Hillary Gets YouTubed

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

I will now
show you a neat little trick. The general public doesn’t yet understand
what I am about to show you. Neither do your competitors. Got that
concept? NEITHER DO YOUR COMPETITORS. I will explain this later
in my report.

But first.
. . .

Go to Google.
Type in "Hillary." There are over 32,000,000 hits.

Next, look
at the top of the Google screen. Look for VIDEO.

See it? Click
it.

Look what’s
at the top of the list. And not just at the top of the page — all
the way down.

Watch it. Just
click the image. It’s called "Vote Different."

It won’t take
you very long. It is worth every second.

VOTE
DIFFERENT

This video
is a re-make of the 1984 Apple Macintosh ad. It turns Hillary Clinton
into Big Sister.

The bulk of
this "Vote Different" video was originally produced by
Ridley Scott, of "Blade Runner" (1982) fame. The re-make
was done anonymously. The creator did not get permission from Scott,
but Scott has yet to threaten a lawsuit, nor has Apple. This in
itself is revealing.

The creator
posted the video on YouTube. It immediately took off. Within hours,
it was being forwarded by the tens of thousands of delighted viewers.
Today, it is almost four million downloads, if you count all of
the postings of the video.

This practical
joke will cost Ms. Clinton a lot of votes. Every time her campaign
posts another talking head video, with the lady mouthing platitudes
— which is what talking head ads do — what she is saying will
not register with viewers who have seen "Vote Different."
They will recall the images of the "Vote Different" ad.
They will start giggling.

A politician
whose would-be supporters giggle at her campaign ads is in big trouble.

There is probably
nothing effective that she or her handlers can do about this giggle
effect. She has remained discreetly silent about this video. Her
handlers have obviously warned her that to fight back against a
joke video will only make her look petty. Because she already has
a reputation for being industrial-strength petty, this is good advice.
But the downloads keep increasing. The phenomenon keeps growing.
At the end, the video promotes Obama. This didn’t cost Obama a dime.

The producer
had been working for Blue State Digital, a company that sells technology
to presidential campaigns, including Obama’s. The producer resigned
when his authorship was about to be exposed.

He claims that
he produced the video on his own time, and that he did it with off-the-shelf
software. Obama said he had nothing to do with it. He said his staff
did not have the technical savvy to produce such a video. That is
probably true. At least, Obama doesn’t know such a person on his
staff. But that person may exist, and surely he or she exists among
his followers. Dozens of them do. Maybe hundreds.

A significant
fact is this: The limiting factor is no longer the price of software,
which is cheap, but the multiple skills — creativity, humor, and
editing — to put the software to this kind of use.

Another significant
fact is this: The number of teenagers with this degree of computer
savvy is high and growing higher.

Years ago,
researchers discovered the obvious: About 20% of teenagers in high
schools with computers have the ability to be power users. This
is standard Pareto’s Law (20/80) stuff, and it works as the researchers
probably expected. I read about that research finding at least 15
years ago. You can imagine how many teenagers — and young adults
— have these skills today.

Because of
YouTube, literally millions of teenagers are being exposed to the
possibility getting into YouTube/video production. They now have
an incentive to upload videos for free. "Hey! Look what I did!"
Most uploads are junk and never get viewed. But a few are just as
creative as "Vote Different."

Before I discuss
how you can apply this to your business, let me show you why this
video is bad news for incumbent politicians all over the world.

INFLICTING
PAIN

Over four decades
ago, an ad man ran for the California State legislature. His name
was H. L. "Bill" Richardson. He was the author of a book,
Slightly
to the Right
. He won the election. He kept winning elections.

He brought
his talents as an ad man to his office. He launched an organization
called Gun Owners of America. His goal was to retain political support
for gun ownership.

Very early,
he learned a lesson: Politicians respond to pain. He began putting
this to use. He would find some colleague in the legislature who
was in favor of gun control. Maybe the man was in a district where
his constituents agreed with him on gun control. Richardson’s goal
was to get him to reverse his vote on gun control.

He would find
out what position the guy voted for where his constituents favored
the opposite position. Maybe the guy had quietly opposed something
near and dear to the hearts of his constituents. It did not matter
what this position was, as far as Richardson was concerned. He would
start a direct-mail campaign in the guy’s district in an election
year. The letter exposed the guy’s vote on the position that made
him vulnerable. Richardson knew how the guy voted because he was
a colleague.

The guy knew
who was doing it. So, he would come to Richardson, frantic. "Stop
these mailings, please!" Richardson would then make him an
offer he could not refuse. "Switch your vote on gun control."
Quid pro quo. The guy would usually switch. He really didn’t care
that much about gun control, nor did his constituents. He really
cared about getting re-elected.

This would
not work with a hard-liner on gun control. It would work on the
vaguely committed politician. Richardson was looking for half-committed
politicians who could be pressured on this one issue, which was
Richardson’s career hot button. He could swing enough politicians
to stop gun control bills he opposed.

Over twenty
years ago, I did a 90-minute taped interview with him. One of the
points he made was this: Politicians respond to pain. They are not
usually committed to anything other than their careers. On non-crucial
issues, they can be pressured to switch if you can impose enough
pain.

