Attack of the Obama Clones
The 2008 Barack Obama web program was the most successful online campaign in history. And its not really close. Given its impact, it is no surprise that www.barackobama.com has quickly become the most borrowed from design in the history of politics. If you pay attention, you’ll see echoes of it everywhere.
Most designers take inspiration from great designs like the Obama site, using it as a jumping off point for their own work. Others simply steal aspects of the design whole, either out of laziness and lack of inspiration, or in a concerted effort to associate their candidate with the Obama brand. Following are examples of elements of the Obama design that, to varying degrees, have been appropriated by other candidates. Note the examples mentioned range from some pretty blatant copy jobs to more subtle use of similar colors, fonts and drawing styles. Thanks to my colleague Kodi Seaton for the accompanying graphics.
(1) Complete Rip Off
Current Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu website is the most blatant Obama rip off I’ve seen. His site steals the Obama design lock, stock and barrel.
2010 Candidates Focus on Branding
When you get down to it, campaign websites typically have two main audiences: (1) people looking to learn about a candidate and (2) supporters looking for ways to help the campaign out. Most campaign website designs focus on the supporter audience, taking on a look that is somewhere between a news site and an action center. This approach probably makes sense for well known candidates with established brands. But I’ve always thought that less well known candidates should focus their sites more on introducing themselves than on updating folks on the minutiae of their campaign. They should use their website to tell folks who they are.
In the last few months, I’ve noticed some campaigns creatively using photography and video to really brand the candidate, instead of taking on the look and feel of a normal campaign website. Below are some examples of this trend (click on images to go to full site). While I think some of these sites are better done than others, I applaud all of them for trying something different.
Nathan Deal (R-GA)
Gary Bivings Interview- Digital Politics Show on WS Radio
On March 6th Karen Jagoda of the E Voter Institute interviewed our President and founder, Gary Bivings live on WS Radio. Karen and Gary discussed our firm’s web strategy with the Pickens Plan and the impact of social media on energy policy and legislation. Karen and Gary also discussed the complexities of the recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and its impact on communications strategies and politics.
Highlights included:
KJ:: Can you tell us about what the Pickens Plan is and who that coalition is?
A: The Pickens plan started in July 20808 around the time when the price of gasoline was $4 /gallon or higher. At the time energy independence, or reducing need for so much foreign oil was not on presidential campaign agenda, T. Boone Pickens put it there…
2:05- KJ: We haven’t seen any TV commercials lately, but you continue to have a pretty healthy online presence. You have a site called push.pickensplan.com – Can you say a little bit about that?
GB: That is the actual social action network. It’s a Ning platform, with about 203k people…It’s a very vibrant community of folks from all different walks of life who engage in talking about alternative energy and it is those people who will sign petitions, show up at a rally, meet a Congressman when he is back on break. Its been amazing to watch online network of people continue without ads or promotion.
3:10- KJ: How would you explain that popularity?
GB: It’s like an open Facebook for groups So people, while they are there can be blogging, taking part in discussion forums, shooting video, sharing pictures, talking with one person, 100 people or large group within the network
3:52- KJ: Are you finding this is standing out amongst the competition? Is the Pickens Plan momentum part of the reason people are going there?
GB: At the time it caught a nerve, it was supported by a personality, it became a unique place on the net for people to participate and engage and talk about alternative energy. It is one of the bigger social action network around policy / energy issues. It has kept itself going because it has the right people in the right places who are willing to share ideas and thoughts with each other.
5:12 KJ: With this oil disaster in the Gulf, is the social media world paying attention to this disaster?
GB: I would say that the social media world, Twitter and Facebook from all sides is very much engaged in it. It is one of the trending topics #oilspill, BP and all their various players have Twitter accounts and Facebook pages, everyone on the ground from affected areas are participating in this… BP spent 10-15 years trying to get us to see them as “Beyond Petroleum;” as different from just an oil company and all that effort has been dumped into the Gulf of Mexico… The crisis right now is stopping the leak…
7:18-KJ: In the old days, they could protect the brand by putting out press releases or on national news-. Those days have passed haven’t they?
