That's the question New York Times media reporter Richard Perez-Pena posed in his article published today about Novick's feisty campaign for Oregon's Democratic U.S. Senate nomination:
Mr. Novick lost the May 20 primary by three percentage points, but political pros say that for the first time in a statewide race, YouTube had the crucial multiplier effect, turning an under-financed campaign into a serious contender. His ads received far more attention on the Internet than through his few television spots, offering a new template for insurgent candidates.The reporter fails to mention the boatload of bailout cash floated Merkley's way in the closing weeks from heavy hands in D.C., but otherwise an interesting take on Oregon's U.S. Senate Democratic primary and Novick's nearly successful "insurgent" campaign.
"YouTube plus netroots equals Steve Novick," said Jennifer E. Duffy, managing editor of the Cook Political Report. (Netroots fuses the words Internet and grassroots to describe a style of political activism.) "YouTube is the only way he got any traction."
Not that this will be easy to duplicate. It worked because of a candidate, a strategy and a set of ads that were all clever, oddball and appealing.
...Bloggers and talk show hosts praised the ads and linked to them. The beer ad alone collected more than 150,000 hits on YouTube. The most popular Merkley ad was seen on YouTube about 3,600 times.
The mainstream media started covering Mr. Novick. He rose steadily in the polls and ultimately raised more than $1 million — a respectable sum, though far short of Mr. Merkley’s.
Hat Tip to Jack Bog's Blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment