the very bottom of the home page and then the explanation is at the bottom of that page.

My second point is the lack of homepage on this website. The first page you see is entitled IGVA News. It contains the most current candidates that the party is supporting for office. It has been updated two times since the semester started with new candidates. The headings that I thought originally served as links to different webpage settings change with the updates, giving the site no consistency. If you scroll all the way down the news page (which is extremely long) or any other page, there is a list of sections at the bottom. This list should really be given much more prominence, like perhaps as buttons on the sidebar as opposed to the current icon that resides there that again, makes little sense.

However, the IGVA site is full of information. If you have the time to sort through it all, there is just anything you want to know about the party: how to get involved, information about the candidates, and the issues. It may be written in a horrible font, in weird colors, and in no particular order, but it's there. And that's about all that the current site has going for it.

if Congress worked the way I wanted it to work...

2005-07-02T16:20:00.000-04:00

After reading Dennis Johnson's chapter on Congressional Websites in Congress Online, I decided that in my ideal world there would be a congressional committee that set up requirements that every member must have on their website, how frequently it should be updated, and how much money should be allocated to pay a staff member to oversee the site. When I read that only five members had their schedules posted, I was not surprised. But if every member was required to post it, then it should not be a tool for his opponent to use against him. Unless of course, he truly was slacking off on the job.

As we've learned in class, the ability to interact and provide feedback are important aspects of a website that can help a constituent feel involved. Since we aren't talking about campaigns here, volunteer and fundraising forms are unnecessary. Instead, Congressional sites typically utilize forms to e-mail issue concerns. In addition, a message board option, moderated by a rotating group of staffers, and maybe for a special hour a week, the Senator or Congressperson himself could take questions. This feature could actually cut back on constituent mail by providing immediate feedback.

I know most of my ideas will never happen, but it's fun to be idealistic every once in awhile.

So technology was supposed to make our lives easier?

2005-06-30T16:47:00.000-04:00

I had the pleasure of interning on the Hill in a Senate office during my sophomore year of college. September 11th had occurred the previous year, and the war on Iraq resolution was being debated. From afternoons spent in the mail room, I saw first hand the effect of the anthrax situation. The mail we received had been sent weeks, if not a month or two, before. Among my other responsibilities was sorting through faxes and e-mails, picking out ones that were "form letters" and separating them from actual constituent correspondence. Until you've personally spent hours of your day at such a task, there is no way to understand the sheer mass of correspondence a Senate office receives daily. My particular office chose to respond to all letters by snail mail, regardless of the form they originated in.

After I had been there a few months, I got "adopted" b a few of the LCs, which bumped me from mail room duty to drafting responses to constituent letters. I went in three days a week, and most days I would find e-mails in my in-folder that were at least 2 weeks old. By the time I got through with them and the LC revised them, I imagine a month would pass before a response was even ready to be mailed. I'm not sure whether my office was particularly bad at staying on top of correspondence, but if Dennis Johnson was right in his book, Congress Online, falling behind in mail is a fairly common problem on the Hill.

With more and more correspondence coming in electronically, I don't blame Congress for wanting to use filtering systems, so that they can give their interns and staff assistants tasks other than sorting through mail and given them substantial work. And more importantly, of course, so that their office can run more efficiently. However I, like Johnson, am a bit concerned that leaving the responsibility to technology is just asking for trouble. EchoMail, a system set up to automatically reply to e-mails based on keywords, may be efficient, but a couple of screw ups getting reported in the news, and good luck getting reelected.

I get MoveOn's e-mails, and I've seen the formats they provide in order to launch a cyber protest at a Congressman with whom they disagree. Unfortunately for Hill staffers, that's always going to be a problem with or without e-mail. E-mail just makes it that much easier for the young professional stuck in front of a computer all day to get involved. Good for democracy, bad for overworked, underpaid Hill staff.

learning from past mistakes...

2005-06-29T11:56:00.000-04:00

Not to sound like a broken record, but after last night's discussion in class and finally reading the CNN.com article that so many of my classmates have commented on, I need to throw my five cents into the mix.

First of all, Jim Mergler, the former Ohio Dem, who went out and volunteered for Bush just because they were the campaign that called him? Um, obviously not a strong Dem to start with. The article was written before Election Day, so it doesn't say who he actually voted for, but I find it hard to believe that there are many people out there who are so desperate to volunteer that it doesn't matter which party calls them. Also, if that's all it takes to decide who you're going to support, I fear for our country. Do the issues not matter AT ALL anymore?

