Los posters de Obama son muy expresivos. Sus mensajes son sencillos, claros y consistente. Su imagen es impecable y sus expreciones faciales comunican lo mismo que sus mensajes.
jueves, 22 de abril de 2010
Medios Tradicionales: Posters
Los posters de Obama son muy expresivos. Sus mensajes son sencillos, claros y consistente. Su imagen es impecable y sus expreciones faciales comunican lo mismo que sus mensajes.
Medios Tradicionales: Prensa
Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton
(January 25, 2008)
The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.
As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.
We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.
By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.
On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.
It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.
Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.
The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.
The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.
(January 25, 2008)
The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.
As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.
We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.
By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.
On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.
It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.
Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.
The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.
The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.
Podemos ver claramente la tendencia partidista de este medio y como beneficia a la imagen de la candidata. En la página de Opinión, el NYT, resalta las cualidades de Hillary Clinton y establece comparaciones con Obama, desacreditandolo.
Medios Tradicionales: Accesorios de Publicidad
Muchas creatividad para posicionar la imagen en diferentes segmentos de la población. Estos artículos dan mucha visiblilidad a la campaña.Medios Audiovisuales: Publicidad en TV
Propaganda Hillary Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=6h3G-lMZxjo
Este es un video de una propaganda política utilizada para refozar la imagen del candidato.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=6h3G-lMZxjo
Este es un video de una propaganda política utilizada para refozar la imagen del candidato.
Medios Audiovisuales: Video musical
Video Musical de Barack Obama, American Prayer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=oVi4rUzf-0Q&eurl
Música e imágenes apelan a los sentimientos, a la emotividad. Se sugiere un cambio a situaciones que todos los ciudadanos rechazan, a un pasado que no esperan que se repita. En Obama se sugiere el cambio.
Video Musical de Barack Obama, Vote for Hope
http://vimeo.com/1891426
Un video de esperanza, de la posibilidad de contruir un mundo mejor, de igualdad, de derechos. Juntos con Obama se contruira el futuro tan anelado.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=oVi4rUzf-0Q&eurl
Música e imágenes apelan a los sentimientos, a la emotividad. Se sugiere un cambio a situaciones que todos los ciudadanos rechazan, a un pasado que no esperan que se repita. En Obama se sugiere el cambio.
Video Musical de Barack Obama, Vote for Hope
http://vimeo.com/1891426
Un video de esperanza, de la posibilidad de contruir un mundo mejor, de igualdad, de derechos. Juntos con Obama se contruira el futuro tan anelado.
Medios Audivisuales: Debate Televisivo
Primer debate Obama McCain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkWzQ561cbI
Sobre este debate se dijo que McCain se impuso sobre Obama por haberse mostrado más relajado y logras algunas risas en la audiencia. Se dijo también que Obama estaba reaccionando, no liderando. Incluso llegó a decir en algunas ocasiones que McCain está totalmente en lo cierto.
Obama no se mostró seguro, su lenguaje no verval y la manera en la que dijo las cosas no lo ayudaron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkWzQ561cbI
Sobre este debate se dijo que McCain se impuso sobre Obama por haberse mostrado más relajado y logras algunas risas en la audiencia. Se dijo también que Obama estaba reaccionando, no liderando. Incluso llegó a decir en algunas ocasiones que McCain está totalmente en lo cierto.
Obama no se mostró seguro, su lenguaje no verval y la manera en la que dijo las cosas no lo ayudaron.
Marketing Directo: Call Center
Está imagen nos hace entender que los call centers son muy importantes para fidelizar voluntarior y captar más seguidores, respondiendo dudas e inquietudes de la poblaciónMarketing Directo: Redes Sociales
Obama se apoyó en Chris Hughes, jóven creador de Facebook, para crear su propia red social: myobama.com
Conclusiones
La utilización de las diversas herramientas de la Comunición Política es clave para las elecciones. El emplearlas correctamente, aplicando a una cultura y segmentando correctamente los públicos son la clave del éxito.
Obama logró movilizar a los jóvenes votantes relacionando su cultura con la actual era de la comunicación y la tecnología. Para ello utilizó a artistas que tienen gran influencia en este grupo de personas y a los medios de comunicación que tienen mayor acogida por este grupo como son: videos musicales, redes sociales y SMS. Consiguió que le den importancia a su voto.
En estas campañas se puede ver reflejado claramente por qué Obama ganó las elecciones, entendió los cambios que tenía que dar en la comunicación política, estudiando a sus públicos y comunicándoles lo que ellos quieren en los medios que quieren.
La coherencia en las campañas es otra clave trascendental, imágenes, lenguaje no verbal, lenguaje verbal y mensajes se complementan para transmitir y comunicar lo que los candidatos desean.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)