This week, my professor, Drew Keller, is asking my class to write about what we are planning to do with the degree we are earning.  This is actually a good question, and I find that my answer changes pretty regularly.  Part me of just loves this stuff, but in the end, I think what drives me is my belief that government must stay up-to-date with communications if it is going to be effective.

I think we are approaching a crossroads in communications in regards to government.  If politicians and government agencies start to use social media in smart, innovative ways, they will be able to engage the public in ways never seen before.  However, if government falls behind, they will lose the ability to communicate effectively with the upcoming generation.

We are already starting to see ways in which social media can better engage citizens in the electoral process.  In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama championed social media with his use of Facebook, YouTube, and my.barackobama.com.  What we saw in the election was an increase in voter turnout for the Democratic Party, and a decrease in voter turnout for the Republican Party.  We certainly can’t claim causation without further study, but it is reasonable to think that Obama’s social media efforts helped drive young Democrats to the polls.

Other politicians, including Claire McCaskill, have been using Twitter to directly speak to their constituents.  The Washington State Department of Transportation uses their blog and Twitter to alert citizens of traffic issues and deal with frustrations.  The CDC took advantage of social media to spread up-to-date and accurate information about Swine Flu.

Despite the efforts of politicians and government agencies that understand social media, there are still many that don’t.  I want to make sure that these individuals and agencies learn how to effectively communicate with the upcoming generation.  If they don’t, we may see a generation of citizens more disengaged from government than we’ve seen in a long time.

This week in my Web Strategies for Storytelling class, we are looking at how print-focused websites are implementing video.  A couple years ago, my favorite online magazine – Slate.com – launched Slate V, a video focused piece of their website.  I was initially very excited about the site, but honestly haven’t paid much attention to it lately, which may or may not say something abut the site.

Slate.com consists primarily of political commentary, with a few lifestyle articles mixed in.  What I like most about their magazine is the smart, non-mainstream commentary they use in their writing.  This same commentary is also applied to their videos.  While some videos are serious clips, most of them are humorous.  For example, this video pokes fun at the failing print media business:

The videos all have an amateur feel to them, which I think is a plus.  The user interface of the site is also pleasant.  It is easy to click through videos and fairly easy to share video (although the code is fairly hefty).  The videos are embedded using Brightcove, probably so they can put ads at the beginning of the videos.  I find this fairly annoying and actually am deterred a bit from using the site.  Even worse, while an ad is playing at the beginning, I am unable to click through other videos.  An ad for Red Robin blocks the other videos.

Slate V might want to reconsider how it displays ads.  I don’t mind sitting through a short ad if I’m watching a TV show, but I don’t want to when I’m watching a 2 minutes video clip.  What is even worse is the blocking of other videos.  This really detracts from the site.

So to break Slate’s video site down:

The Good

• Funny, clever content
• Short videos that keep my attention
• Amateur style
• Easy to redistribute

The Bad

• Ads at the beginning of the videos
• Use of Brightcove instead of something more standard like YouTube to embed (note: Slate V has a YouTube channel with these videos as well, but they don’t experience very high traffic.  They would receive much more traffic if they used YouTube.)

The Ugly

• Ads blocking other videos while an ad is playing over the video.  I think this is a pretty big deal and really needs to be changed.

In the end, I’m still a big Slate V fan due to the high quality of content.  If they fixed their overwhelming ads and changed their primary video distribution model to a YouTube based one, I think their site would move from a B+ to an A.

To conclude, here is another great Slate V video poking fun at Twitter (This time embedded through their YouTube channel rather than their native Brightcove).

Well, it looks like the war is over.  Microsoft is conceding to YouTube by scaling back on their video service Soapbox.

Wait, Microsoft has a video service?  Apparently they do.

For some reason, Microsoft likes to try to make an application to compete in every market.  When it comes to online video, this really doesn’t make sense.

In economics, the network effect refers to the “effect that one user of a good or service has on the value of that product to other people” (Wikipedia).  Video sites like YouTube are an example of a positive network effect.  The more people that use the site, the more valuable the site becomes.

Because YouTube absolutely dominates other video services in number of users (it is currently the number 4 visited site on the internet according to Alexa), the value of a video posted on YouTube is higher than that of one posted on another video site such as Blip.tv or Vimeo.  Even though these services provide higher quality video compression and embeds, it is hard to beat the reach you can achieve with YouTube.

So what are the implications of YouTube’s dominance of online video?  When it comes to storytelling online, there are a few.  Primarily, when making a video for the web, it is best to have YouTube’s standards in mind.  This means 10 minutes in length maximum and the compression that YouTube recommends at the time.  Because YouTube has finally gone widescreen, storytellers can more freely shoot in 16×9.  Until about 6 months ago, this wasn’t the case.

Moreover, storytellers online need to take the YouTube community and culture into account if they wish to reach a broad audience.  Short videos are preffered for most, and something that catches attention early is necessary.  What might work well in a more traditional television or DVD setting might fail on YouTube.  Because of YouTube’s large market share, storytellers are constrained by their policies and culture moreso than other video services.

While I may not like the fact that I am constrained by YouTube’s policies and culture when I create online video, I do think it is wise for Microsoft to pull back their video service.  With something as powerful and wide-reaching as YouTube, we really don’t need another video service.  Services like Vimeo and Blip.tv are great providers for niche users, but Microsoft clearly isn’t a niche-chasing company.

Very few people have every heard of Soapbox.  With the immense amount of value coming out of YouTube, that really isn’t a bad thing.