As has been said before, the Republicans used the four year since 2000 to learn from all of their mistakes in the ground game, while the Democrats apparently lounged around building useless databases. That was at least half sarcastic. Regardless, yes, the Dems lost a great opportunity in 2004. Yes, the 527s probably hurt more than they helped in the long run, but only because the Dems did not view them as they should be viewed. In other words, if the 527s existed solely to raise money and register voters and throw concerts, etc while the Democratic Party and the campaign were simultaneously forming an airtight strategic message, pimping their candidate for his own qualities and not just because he's not Bush, and getting out the vote, then we may have had a very different election.

I think what's important for the Democratic party at this point is to reevaluate how to use the 527s to their advantage. Obviously, they can't directly communicate and strategize, but form some type of understanding of who does what. And for the love of god, find a good strategist/campaign manager and stick with them!

What is the Patriot Act good for exactly?

2005-06-27T12:23:00.000-04:00

When reading more in Vaidhyanathan's Anarchist in the Library, I was struck by the timeliness of the discussion of the Patriot Act. Vaidhyanathan used the Patriot Act to show how libraries have been effected by the government's desire to invade our privacy, especially since public libraries have been shown to be how terrorists obtained information that they then used against the country. Vaidhyanathan is not a fan of the act, even going so far as to say:

Five weeks after the attacks [9/11], the U.S. Congress passed, without
debate, and the president signed into law, without hesitation or deliberation a
342-page document that hardly anyone had read completely: the Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot) Act of 2001. The act radically revised
legal protections against government surveillance of electronic communication.
It eased the burden on federal law enforcement agents who monitor Internet and
telephone traffic. And it severely challenged librarians to adhere to their
Enlightenment principles.

Many of the act's provisions are set to expire at the end of this year, and the president wants the law reauthorized without any changes made, except perhaps to strengthen it. The current debate is over how intrusive the law really is or needs to be. Our Fourth Amendment right protecting us against unlawful search and seizure is being called into question. Of course, how often was the Patriot Act even invoked? It's fairly innocuous, and most privacy issues have nothing to do with the act itself. Whether or not libraries have been severely compromised as a result of the act will probably never be known.

Libraries serve as an important facet of our culture. It is unfortunate that a terrorist took advantage of the services that libraries provide, but I hope that they remain, more or less unchanged. I visit the DC public library on a weekly basis to check out a novel or two that I don't have the money to buy. Providing books and Internet services to those who are significantly less well off than I am is important. I don't see the Patriot Act necessarily affecting the services libraries provide and sincerely hope that Vaidhyanathan is projecting a worst case scenario that will never actually hold true.

Want to know how to win an election?

2005-06-25T23:07:00.000-04:00

Never having had worked for a campaign or lived in a swing state, I read all the articles about massive GOTV effort like I'm reading a novel. I think that it's one of things you must experience to truly appreciate. That being said, the New York Times Magazine article that focused on the Republican effort in 2004 was one of the best insider views I have read on the topic. Ohio will one day become a classic case study in how to win (or lose) and election. The viral method that the Republican party picked up on and exploited to their advantage is a lesson every successful campaign manager must learn.

Rove and Mehlman gleaned a critical lesson from the 2002 Congressional and 2003 gubernatorial elections, Mehlman told me excitedly: the way to build a grass-roots movement is to get one volunteer to recruit several other volunteers, and so on, so that the organization is constantly growing, feeding off itself. The campaign provided various ways for people to volunteer, he said, and ''the big thing that brings them all together is viral activity.''

The way that they targeted potential voters by the cars they drove or the neighborhood they lived in was smart, in a creepy sort of way. I wonder what one of them would think of me, from a red state, daughter of small business owners, single college educated female in her early 20s, drives a Corolla, lives in an apt in downtown DC, Jewish...I am a mess of contradictions when it comes to party ID. I would love to ask a canvasser how often he is accurate in pinpointing exactly who a person is apt to vote for and how long it takes them to make the correct assumption.

The woman in the article who was 25 and had never voted because of excuses such as working two jobs, going to school, babysitting on the side would be a Democrat in my book, but the Bush team pegged her as Republican because she, "does all that work and works that hard," so she has to be.

To see grassroots as the next phase in campaigning, now that unions and parties are losing their hold on constituents seems natural with the technological advances of the past decade. But what it really comes down to these days is an ability to read people and tell them what they want to hear, and that's why Bush won in 2004. That's why canvassing in Ohio matters, and that's what campaigning has always been and remain to be about, no matter what else evolves.

It's a party problem...

