Deflating the hype

Erik Ose — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:32:29 -0400

Colin, right on. The NYT piece was sloppy, and you called it out nicely by providing some of the context Adam Nagourney's reporting lacked. Re the previous comment on this post, an op-ed I wrote for The Hill yesterday (John Edwards Needs a Netroots Reboot) similarly deflates the hype that Edwards is still the e-candidate to beat, using hard numbers to back up the story. A longer version, also discussing what Obama's doing right with his online strategy, is posted at The Latest Outrage.

What do numbers mean?

cfinnie — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:23:39 -0400

I'm not convinced that who you hire and how much you spend equates to a better web presence. The Clinton campaign has managed to spend a lot for the most content-free site in the race. Any positions on issues you do manage to dig out are usually in either long, boring speech transcripts or in videos that may or may not pertain to the information you want. Most are pretty fluffy rather than substantive.

I was also amused that you claim Edwards is getting less "buzz" online based on one vague story that states Clinton and Obama are getting more, but gives no figures. In short, a statement worthy of the NYT.

I'm not backing Edwards, and am as tired as anybody of the celebrity status accorded Joe Trippi. When Edwards hired him, I posted on a DFA list that it was the kiss of death for the campaign. I haven't changed that opinion.

I know it's popular to credit Trippi with Dean's rise. But those of us who supported Dean know that all Joe did was to help us spread the word about a better candidate than any in the field now. Here I'll disagree with McLuhan. The message is the message, and Dean had one. Trippi did his part to help spread it. But Dean was right. Only we really had the power to create the grass/netroots swell that we did. And that was only because we really believed in Dean. Not because of the great online tools.

I did think the Soprano-spoof video was worth the money Clinton undoubtedly spent on it. She's also getting a lot of MSM coverage, which doesn't hurt the attention she gets online. And Obama is getting the benefit of the enthusiasm some bright, young, creative folks have for him--as his paid efforts online, while better than Clinton's, do not match the charisma of the candidate. I give his team points for a good tagline and logo--and at least some issues text.

I'd say that these factors have more to do with how much online buzz they're getting--whatever those numbers may actually be--not how much money they have put in to it.

techPresident - Adam Nagourney - Comments

Deflating the hype

What do numbers mean?