A: You could say so. You can’t hold just a simple press conference once a day and put out your side of the story and take a few questions from journalists, not with the visibility and transparency of major events as they are today. What they do try to do, as best they can, is to try and get their facts out and dispel the more egregious myths about what is going on, but they cannot control the dialogue at all…
8:25- KJ: And we would have to say the same thing about President Obama- He can’t really control the message can he?
NG: In some ways they do try… They have to make sure that this is not seen as Obama’s Katrina, and I don’t think it’s being seen that way. They have gone to great strides and being very transparent in what they are doing…
9:14- KJ: What kind of advice for companies that are going to be effected by this oil disaster?
In terms of a communication perspective- You can’t do what BP tried to do and get the fisherman to sign agreements to limit their liability because that showed up on the Daily Beast in a matter of hours…Corporations start have to acting like authentic people. And we hope that at the heart, we have real people running thee companies whose real concerns are for the people affected, and engage in ways that you wouldn’t expect. Not only to fix the situation as it is, but to build some trust, because in the end its all about trust, or the social compact companies have with the economy that they work in…
When Social Meets Media
Members of The Bivings Group had the pleasure of attending the White House Correspondents Garden Brunch on Saturday, May 1.
The annual event, considered one of the major galas related to the WHC weekend raised awareness for two organizations, Mothers Day Every Day and CURE Epilepsy, a cause dear to Susan Axelrod, who spoke about the need to find a cure.
While the opportunity to mingle with luminaries was high, so was the chance to reflect on some of the work The Bivings Group has done of late, ranging from the Pickens Plan to websites for Haddad Media, and Jayni and Chevy Chase’s Green Community Schools Initiative.
The mid-day assortment of individuals mingling made the brunch seem more like the main event rather than an undercard. Where else could you find T. Boone Pickens conversing with the Jonas Brothers? Or notables such as Rupert Murdoch and David Axelrod in the presence of TV hostess Wendy Williams and the ubiquitous Kim Kardasian?
In fact, the whole event felt as if the worlds of entertainment, politics and news had collided. There is indeed a reason why the White House Correspondents weekend is affectionately referred to as either the “nerd prom” or “Washington DC’s version of the Oscars.” News personalities such as Greta Van Susteren, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Ed Schultz and Gwen Ifill were spotted alongside television and film favorites Chace Crawford of “Gossip Girl,” Matthew Morrison of “Glee,” Joe Mazzello of HBO’s “The Pacific,” Sherri Shepard of “The View,” Omar Epps of “House, MD,” as well as funnyman Marlon Wayans and Oprah BFF Gayle King. Other actors in attendance included Rosario Dawson, Elisabeth Shue, Steven Weber, Cheryl Hines and tween star Demi Lovato.
We at The Bivings Group would like to extend a special thank you to co-host Tammy Haddad for including us in the weekend festivities.
For more photos and videos from the WHC Garden Brunch, we encourage you to visit http://www.whitehousecorrespondentsweekendinsider.com/ and check out photos on TBG’s Facebook page.
U.S. Senate v. Facebook, John Stewart v. Apple, Google v. All
Given the information overload of social media and technology stories this week, for company with bad news to drop, today would be a particularly good day.
Monday: U.S. States Senate vs. Facebook.
Adding to the confusion and buzz surrounding Facebook’s latest unannounced, and mostly unrequested overhaul of their 3rd party site integration / instant personalization or “Open Graph API,” Ney York’s Senior Senator, Charles Schumer has requested that the FTC create privacy guidelines for social networking sites. While many would argue that the Senate has, or should have more pressing matters to attend to, Mr. Schumer does raise a valid point in the sense that the onus is now on Facebook’s users to opt-out, rather than asking them to opt-in. However given that the choice of what content to share on Facebook is entirely up to Facebook’s users, and that Facebook, along with sites such as Pandora and CNN are available free of charge, it is difficult to see a compelling government interest that necessitates interfering in this type of transaction.