2005-06-24T18:44:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading the salon.com article on what a failure the Kerry campaign was. It's nothing I haven't heard expressed before, but it's always interesting to here it from someone on the inside who can so clearly see the problems. (Of course he never blamed himself)

In all of the reports released after the election, it was clear that while Kerry seemed to have all of this wonderful support from 527s, the fact that they could not communicate with the actual campaign meant the GOTV strategy was basically in disarray. Dems thought they had the advantage on this, and they took it for granted. The Kerry campaign itself obviously did not do it's best at GOTV. It's clear from our previous discussion on e-mail newsletters in the last week of the campaign, that while Bush's concerned GOTV, Kerry's were all about fundraising.

Verini is very right in his assertion that Dems weren't excited about Kerry, they were just amped up to beat Bush. No one stopped to think long enough to make sure Kerry had a well articulated platform. His campaign let Bush define Kerry early on to the extent that an above par debate performance was not anywhere near enough to erase earlier damage. And what I can't understand is why Kerry eventually used the same strategists that Gore and other previous Democrat losers used. I mean, Shrum? He hasn't impressed me yet. It's time for the Dems to learn their lesson once and for all and lose their misconceptions that they'll win because the Republicans are obviously evil.

I've never worked on a campaign, so I don't feel I can really put down those who do. I also don't think it's their fault. It's a party problem, and the party needs to find a solution-quickly.

don't forget it's a two-way street...

2005-06-23T19:06:00.000-04:00

Having never traveled to a third world country, I had never really considered the cultural effects of peer to peer networks. As Siva Vaidhyanathan notes in The Anarchist in the Library, many natives of India, Africa, or Mexico cannot afford to buy a CD, DVD, and definitely not a computer. This is what is commonly known as the digital divide. However, because of black markets and straight out copyright infringement, they have access to pirated technology at a significantly lower price. I think that this opportunity is a great one. As Vaidhyanathan pointed out, without pirated software, business people in India would have trouble getting their jobs done. It's not like they would be buying most of this technology full price either. Many people in these countries are lucky to make $5 a day. How can we expect them to buy a $15 CD?

Whether you like it or not, we live in the age of globalization. A teenage girl in a small African village may have very likely heard of say, Justin Timberlake and want the opportunity to dance to his pop music. I don't think she will lose her cultural identity by being exposed to this music, and I bet JT would not be too upset at learning he lost a few bucks because this girl was listening to a pirated copy of his CD. He'd probably even want to give the girl a real copy.

Anyways, to get back on topic, the cultural divide that can result as a consequence of the digital divide is shrinking because the mass availability of peer-to-peer networking. In the same way, African artists, for example, are able to get their music to a wider audience. I think this is a great thing and what globalization should be about. We should have greater access to other cultures just as much as they learn to love McDonald's, Starbucks, and Justin Timberlake. Don't be so concerned with control that you overlook the great opportunity that peer-to-peer networking can provide.

on the mysteries of RSS...

2005-06-21T21:44:00.000-04:00

Let me just start off by saying that I am someone who has never used a webfeed. I consider myself fairly technologically advanced, but whenever someone starts talking about RSS I tend to let my mind wander. However, I am very aware of how many e-mail newsletters are getting sent out and how many of them (thankfully) get caught in my spam filter. For those of you like me who don't completely understand how RSS work, this is a good primer. After reading it, I can now appreciate the concept of RSS feeds.

The concept of only receiving the news you want and getting it when you want is a good one. Perhaps as this communications medium becomes more commonplace, it can largely replace e-mail newsletters, benefiting both the sendee and the recipient. Amy Gahren, the author of this primer, claims that setting up an RSS is not technologically difficult. If that is indeed true, I think it is something campaigns should seriously consider utilizing as a replacement for the plethora of newsletters it typically sends out.

If an RSS feed truly works to centralize the news a person receives, then it could be one of the best things to happen to Internet communication in a long time.

a good kind of virus...

2005-06-20T14:45:00.000-04:00

First there was Interruption Marketing, then Permission Marketing. Add Viral Marketing to the list and it's no wonder how much spam can accumulate in just a few days. Ireland and Nash's book points out that Viral Marketing differs from the others in that it is entirely peer to peer. It's a technique targeted to people who would never click on a banner ad and who even filter out e-mails from anyone who's name they don't recognize. Websites have discovered that people will listen to their friends. By simply adding a button labeled "Send this page to a Friend" it can significantly increase its hit count.