THE POSITIVE
POWER OF A NEGATIVE VIDEO

Richardson
in the mid-1980′s spotted a possibility. He wanted to defeat a woman
who sat on the California State Supreme Court. Her name was Rose
Bird. She was Chief Justice.

In California,
a Supreme Court justice is appointed by the Governor but must be
re-confirmed by the voters.

In 1986, she
was defeated. No Supreme Court justice had ever been defeated before.
But it didn’t stop there. Two of her fellow liberals lost, too.
This was simply unbelievable. The governor, Dukmejian, was a conservative.
He got to appoint three new justices as a result.

Richardson
engineered this. He did it with a videotape. In those days, video
recorders were becoming a hot item. They began selling around 1979.
By 1986, there were enough people who owned them to be a factor
in an election, but the technology was not so common that video
technology was widely used in political campaigns. It was still
too expensive to buy tapes and mail them.

Richardson
produced an anti-Bird video and started mailing it. He asked for
donations to continue the mailings. He mailed to conservative lists
initially.

That video
got the anti-Bird ball rolling. Bird began to appear to be politically
vulnerable. That was what the initial mailing was intended to do:
expose her as vulnerable. More anti-Bird organizations were established
by others who wanted her off the Court. Then, close to the election
in November, TV ads started appearing. The campaign was successful.

Richardson
gets my vote as the feistiest retired politician in America. Visit
his blog site here: http://senhlr.blogspot.com

UPDATING
RICHARDSON’S STRATEGY

Today, DVD’s
are far cheaper to produce and cheaper to mail than a videotape
was in 1986. YouTube is cheaper still.

Consider an
updated version of Richardson’s strategy. Your research identifies
a district’s hot buttons. You then select a vote where the targeted
incumbent has voted the opposite way.

You produce
a brief ad: 60 seconds. It tells what the guy has done, and it provides
visible evidence: maybe a close-up of a vote record sheet. This
is the proof of your accusation.

With a negative
ad that says nothing about his opponent, you can produce this without
informing the beneficiary.

You could also
do a second video, longer and more detailed. You mention this at
the end of your short video. Give its short-form address. Post this
just before you post the short one.

You need short
URLs for both ads. First, you post the first ad (longer) on YouTube
or Google. Because addresses are long, as soon as it is posted,
you go a URL-shortening service such as SnipURL (www.snipurl.com).
You paste in the long URL. Then you can insert a catchy name. Snipurl
produces two URL suffixes: a five letter/number one and the catchy
one that you just entered. You can pick your choice.

Now you add
this short address to the end of your short video. Then create a
short URL link for the 60-second ad.

Design a post
card that has a large grabbing headline:

Representative
Snort voted to [opposite of voters' hot button].
See
the proof here on this video:

www.snipurl.com/snort_outrage

If you want
to stop him from ever doing this again,
don’t
vote for him this November.

If you mail
the post cards with first class postage using physical stamps, Snort
will not know who did it.

He is now on
the defensive. He cannot blame his opponent and get away with it.
The opponent will play Obama. "Me? My staff couldn’t produce
a video like this."

So, once it’s
on-line as a video — "Snort votes for [voters' negative hot
topic]" — it is going to do its work from now until YouTube
shuts down. If they search for "Snort" and [voters' hot
negative topic] and click VIDEO, they will find it.

PUTTING
THIS TO PROFITABLE USE

I have already
shown you this. Let me demonstrate it again.

Go to Google.
Type in this: "accredited colleges"

Click SEARCH.
Look at the list of page links. There are 600,000 hits.

Now click VIDEO.
Look who’s number one! And number two!

And number
three!

Click the top
video. You’ll see what I have in mind. This can serve as a working
model for you.

The video is
an ad. But it doesn’t look like an ad. Notice what it does.

  • It starts
    with a huge benefit.
  • It has a
    website address on-screen at all times.
  • It has a
    series of numbered points.
  • This keeps
    the viewer looking for the next point.
  • It has a
    specific action step mentioned frequently.
  • It recommends
    this action step near the end.
  • The end
    encourages him to forward the video.

The video gives
a lot of information. This whets the viewer’s appetite for the full
story.

The video creates
trust. This is important for every ad.

Think about
this in your situation. What do you sell that takes a face-to-face
meeting? You know how expensive your sales time is. What can you
substitute for the preliminary meeting? A video, if it is well designed.

Once it’s on-line,
you can refer potential buyers to the video. This can be done with
your business card, in a letter, on a postcard, or on a promotional
flyer.

Every place
where anyone can read your sales pitch, you can reinforce it with
a video.

For more information
on how you can do this with simple, cheap technology, click here:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/1933.cfm

CONCLUSION

A political
specialist with advanced video production skills inflicted a great
deal of pain on Hillary Clinton. He did it in his spare time. It’s
the gift that keeps on giving . . . for Obama.

Find
yourself a high school or community college video nerd. Hire him
for $10 an hour to produce a promotional video for you. Maybe you
want to learn how, just for fun. Set aside a Saturday or two and
have him teach you. If you don’t want to learn, just pay for services
rendered.

March
28, 2007

Gary
North [send him mail] is the
author of Mises
on Money
. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.
He is also the author of a free 19-volume series, An
Economic Commentary on the Bible
.

Gary
North Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts