Everyone is convinced - rightly I think - that this represents the beginning of the end for top-down campaign messaging - or at least a significant shift in the balance of power.  Supporters and critics alike now control the message in a remix free-for-all that is more powerful than stale, traditional political advertising, and this represents a radical advance in the public' ability to participate in the democratic debate.  Hallelujah, the broadcast era is over!

. . . so why do we keep trying to measure the impact of videos like Vote Different with the same metrics as we do those same stale campaign ads we're so eager to replace?

Krempasky (emphasis mine):

KURTZ: ...In a larger sense, Mike Krempasky, have media organizations and the campaigns themselves just lost control of the dialogue to the YouTube culture? This is a powerful thing to be able to make an ad and two million people see it.

KREMPASKY: It's true. And I think Jeff pointed this out earlier in the week.

Two million is a big number, but it's not a big number when we're talking about the kind of audience the campaigns are broadcasting through to, you know, just standard television buys (ph). They have lost a measure of control, but that's actually pretty good.

You know, on one hand, we can't complain that we spend a billion dollars on political ads and then do things that sort of discourage people from making amateur cost-free ads and generating conversation. I think they're both OK and they're both good, and the more speech the better. ...

I don't mean to single Krempasky out here.  He's clearly trying to make different points, but the fact that he even said this is significant.  Whether it is the blogosphere, the campaigns, or the traditional media, one of the ways that we are measuring Vote Different is in its total audience.  Not only that it is voter generated content - but that it is widely seen voter generated content.  Everyone is asking what does this mean and how does it stack up next to those traditional campaign ads?

This isn't wrong, but it completely misses an important point.    Yes, we will have candidate remix videos that reach a wide audience.  We had Jib Jabs in 2004 (and I don't think we did too bad a job with our own Partisan Jabs), and in the next 20 months we'll have remixes that make Vote Different look like the little leagues.  But that's ok, because the little leagues are where the real action is at.  That's what we're missing in all the analysis thus far.

Just as the New Politics Institute is advising campaigns to eschew network ad buys in favor of more targeted, and cheap, cable buys, so too should we apply that thinking to our analysis of political video remixes.  There will be hundreds, maybe thousands of remixes in the next 20 months.  Political versions of this for gamers.  More like this for die-hard supporters or those who have dealt with illness.  Very few will reach a mass audience, but thats ok.  They don't need to.

Cable buys are smart not just because they are cheap, but because they are targeted and can help you increase the effectiveness of an ad buy.  This theory applies even more so to viral video, which will rise from within and appeal to certain online and offline niche communities.  It will speak in their language, to their concerns, and pass from friend to friend.  Through YouTube links and embeds and email forwards.  In many ways, it will bring campaign (or rather political) advertising closer to the P2P level - which is really the gold standard if you are looking to influence someone's position or get them to the polls.  These videos will drive people to volunteer, funnel donations to a candidate, and enhance the likelihood that supporters will show up at the polls.  And because they will primarily reach only their intended community, there will be less chance of blowback from other supporters, opponents, or clueless mainstream media.

So when the next smash viral hit of the cycle emerges, don't forget that there were a few hundred others that didn't get noticed, but may have just as much - if not more significant - of an impact on our democracy.