This concept reminds me of Ed Keller and Jon Berry's book, The Influentials, which Jonah Seiger mentioned in his lecture a few weeks back. The authors note that one of every 10 people is an influential, or the person that all of their friends go to for advice on the best restaurant, movie, etc. Websites have caught on to this idea. By supplying the send to a friend button, these influentials can now easily use cyberspace to show their friends why their candidate is best or to pass along an interesting article in the Post. I know that I frequently e-mail articles of interest to my family and friends.

As long as the websites do not abuse the system by then sending out unsolicited e-mails to both the recommender and the recipient, I think viral marketing is an easy and fantastic way to spread a message.

we interrupt your surfing for the following message...

2005-06-19T22:46:00.000-04:00

Seth Godin coined the term "Interruption Marketing" to refer to techniques such as roadside billboards, or for the Internet age, pop-up ads. In other words, advertisements that cannot be easily avoided. Ireland and Nash discuss this term as well as Godin's other, preferrable, technique, "Permission Marketing," in Chapter 14 of their book.

Godin lauds Permission marketing as a much more effective technique because it attracts a websurfer to a message that they want to hear as opposed to placing a random message right in front of their face. In the age of Tivo and pop up blockers, permission marketing is a way to get your message heard by an increasingly busy and Internet savvy audience.

Campaigns which collect e-mail addresses by asking visitors to their website to sign up for e-mail updates can pinpoint who wants to receive their message. By asking a few questions, such as the person's zipcode, the candidate can send a personalized e-mail giving the voter the information most applicable to his or her life.

Commercial websites use the same techniques to show you ads that match your interests. Often when I visit yahoo.com I see a T-mobile ad. I always see it and wonder how yahoo could know that I use T-mobile. Is it because I used my yahoo e-mail account when I signed up for my contract?

More importantly, am I ok with the fact that by just entering a few pieces of data, the Internet paints a portrait of who you are as a consumer or a voter?

how to learn from past mistakes...

2005-06-18T15:37:00.000-04:00

Out of the three Jakob Nielsen pieces, the one I found the most intuitive and useful for future campaigns was his sidebar on how Bush and Kerry used the Internet during the last week of the campaign. According to Nielsen, the candidate who had the best Internet usability ratings in the previous presidential elections had one the race, and 2004 was no exception.

The major difference between the candidates in this election was that Kerry used his e-mail communications to raise money while Bush used his to get out the vote and motivate his base. Even the most fervent supporters will get irritated by too many donation requests, and that was the Kerry Internet campaign's biggest flaw in the last week. Bush, on the other hand, instructed his supporters to reach out to their friends and then sent a follow up email after the election telling them exactly how successful they'd been. That's the way to keep and expand your base.

more on usability...

2005-06-17T19:45:00.000-04:00

After reading another of Jakob Nielsen's usability articles, this one comparing and contrasting the usability of Kerry and Bush's email newsletters over a period of time, I don't know that I'll ever look at a mass mailing the same way again. I was on neither candidate's mailing list, although I received Kerry emails at work. I did not usually read them, but deleted them as I would delete any spam. The fact that I would delete them as spam (although part of the reason I deleted them was because I did not request them) makes me wonder how many other people would as well. If the way that the candidate got my email address was because I had to enter it as a way to access certain information on their website or because I donated money or filled out a volunteer form, then how was I supposed to expect a newsletter up to four or five times a week.

One thing Nielsen pointed out that I find very true, is that if the email doesn't come from Kerry or Bush themselves, it really does appear like spam. The candidate should use the subject line properly and explain that the email is a "Kerry campaign update" for example. I know who Mary Beth Cahill and Ken Mehlman are, but I doubt my mother or even some of my best friends do. With the high tech spam blockers these days, how many of those one or two million subscribers do you think actually read the emails?

the question of usability

2005-06-16T14:52:00.000-04:00

Anyone who uses the Internet, or even reads a magazine or newspaper regularly, makes a decision on whether or not to read something based on its usability. It may not be a conscious decision, but given the choice between two websites of similar content, a person is going to choose the more user-friendly one. For example, I receive both New York Times and Washington Post headlines in my email daily. I like the NYT email better, because of it's format and brevity. However, since I live in Washington, often times the Post's story are more relevant to me, so I read those as well.

Jakob Nielson compared Bush and Kerry's campaign updates with the Washington Post's during the 2004 election. It rated the Post's much higher. I did not receive any of these updates, so I can't speak from personal experience, but it makes sense to me that the Post's would be more user-friendly. While Bush and Kerry would have more to gain with a user-friendly newsletter, the Post is more experienced, having sent out headlines daily for many years now. One thing that the Post is very good at is personalizing what e-mail you can get. For example, in addition to daily headlines I also get a Sports update and a Politics update. I get an Arts update weekly from the NYT. By getting a personalized e-mail, I am much more likely to click a link, follow the story to the main website, and continue exploring the newspaper online once I'm there.

