Published by Jeff Jarvis March 20th, 2007 Tags: ads, clinton, obama, videotricks.
I got a bunch of calls in the last two days from reporters catching up with the story of that Apple/Hillary Clinton attack video that Barack Obama's camp has now disavowed (though not very strongly). A few thoughts: * It's ironic that the ad attacks Clinton and supports Obama when it's Obama who is relying more on vague, newspeaky rhetoric and Clinton is the one who's talking issues and specifics. The commercial attacks Clinton for her personality when it's Obama who is running on personality. * Expect to see a lot more Swiftboating -- and that is what this is, only slicker. The internet and anonymity enable this. We are all waiting, though, to hear the scandal that a video supposedly made by some shmo actually came from a campaign: the dirty video trick. * If people do believe this came from Obama -- and I've seen on blogs that some do -- it could backfire on Obama. If you believe he made and endorsed this, I think it doesn't make him look great. *A reporter tried to divine trends and momentum shifts out of the number of Hillary snarks on YouTube or the viewership of this commercial. I cautioned that that's a mistake. On the creation side, under the 1 percent rule, a hundred people can make a thousands snarky videos but that doesn't say anything about the pulse of the people. On the viewing side, even a million and a half views is still small. And, hell, the commercial is captivating. Watching it doesn't mean we agree with it. So be careful with measurement in this new arena.