The Father and Neutrality

From techcrunch:

Should the Internet be owned and maintained by the government, just like the highways? Vint Cerf, the “father of the Internet” and Google’s Internet evangelist, made this radical suggestion.

His comment was in the context of a bigger discussion about the threat to Net neutrality posed by the cable and phone companies, who are making moves to control the amount and types of bits that can go through their pipes.

Net neutrality and preventing broadband carriers from controlling Internet traffic or content is something that Google has a definite stake in. The Google page on the subject even links to grassroots groups the Open Internet Coalition, and SaveTheInternet. But the question should be whether Google’s dominance of Internet navigation, as well as advertising poses a greater threat to the future of a free Internet.

“O” Disses Public Financing While Embracing It

So that’s what it means to be the “change” candidate!

Barack Obama will become the first Presidential candidate since Watergate to dump public financing.

OK, so the entire federal campaign finance system is a rotten mess.

A question for the public is: will this be the first of many broken Obama promises? [He also allegedly reversed himself on NAFTA yesterday]. Will this be seen just as another cynical move by a politician, or will this decision go to the heart of his post-partisan integrity?

Yesterday Ben Smith in Politico wrote that the Obama campaign is like Jack Kennedy’s campaign [and I think like Bobby's too]: “They have the most exciting candidate since JFK and like that operation, they have their share of talented, ambitious and at times ruthless people. Barack gets to stay above the fray, while his campaign does whatever it takes to win.”

Interestingly, Barack has decided to have it both ways — criticizing the law while really benefiting from it. [Is this like voting for a bill before opposing it?]

While “O” denounces the public law, including a key provision allowing third party groups, he loves the benefit he gets from it.

In 2004 and 2006 financiers such as George Soros and insurance magnate Peter Lewis were major independent expenditure underwriters to the liberal groups [called 527 groups]: America Coming Together, the Media Fund and the September Fund.  Combined with Moveon.org and other similar groups, in 2006 they outspent Republican groups 3 to 1.

OK, and to date, pro-Obama independent groups have spent $15.3 million while pro-McCain groups have spent only $1.1 million. So it’s now a 15-1 ratio. The imbalance will be larger since the Obama guys are just gearing up and McCain has ordered conservative groups to stand down.

Jonathan Martin, in this morning’s post also in the Politico also says there are no conservative third party 527 groups anywhere on the horizion.

“The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.

Conversations with more than a dozen Republican strategists find near unanimity in the belief that, at some point, there will be a real third-party effort aimed at Obama.

But not one knows who will run it, who will pay for it, what shape it will eventually take or when such a group may form.”

The Obama camp is smiling, believing it can live above the fray while they live below it.

Maybe they’re right. We’ll see…

One Sided Video Wars

OK, so I haven’t done an exhausted algorithmic comparison of independent web videos produced by Obama fans vs. McCain fans. [That's where lack of real video search is such a shame].

And Barack’s We Are the One’s video by will.i.am and seen so far by 1.6 million You Tube viewers isn’t the best advocacy video. It has its weaknesses. Yes, it’s pretty narrow demographically. It has no seniors, no middle class folks, no blue collar workers, no farmers, no small town folks, no balding, fat white men. It probably won’t invigorate many surburban independents or Rubbermade factory workers.

And yes, it is a celebrity production.

But production wise, it’s powerful, personal and cool. And where are the McCain counterparts? Or I for that matter, the Nader and Barr web video spots?

How Green is our Online Environment?

As usual, e-Marketer has issued another fascinating research article about the attitude of adult Internet users toward companies that are “environmentally conscious.” Well 9% said they didn’t care at all and 31% said they didn’t care very much. But an impressive 60% it was very or extremely important.

Some will say “so what?” But e-Marketer outlines the incredible opportunities open to corporations.

Author Paul Verna spells it out: “[T]he Internet provides a powerful forum for corporations, marketers, policymakers and average citizens to engage in active conversations about how to approach the issues.”

So if you’re GM, you need to interact with adult users about the special green advances going on in automotive technology. But you have to engage them, not merely talk at them. Give them a virtual engine to play with, show them the computers on board the typical truck or car [amount of computers per car: more than 30].

If you’re Monsanto, you need to engage visitors on the way genetically modified corn allows us to no longer use expensive, carbon-based pesticides or herbicides. Make the visitor a virtual farmer to see, through animation, the difference made by a single ear of corn, a field, a region of the country, a nation. Invite them to post their own thoughts and reactions.

In other words, corporate communication departments have to create forums to engage prospective and current customers in a real conversation about their product or service.

Varna warns companies that they should avoid at all costs “greenwashing,” which is the lazy marketing ploy of making environmental claims that are, well, just bullshit. If you do that, you are toast.

Today, for those involved in online and off line communications, the goal has become consumer loyalty, not just sales. So make your customers and employees evangelical advocates for your company or organization, not merely a statistic.

The best example of engaging people to date: Mr. Obama.

Obama-Hillary Search Tsunami

Although the totals may not tell the entire story, Click Z’s Kate Kaye reports the astonishing imbalance in online advertising between Presidential nominee Barack Obama and runner-up Hillary Clinton.  Hillary only spent $292,000 in 2007 and 2008 combined.  Obama spent $2.08 million this year alone.  While the TV ad ratio of Obama and Clinton was 4-to-1, Obama’s savvy Internet gurus outspent her 10:1.

While commercial Internet spending has flattened due to the slow down in the economy, the Presidential campaign may resurrect online strategies.

The overwhelming majority of both Democratic money, it seems went to search and to E-mail.  While search still is unsexy in the Internet world, it is clear that it works — powerfully.

John McCain’s Chief Internet Strategist, Eric Frenchman, who works at the smart political shop of Connell Donatelli, agrees that search is a life saver.  Even in the “darkest days” of the McCain campaign, he says that they never gave up on Google Ad words.

Now the next level of competitiveness will be in web video wars between Obama and McCain.  Obama has the clear edge so far.  Conservatives and Republicans seem to be asleep at the wheel about how viral video campaigns can be a key resource — especially when waging a below-the-radar campaign to promising voters.   Obama has the advantage because it has Moveon.org and other media institutions that have been around for years.   What does the McCain camp have as a counter weight?  So far, I haven’t seen much, but that doesn’t mean little is going on behind the scenes.

Bush Captures Crystal Skull

The Onion scooped us this time, but I knew this would happen.