I would assume clicking on a link and arriving at the main campaign website would be a main goal of an e-mail newsletter. Therefore I suggest the campaigns take a better look at what newspapers are doing right and capitalize on that the next time around.

the Drudge effect...

2005-06-15T13:45:00.000-04:00

The idea that anyone can be a journalist on the Internet first gained credence when Matt Drudge broke the Clinton sex scandal that Newsweek had but was sitting on at the request of Ken Starr. Newsweek has much more at stake in falsely accusing the president than does Joe Schmo, or in this case, Matt Drudge. Drudge has no editor, no publisher, or no huge corporation that he is owned by. He is not held up to any standards of journalistic integrity by the public. He has nothing to lose but his personal reputation. And what is that really, when people wouldn't know him from Adam if passed on the street?

What Drudge has done, is challenge what is news and how it is presented. The 24-hour news cycle was invented with CNN, but before the Internet it was still much easier for news outlets to verify a story before breaking it. Now that all the major outlets have websites, getting something out there is more important than what gets out. It can very easily be altered once released. As Andrew Shapiro said in The Control Revolution (p. 138),

The fact that it can be modified so easily and imperceptibly prevents it from ever really being a final draft...an author can simply change the text as it appears on the web. The problem is that this ability to make seamless corrections after the fact can create a journalistic atmosphere in which sloppiness and inaccuracy are tolerated. With the pressure to be first to get the story out, the 'publish now, edit later' school of journalism may become widespread.

A great example of online "news" sources vs. Mainstream media occurred during the presidential election. The MSM had agreed not to release exit polls until they were all closed. However Drudge was not in on this agreement, and was one of the first to release the preliminary data around 2 pm, long before much of America had voted. The fact that this data favored Kerry has led many to question whether the early release ultimately hurt him. That this debate even exists is proof of how far the Drudges of the world have come.

Is this really the future of journalism? We can only wait and see.

the so called control revolution

2005-06-14T21:08:00.000-04:00

After reading chapter 11 of Andrew Shapiro's Control Revolution, entitled Freedom from Speech, I began thinking about how the Internet is truly a self-selecting resource. Sure, anyone can publish their opinions on the Web. But once they're there, how do you get people to read them. In the age of Google, submitting your site to the search engine is step one. Once Google acknowledges your existence, you're on your way. If your opinion is unpopular, you may need to trick people to your site by including commonly searched terms or phrases.

However, a person's attention span online is often extremely short. If you look at a sitemeter on any given webpage, often times to average visit is less than a minute. However if you want your message out in the world fairly inexpensively, if not free, the Internet is the way to go. Chances are someone else holds a similar opinion and if you are lucky enough, will find your webpage. The Internet can make it happen.

election laws and the Internet

2005-06-13T22:09:00.000-04:00

Trevor Potter and Kirk L. Jowers have written an article on election law and the Internet that appears in The Civic Web. I've always found election law to be confusing at best, and once it involved the Internet, I was more or less lost. I did find it interesting that the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) initial approach was that anything of value to a political candidate on the Web should be subject to government regulation. That got me thinking about how if that had become law where blogs would fit in. I can only assume that as long as a blog contained no official endorsement and did not include copies of campaign materials or links for fundraising, it would never appear on the radar of the FEC. However, the beauty of the Internet has always been its lack of regulation. With the proliferation of online journals and blogs, many people may forget that what they saw online is available for anyone to read, and rules such as libel still apply.

I remember a case recently at GW where members of a fraternity banned on campus got into trouble with the university because they had been using Facebook (Friendster for college students) to communicate. Chances are repercussions of using such an online medium never occurred to the brothers. In the same way, political supporters or detractor need to be careful with what statements they make online.

Luckily for Americans, the Internet remains fairly unregulated and acts as yet another outlet to demonstrate our first amendment right of free speech. Hopefully it will remain unregulated and online campaigns can continue to expand and people can continue to make a difference, or at the very least continue to use the Internet as an outlet of free expression in campaigns.

the trials and tribulations of online fundraising

2005-06-12T21:52:00.000-04:00

Continuing with Ireland & Nash's book on internet campaigns and the importance of fundraising online...

