October 2012

In 2008, when Facebook introduced Facebook Connect, a way for folks to use their Facebook credentials to other websites and services, it was pretty obvious what Mark Zuckerberg’s long term goal was: controlling the identity infrastructure of the web. Once you do that, then you get access to all sorts of data and you are always relevant.

The mobile app revolution has only accelerated the adoption as more and more apps are using Facebook’s connected identity. Just like search is a core infrastructure service of the web, so is Facebook’s connected identity technology. And because they have more data, they’re going to be more valuable and will help new kinds of transactions – whether they are purely social or purely economical. That was essentially what I thought it would be back in 2008. Now let’s see if the future works out according to plan.

The debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney was the most tweeted-about event in U.S. political history — but is the kind of real-time commentary and instant analysis that Twitter provides a good thing or a bad thing for the political process or society as a whole?

Some would argue the political process is something of a circus anyway, and that carefully stage-managed events like the debates are already a sideshow with little political value — and therefore the additional theatrical element added by real-time commentary isn’t going to have much effect. An optimist would say there is something very real to be gained by having people watch such debates for any reason — even if it’s just to follow along with the wisecracks on Twitter — because then at least there is a chance they might accidentally become more informed about political issues. The rise of Twitter as a political force has definitely accelerated the metabolism of a campaign by orders of magnitude, to the point where political analysts now talk about a news cycle that is measured in minutes or hours instead of days or weeks.

During an Advertising Week panel discussion in New York, co-moderator Paul Lavoie of Taxi gave Peter Schube, president and chief operating officer of The Jim Henson Company, an opening to vent, asking simply, “Um, has Romney helped Big Bird?” The visibly agitated Schube noted an opinion column that took Romney to task for his remark and then proceeded defend the honor of the feathered yellow icon.

Clearly, he had been down this road before. “Sesame Street and the Muppets are such an iconic set of figures in our culture,” Schube said. “They’re constantly brought into the frame and are beaten roughly around the head and neck. And then they emerge unscathed because they’re the most sympathetic characters imaginable that exist. “I can’t think of any characters that are as well-known as those and are as universally well regarded and loved,” Schube added. “You know, there’s no back story to that. So, I think he looks stupid, and Big Bird will survive Mitt Romney.” Schube’s retort triggered a brief burst of applause and a shout out from the audience that he repeated back. “'Go Big Bird' is right,” he said.

[Commentary] The following 2012 election spend analysis shows the campaigns are sticking with what has worked in the past -- even as consumer habits evolve and they spend more time online at the expense of some of the more traditional channels. According to Borrell Associates, “TV is getting 57 cents of every $1 spent on election ads. Online, meanwhile, gets just 1.6 cents -- which tallies to $160 million nationwide.”

[Watson is director, broadcast at Empower MediaMarketing]