For those of us in the social media sector, I think the more important question is whether or not this move will be effective. I went back and re-read an excellent June 2009 article by Douglas Rushkoff, Facebook’s Fatal Error which he wrote in response to Facebook’s then newly introduced policy of allowing users to select their own user names / urls reminded him of when AOL, which like Facebook used to be a closed network with its own content opened its doors to the wider internet:
That’s a problem. Facebook's relative detachment from the Internet is not a bug, but a feature. Its only competitive advantage in the Internet space—its only reason for being—was that it was more personal, more closed off, and arguably more private than the Internet itself. Even then, the biggest problem has never been how to get people to find you, but how to not friend many of those who do. Now that we'll be quickly findable via Google, what's left to distinguish this social-networking site from the social network that is… the Internet?
Emphasis added is mine. It is important to note since Rushkoff wrote this, Facebook has more than doubled in size from 200 to 400+ million users. Facebook was also never designed as a way to access the internet, and would not have been possible without companies like AOL exposing large numbers of users to the concept of the internet, so the analogy of Faebook to AOL isn't clear cut. Additionally, while the launch of Facebook as a closed network for students was indeed brilliant, since then most 1st generation Facebookers have come to accept the social network for what it is.
Tuesday
For the 42.1% of smart phone users who have a Blackberry device, some long overdue news. During their WES 2010 conference, Blackberry announced the release of a new operating system- OS 6.0 which according to Blackberry will include a smoother web browser, the ability to customize your home screen (beyond the choice and order of icons) and other user enhancements, basically bringing older models closer to what is now featured on the Storm2.
Also announced were two new devices, the Bold 9560 and Pearl 3G.
No word yet if Blackberry plans to send SWAT teams and corporate goons to kick down your door and haul off your computers for trying these devices out early.
Wednesday:
Proving once again that an issue is not a story until it gets picked up by the main stream media, Wednesday was the day when Apple and the state of California’s frighteningly absurd over-reaction to Gizmodo’s scoop on the new Iphone hit the fan. For a brief review of events, check out Gizmodo’s timeline here.
As usual, John Stewart provides the clearest and most succinct analysis of events.
Reminds me of an old skit from the Dave Chappelle show skit on the two legal systems.
Thursday:
Perhaps attempting to change the subject from the portrayal of his company on the Daily Show, Steve Jobs published a manifesto of sorts listing several grievances against Adobe.
There is really not way to understand the ‘controversy’ without reading the source material in full, but the main points of contention are:
Open vs. Closed Platforms:
Jobs: “Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary….Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open”
Adobe CEO Mr. Narayen: Apple's "recent behavior show[s] that they are concerned about Adobe being able to provide this product that works across multiple platforms…I find it amusing, honestly. Flash is an open specification."
Reliability, Security and Performance
Jobs: “Adobe is the No. 1 cause of Mac crashes”
Narayen: “If Adobe crashes Apple, that actually has something "to do with the Apple operating system."
Steve Jobs Thoughts on Flash - Adobe’s Response
Friday
In a story that broke early this morning, it appears that the Ohio Attorney General has joined the shopping search company myTriggers in an anti-trust lawsuit against Google. At issues is a failure by MyTriggers to pay $335,000 in search marketing fees to Google. MyTriggers refused to pay, claiming instead that its quality score, which determines placement in search engine results caused their adverting costs to increase by 10,000%
From Wendy Davis’ article on MediaPost:
MyTriggers argues that the drop in quality score was part of an anticompetitive scheme "to ensure that Google can continue to exert control over search advertising." The shopping search site further asserted that it posed a threat to Google by monetizing searches on a cost-per-action basis, as opposed to Google's cost-per-click model….
Google recently filed papers arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed for several reasons, including that the federal Communications Decency Act's "good samaritan" provisions shields it from liability for any steps taken to remove potentially objectionable content. Google argues that its actions as a publisher — including lowering companies' quality scores — are the type of activity that is protected by the statute. But MyTriggers and the Ohio attorney general argue that the Communications Decency Act doesn't apply in this case. Among other reasons, they say that the statute's good samaritan provisions only come into play when a company has removed material that could harm children because it's obscene, violent or otherwise offensive."
Anything else we missed?