I enjoyed the chapter on Secrets of Online Fundraising because while it may not have contained many secrets, it did point out pretty much everything someone should know or consider when fundraising through the Internet. Having been through three campaign seasons now that have used the Internet to different degrees, online fundraising seems like a fairly obvious tactic. I think that it will continue to gain in importance, but I like that Ireland & Nash noted that it was important to integrate online fundraising with normal fundraising, and to advertise it through other means of communication, like mail, radio, or television.

The candidate who wins in many races is the one who has the best communication strategy. A candidate cannot focus on only one media outlet, but must learn to combine the best of all of them and use it to his or her advantage. The tips outlined in the chapter were helpful, and are important for anyone running an online campaign. From giving donors a choice to donate online or by mail to ways to advertise your website to prominently displaying a Donate button, their hints should be standard operating procedure at any Internet campaign HQ.

checks or credit cards?

2005-06-11T14:55:00.000-04:00

I was just reading Chapter 10 of Ireland & Nash's Winning Campaigns Online book. The chapter was about choosing an online fundraising system. I know this edition was written way before the 2004 election, but I found it interesting that the authors predict that online checks are going to eventually replace credit cards as the way to fundraise online. According to Ireland & Nash, only 60-65% of Americans have credit cards and more people use paper checks than credit cards. I have a hard time believing those statistics.

I know that I only use checks to pay my rent and phone bill, and use credit or debit cards for virtually every other transaction over 10 or 15 dollars. Pretty much everyone else my generation has the same mentality when it comes to credit card vs. check. In addition, I have never met a person without a credit card. Even my parents and grandparents, who always wrote checks for everything when I was growing up, owned credit cards, and have begun using them much more frequently, especially at restaurants and retail stores. I worked in a retail clothing store in Georgetown a few years ago, and almost every purchase was made with a credit card. Checks came in at a distant third behind cash as method of payment.

I can see how an online check may catch on for people who are concerned about security online. I pay my credit bill with an electric check, but that is only because it's my credit card bill. I can't exactly pay it off with itself. My generation is pretty comfortable with online purchasing and is familiar with the concept of secure servers. Ireland & Nash predict a boom in smaller amounts of money being donated to campaigns because of online fundraising. I agree with this prediction, but one of my own. The people who will be making online donations will skew younger. These people have at least one credit card, and feel very comfortable using it online. I'm not convinced the electric check is going to be the trend in online fundraising.

more on the downing st memo

2005-06-10T14:00:00.000-04:00

So basically the Internet stepped in to pick up the media' slack on this topic. The Downing St Memo website contains everything a person need to know about the document and even contains a blog to comment on it and a link to Conyers letter that he plans on personally delivering to the White House when it reaches 500,000 signatures. This site is just one of many that tend to pop up in response to a controversial issue. There are similar ones for the estate tax, Bush' No Child Left Behind plan, social security, etc. These web sites appear, serve their purpose, and then disappear.

This particular site contains a site meter, so I was able to see that it had been visited 429,492 times, with an average of 21,999 per day. The average length of time that a person stayed at the site was almost a minute which is quite impressive in this day and age. With everything that is out there to view on the Internet, it is exceedingly difficult to hold a person's attention span for more than half a second. The site meter has been up and running for less than a month on this particular site.

I think this issue serves as the quintessential case study for how the Internet/blogosphere responds to an issue that was more or less neglected in the mainstream media, and keeps it alive. This case also has the unique angle of involving a well known Congressman, giving it even more credibility and intrigue. I am interested to see where this letter signing campaign goes. I have serious doubts that it will actually have an effect on the White House or its policy on the war, but if anything does come out of it, it will serve to illustrate how John Doe with a computer can make a difference.

the downing st memo

2005-06-09T12:45:00.000-04:00

So I've resisted talking about it so far as I've been beating mobile technology to death, but the time has come to put in my two cents about the Downing St Memo. Because I have never been well entrenched into the musings of the blogosphere, I never did know much about it. But I do follow the news, and it most definitely did not get much press. I think this speaks more to the Bush administration than the mainstream media. It appears to me that the Bush administration did all it could to keep the memo out of the press and they in turn respected the request. The press knows that the war is a very controversial topic for all Americans so I am a bit surprised that it got such little coverage. However, this is the media that puts an insane amount of prepackaged news from the Bush administration on the air, and the administration that pays columnists to do their PR work for them. I'd like to think this is an anomaly of this administration, but in reality the media is overwhelmed with budget cuts and are understaffed. With every network owned by a much larger corporation, the stations have much less freedom to make their own decisions.

Ok, so this entry really has little to do with the Downing St Memo and is more about what is wrong with the media under the Bush administration. I plan on talking more about both in the next few entries, so leave me your comments on the topic.

the future of mobile technology...

