Fundraising Online

The internet was also a great resource for fundraising in the 2008 election.
An article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy stated: “[Obama’s] campaign relies primarily on three approaches to soliciting:
• Traditional e-mail solicitations.
• Online advertising on social networking sites and blogs.
• Social media Web sites like Facebook and the candidate’s own online social network.

Those tools allowed Mr. Obama’s staff to be much more flexible in their communications, to respond more quickly with communications to potential donors at key points in the campaign, and to develop a much larger pool of supporters than more traditional solicitation and recruitment techniques.”

Obama was able to push the envelope further than any previous Presidential candidate. The reach of his message was so broad; people of all ages and race were able to identify with him. This enabled him to raise mass amounts of money, surprisingly in small increments from individuals. That’s another reason his campaign strategy was so different from others. Many candidates, including his competitor John McCain, rely on lobbyists and larger donations to reach their fundraising goals.

Resources:
http://philanthropy.com/news/prospecting/5298/fund-raising-lessons-from-the-obama-campaign

Social Networks Take Center Stage

Social networking sites, such as MySpace, Facebook, and LinkedIn took on a huge role in the election. Although the inter net has been used in previous elections, the social networking aspect of advancing candidates really took off during this election. Even President Clinton had attempted a MySpace page during his campaign, but was never able to take full advantage of that opportunity. Obama made sure that his campaign team was on top of their game when coming up with new strategies for online awareness.

Both McCain and Obama attempted to reach people through social networking. Although McCain made a valiant effort, Obama took over the world of social networking during his campaign. His supports set up accounts through virtually every social network site, allowing the reach of his message to disperse through different social groups. His presence was everywhere online!

“While about one-in-five Americans overall (22%) uses an online social networking site such as MySpace or Facebook, these sites may be playing an important political role for some people…” (Internet’s Broader, 2008). I believe Obama’s success with social networking determined the overall outcome of the election. Experts predict that the use of social networking in the 2008 campaigns is just the beginning. They expect many more sites like these to pot up within the next few years, and will continue to play a critical role in elections.

Resources:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/12/technology/candidates_socialnets/index.htm

http://people-press.org/report/384/

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/153405/did_social_media_decide_us_presidential_election.html

Technology as it Caters to Different Age Groups

One aspect of the 2008 elections that has been bothering me is that young people seem to be the main focus. What about older generations, like our parents and grandparents? Don’t their votes count also?

It is acceptable to say that the majority of internet users are generally young. As I have stated in a previous entry, the internet has only been around for a few decades. When our grandparents were our age, the internet was not something they had access to in order to gain information. They relied heavenly on books, radio, and face-to-face communication, as sources of news.

The idea of social networking sites is pretty foreign to older generations. You don’t see grandparents exited about Twitter and Facebook. “Overall, more than a quarter of those younger than age 30 (27%) – including 37% of those ages 18-24 – have gotten campaign information from social networking sites. This practice is almost exclusively limited to young people; just 4% of Americans in their 30s, and 1% of those ages 40 and older, have gotten news about the campaign in this way” (Internet’s Boarder, 2008). The whole concept of a digital campaign is not going to appeal to older people. It is clear that during the course of the 2008 Presidential campaign strategies, traditional approaches were thrown out the window to pave the way for new technology. That is partly because the internet is so inexpensive! It is virtually free to create a MySpace or Facebook in order to portray your message. Traditional approaches such as printing pamphlets and making phone calls to swing voters can be pricey for candidates to do. I am nervous that as technology increasingly becomes for advanced, older voters will be left behind.

Resources:
http://people-press.org/report/384/

Internet Explosion in the 2008 Presidential Election

The internet, believe it or not, has only been around for about 40 years. This seems crazy, considering the amount of internet usage in the 2008 Presidential election. Online campaigning was taken to a whole new level in this election. Both parties attempted to gain votes based on their online updates. However, I think it is pretty clear that Obama blew McCain out of the water. No pun intended, I just mean that Obama was much more successful in his attempts to reach a younger audience. This may have been due, in part, that Obama himself is younger and therefore more relatable to young adults. “Nearly a quarter of Americans (24%) say they regularly learn something about the campaign from the internet, almost double the percentage from a comparable point in the 2004 campaign (13%)” (Internet’s Broader, 2008). That’s a huge difference, which makes it clear that this campaign was doing something right!

The most frequently used sources for news were still traditional, reliable news station’s websites. CNN, FOX, and NBC were among the most commonly visited sites for campaign updates. Most people reported that they did not go online solely to seek out political information, but happened upon it while looking at other things. In my opinion, this only furthers the notion that candidates and their teams did a great job littering the internet with their information.

