This is some great research Will. I think the real issue is that netgeners who are politically inclined want to watch the longer, more insightful videos while those who aren’t simply don’t care at all. This is where Clinton and McCain are making their mistakes. While I think they are correct in assuming that most netgeners and youtubers have short attention spans, these users are more attracted to fire in the hole instead of news from the campaign trail.

While Obama has won the youtube war against Clinton and McCain, I think the true winner is Ron Paul (who technically is still in the race). While overall he isn’t as popular as Obama online, one of his ads has over 6 million views. Paul, in my opinion, has best leveraged the internet and the net generation to his advantage. Appealing to the political fringe and uniting them through the internet led to the single largest one-day political fundraiser in history with the December 16 moneybomb.
In just one day, Paul raised over 6 million dollars. This is all with very little exposure in the mainstream media.

I think you’re right that one reason that Obama has so many YouTube viewers is that the younger generation relates to him more. This is partly because he himself is younger, partly because he is very charismatic, and partly because he has expressed views that strike a chord with younger people (and seemingly well across the board for that matter)

Regarding your main argument, I can’t say that I agree. I don’t think it’s the length that matters, it’s the quality. YouTube viewers are not accustomed to watching long video clips, and -unless- the content is really engaging, I suspect that many people will not watch longer videos past a certain point; worse, a longer video without substance or appeal will likely backfire and dilute the quality (resulting in a lower rating). Consider that the average YouTube video is around 3 minutes, according to this page and that internet users have many alternative viewing options. There is likely an optimal viewing length on the basis of what the content is, and how it connects with its audience (going back to why people viewed Obama’s video’s more – he’s the champion of the YouTube audience). As an example, which of the following would the average YouTube user be willing to watch a 10 minutes clip of:

1. News: tuition prices to increase by 150%
2. News: seniors home care costs to increase by 150%

The interesting thing for me is how the younger generation will react to McCain in the upcoming election. I don’t even think it will be a competition within this demographic because young viewers don’t identify with McCain on a lot of issues, or his methods of communication. Obama will have a virtual monopoly on YouTube because even if McCain does post videos of the same length as Obama, he’s just not believable over this media channel; consider that McCain has admitted that he is computer illiterate; I don’t think his voice will not be seen as authentic and perhaps even fake (Integrity norm).

Ben,

I think you’re right on all points.

The case of Ron Paul may actually contradict my argument that a candidate’s success online depends on how they use technology. I have heard that Paul’s campaign knew little about web 2.0 tools, and that is net popularity grew very organically. Perhaps you know more about this.

Jude,

First, I don’t think longer is better in itself. I just think length is a rough proxy for the insightfulness of a video, and that that is what viewers are looking for.

Second, I really don’t buy this idea that people on the Internet have short attention spans. YouTube videos tend to be short because the high quality long ones are often taken down for copyright violations. The number of TV channels I have has gone up by the hundreds, but my favourite shows have become longer (an hour vs half and hour).

Third, I think that McCain has lost legitimacy on YouTube less because of his policies, and more because he treats its users as dumb.

Nice work will. I would like to meet this “house of Politics majors and Obama supporters” and shake their hands.

[...] you’re going to be naked, you better be buff – A video diaryMore on Obama and wikinomicsObama’s YouTube Secret: Longer VideosThe customer should [...]

Yet another reason to love him.
I bet many of the long videos that get lots of hits are speeches. People love to see Obama’s speeches in their entirety, and those only air on TV once, if ever. Obama often puts his stump speeches up there as well. It’s a great way for him to showcase his strength and to let people see what he actually says on the trail, apart from the soundbites the media extracts. I bet that if McCain and Clinton did the same thing, they wouldn’t get nearly as many hits; their speeches aren’t as compelling and therefore aren’t as widely discussed.

Hi Will,

This is great research. You can also refer to detail analysis of Online video and its effect on the primaries this year. divinity Metrics has gone beyond the video uploaded by the campaigns themselves and have done a deep analysis of all the video uploaded by all the users from around the world.

http://www.divinitymetrics.com/blog/?p=100

I think they can also provide you with additional research information about the average length + views of the videos uploaded by users on YouTube.

Johnson, amazing link. Thank you.

Watch you every move and what you say remember Clinton watched Kerry lose so she could run in four year. She might make sure you lose. I do want you in the white house Bob

[...]  (But then again, there are those game highlights you can purchase for 99 cents.)  According to Will Dick of Wikinomics, Obama attracts more viewers during the 2008 Campaign because of his longer videos.  As a matter [...]