2005-06-08T18:02:00.000-04:00

So I've been talking about mobile technology a lot recently, because it's something I find fascinating. Humor me for one more post, and then I'll move on to different topics. An old Economist article talks about how by the year 2010, it would become commonplace to make purchases from one's mobile phone, as opposed to over the phone or Internet. The reasoning behind this is the extreme convenience of always having your phone with you. You could be walking to the movie theater and buy your tickets along the way, or sitting on a bus wishing you had a book to read and decide to buy one for your next trip. This article was written four years ago when the dot com craze was at its peak. Now we have blackberries and phones with internet access, so a person can conceivably make purchases on their phone through the Internet, but I don't think it will ever reach the level that was predicted in The Economist. There's something to be said for at least seeing an item in full color or on a larger screen if you can't at least see it in person. I cannot see myself buying a dress through my mobile phone. Perhaps that is not the kind of purchasing the Economist is referring to. It's hard for me to put myself in 2001 and remember at what stage the Internet was at. Consumer purchasing online has come very far in five years, but will it take over mobile phones in the next five years? I'm still skeptical.

Conyers

2005-06-07T11:34:00.000-04:00

I found myself chuckling while reading Sylvester Brown's piece in the St. Louis paper about Conyers outrage with the media. While I don't agree that the media is too busy with things such as Disneyland and Michael Jackson to report on the "real" news, with the 24 hour news cycle, they need SOMETHING to put on the air. I remember when the Michael Jackson trial story first broke, and my colleagues and I were sitting at work watching CNN, enamored by their coverage of Jacko showing up to court in pjs. And it went on for a long time. I'm sure there were casualties in Iraq that day, and that something was voted on in the Senate, but I was too busy doing work then to pay attention to that. In a world where a quick search on Google or Yahoo news can bring you all the information about your topic of interest, why shouldn't they lead with the "runaway bride?" You just can't make the Iraq war sound that fun. I will admit that when I see the current top 5 headlines, I will click on a review of Coldplay's latest album before reading about another bombing in Israel.

But back on topic, Conyers may be a bit overstating the mainstream media's shift away from hard news. It's still there, you just have to dig a little deeper sometimes. However, at least he decided to do something about it. It's one thing to complain about the media, but Congressman Conyers actually joined the legions of bloggers who love to complain about the media. That's the way to do it!

more on fogg and mobile technology...

2005-06-06T16:54:00.000-04:00

B.J. Fogg's observations on how social learning theory can be applied to mobile technology in Chapter 8 of his book, Persuasive Technology, are very intriguing. Social learning theory is a very real concept that illustrates how the desire to either conform or compete can be very powerful motivators. Applying those concepts to mobile technology and hypothesizing that by having a mobile device tell a person how much a peer is drinking or studying will either motivate or dissuade that person from participating is not such a far fetched idea. However, I am not convinced that it would ever truly be very effective. Unless it served as an automated function, ie. the person received some type of call or message relaying the information, receiving such information is not a passive act. The student would have to actively seek out the drinking or studying statistics. I could see students using it as one more procrastination tool, but how many drinkers are going to whip out their phone at a party, look up the information and have it dictate the amount of fun they are having? All of this speculation on the future of mobile technology is interesting to me. But as a person without a blackberry or camera phone, and as someone who rarely even text messages, I can't imagine such advances truly becoming commonplace anytime soon.

now that makes sense...

2005-06-05T19:14:00.000-04:00

The chapter on Online Media Relations in Ireland & Nash's Winning Campaigns Online brought up some really good points about how reporters and the media will use a campaign's website to get information about a candidate. It is completely understandable that an easy to use, frequently updated, information rich website would inspire a reporter to give more positive or in-depth coverage to that particular candidate. It is important for a campaign to remember that it is not only voters they are hoping to entice with their website. Websites still have so much potential to transform campaigns. Campaign managers need to remember that their website is one of their most easily accessed and visible sources of information on their candidate and to treat it as such for internet campaigns to truly be successful.

privacy, what's that?

2005-06-04T12:18:00.000-04:00

After reading The Death Knell of Privacy, I found myself aghast at the extent that corporate executives and the government are using technology to prove to their employees or constituents how little they trust them. I lived in London briefly a few years back, and I remember the buses having the CCTV system set up, and how my friends and I thought it was so cool that we could see our friends sitting on an upper level if we were lucky enough to snag the seat in front of the CCTV system. However, after reading this article I more fully understand the significance of the CCTV system and how it and other technologies, such as the mobile phone tracking device can truly threaten a person's sense of privacy. I personally hate that through blackberries and cell phones, employees are reachable 24/7, and as a result are expected to keep up with any developments at work once they've left the office. To be able to be physically tracked, however, is a new level of absurdity. I could be at the beach with my family in the future and be forced to do a favor for my boss because I'm the closest person or risk being fired? That just boggles my mind, yet I'm worried that this and even more invasive measures are in our future.

the anarchist in the library....