Resources:
http://people-press.org/report/384/

Misleading Advertising

Consumers can be very gullible when it comes to advertising. Many people watch TV and are persuaded to purchase a product based solely on an ad, which has been produced to make the product look as appealing as possible. Most advertisements are not reality. They may seem nice, but you need to remember that companies pay millions of dollars a year on advertising in order to entice buyers.

For example, this print advertisement, from the very popular "Got Milk" campaign. It may be a little hard to read, but if you are not familiar with this campaign, let me enlighten you. The dairy industry created a strategy incorporating popular celebrities that people younger generations could relate to. There claim was that if you drank milk 3 times a day it would help you loose weight. The picture suggests that if you follow their instruction you can look like this guy, David Beckham. This claim is just a little misleading, considering it takes a lot more than drinking milk 3 times daily to get in this kind of shape.

Advertising is perfectly legal, and encouraged up the First Amendment, as long as certain guidelines are followed. Advertisers are promoted to partake in any type of “misleading advertising”. This may seem self explanatory; however you’d be surprised how many companies are scrutinized for misleading tactics. Misleading a consumer is defined as portraying false information about a particular product in a way that may sway their decisions. The Federal Trade Commission Act was established in 1914 in order to regulate unfair methods of advertising. "In interpreting Section 5 of the Act, the Commission has determined that a representation, omission or practice is deceptive if it is likely to: mislead consumers and affect consumers' behavior or decisions about the product or service."

Advertising is not all bad; on the contrary, advertising helps manufacturers introduce new products in the marketplace. However, there are certain regulations that must be respected in order to abide by the law. Misleading a consumer is order to gain your own benefit is unacceptable and is not tolerated in the United States.

Resources:

http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/about.shtm

http://www.modelingscams.org/falseadvertising.html

Self-Regulating Advertising

Advertisements have definitely gotten a little out of control over the years. We see ads filled with provocative messages and crude language; which is increasingly becoming an issue. The government cannot possibly keep track of all these regulation issues, although they try. Our society must be willing to take on some of this responsibility and self-regulate, to a certain extent, advertisements that are presented to the public. Advertisers should be able to determine what is acceptable for their target audience, and take appropriate action to keep their ads in line with those standards.

“Industry self-regulation constitutes a form of private government to the extent that peers, rather than outsiders, formally control, or at least dominate, the establishment and enforcement of self-imposed and voluntarily-accepted rules of behavior.” Social groups need to have the decency to look out for the interest of others; especially when advertisements, to an extent, determine social perceptions.

I don't think it's fair for companies to allow their consumers to be subjected to inappropriate advertisements. What has happened to the good 'ol days of standards and guidelines for advertisements? Modern day society has become engulfed with over the top EVERYTHING. Violence, sex, humor, and profanity have been taken to a whole new level. Standards that used to be acceptable for our grandparent's generation are now thoughts of the past. Advertisements reflect what social standards (or "real life") are supposed to look like. This being said, advertising campaigns should take some responsibility for their work, and self-regulate their messages more carefully. This will not only save government officials time and save tax payers money, but also help protect society from inappropriate messages.

Resources:
http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/111551-1.html

My First Blog: How Protection of Commercial Speech Came About

Hey everyone! Thanks for checking out my first blog! I have created this blog for a class I'm currently enrolled in; New Communication Technology. We learn about different forms of technology and how they relate to modern day communication. My blog will focus on advertising regulations in the U.S. and how our laws apply to this ongoing issue. Please feel free to post any comments or questions you have! Thanks again, and have fun!

Commercial Speech is something that all of us are exposed to on a daily basis, but may not be fully aware of its presence at times. This type of dialogue is defined by Straubhaar and LaRose’s Media Now as speech “…which advertises a product or service for profit or for a business purpose” (439). TV advertisements, printed magazine spreads, and even beer bottle labels are all examples of the use of commercial speech.

For years, commercial speech was not protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. For those not familiar, the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” In 1976 the case of the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council changed the notion of commercial speech protection. A resident of Virginia, along with two non-profit organizations that represented consumers, filed suit against the State. The Virginia State Board of Pharmacy had placed a regulation on pharmacists, banning them from advertising prescription drug prices. The Court ruled that this commercial speech was to be protected under the First Amendment. It was determined that the pharmacist had no intentions of misleading consumers, but only wanted to report factual price differences. Our society is based on the free flow of information in a competitive market. Pharmacists have every right to advertise their products and their prices.

The significance of this case is virtually undeniable. It was the first of many to come that ruled to protect commercial speech under the First Amendment. Although, this case did not create guidelines to specify what constituted protection of commercial speech; it set an example for other courts to follow.

References:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

Siegel, Paul. “Regulation of Adverting.” Cases in Communication Law. 2008. New York: Rowman & Littlefield

Publishers, INC.

Straubhaar. “Media Policy and Law.” Media Now. 2008. USA: Thomas Wadsworth.