2005-06-03T16:12:00.000-04:00

Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons has said, in regard to the proliferation of peer-to-peer music-sharing networks, 'This is very profound moment historically. This isn't about a bunch of kids stealing music. It's about an assault on everything that constitutes the cultural expression of our society. If we fail to protect and preserve our intellectual property system, the culture will atrophy. And corporations won't be the only ones hurt. Artists will have no incentive to create. Worst case scenario: The country will end up in sort of a cultural Dark Ages.

Worst-case scenario? How about never going to happen? I am someone who doesn't understand why rich CEOs and artists whose albums go platinum are complaining that they are losing money or that they are being robbed of some aspect of the creative process. I enjoy peer-to-peer networks because they allow me to discover new artists and more obsucre songs by an artist that I never would have heard otherwise because I won't buy a CD having only heard one or two songs. Many people in my generation feel the same way. If the system works properly, it is more about sharing than stealing. However, I agree with the author that these networks will not be harnassed as powerful machines for the common good. For everyone out there who uses technology the way it was intended, there are others who see it as an easier way to cause corruption.

And it all makes sense...

2005-06-02T22:12:00.000-04:00

So I've actually done a website revamp for a small company before as I noted in my last post, and I wish I had the experience of this class before undertaking that particular challenge. While most of the things Jessica Burdman points out in her chapter from Collaborate Web Development: Strategies & Best Practices for Web Teams are fairly obvious, when faced with the massive task of looking at a website and breaking it down into what every little thing needs to be improved and how to do it all in order to make the site work as a whole, and how to afford the project in the first place, it can be quite daunting. The site for the Independent Green Party of Virginia, which is the site I will be working to improve this summer, is almost a blank slate since there is very little good on it to work with. I can't wait to dive in and use all of this newfound information to see what I can come up with.

finally getting around to fogg...

2005-06-01T17:51:00.000-04:00

As I was reading about the Reciprocity Study in Fogg's book, Persuasive Technology, my first thought was: when was this study done? It seemed fairly elementary and didn't seem to actually prove much of anything. I'm not convinced that people really feel like the computer has done them a favor worth returning. As an avid Google user, I understand how a computer can make my life much easier. However, I do not see myself more likely to fill out a Google survey, for example, just because it helped me find an answer in under a minute. Perhaps now that computers and search engines are so mainstream, people take them more for granted than they did just a few years ago.

website design...

2005-05-31T21:19:00.000-04:00

Class just ended and my mind is full of all sorts of thoughts on the strategic plan project. I actually had to do something similar for a company I worked for last year, but with no formal training. I sat in class thinking how much easier my job would have been if I had done a proper prototype. I actually tried doing something similar, but much less "professional," it was much more experimental and mostly consisted of sketchings. While I may not ever do anything like this professionally again, I am excited at the prospect of creating a functional yet visually appealing website. I think a campaign or party's website are soon going to be as important as its logo or theme. It will be the thing that they are identified by, and it needs to be impressive.

two great minds are sometimes not enough...

2005-05-30T20:47:00.000-04:00

Well I'm still at the beach, but since class is tomorrow, I'm going to do my best to post something somewhat intelligent while down on the NC coast as opposed to a DC office.

I've done a lot of other research on the Internet and its ability to transform political campaigns for other projects and classes. Bimber and Davis have both come up quite often in that past research, and while I knew they had finally collaborated, I had never gotten the chance to read their findings before. While not exactly beach reading, I've always enjoyed both men's ability to write about a fairly complex topic at a level someone with little experience could understand. They both understand the difficulties in studying something as intricate as Internet usage because it can be extremely tedious and seemingly impossible to track who is using what page how often and for what purpose. To do one of these things is much simpler, but does not tell you very much. I applaud their efforts, recognize their limitations, and hope that in the future they will continue their research, either individually or together, and expand their predictions and findings for the upcoming midterms and the 2008 campaign.

welcome to my little corner of the world....

2005-05-27T18:48:00.000-04:00

I'm at the beach enjoying a beautiful Memorial Day weekend and will add something much more substantial once I'm back in the DC grind.