Interesting article comparing the advertising strategies of old arch-rivals Coca Cola and Pepsi (found thanks to @MickSiddle on Twitter). Coke is sponsoring the 2010 World Cup, but Pepsi seems to be going for a social media based approach instead. Pepsi even opted out of advertising during the Superbowl this year (unlike, famously, Google with its Parisian love story) after doing so for 23 years, and seems set to spend up to a third of its entire advertising budget on social media. That’s a fair amount for sure, and advertising like Pepsi’s YouTube spot, featuring Henry, Messi, Lampard and Drogba, doesn’t come cheap. Whatever, first World Cup score to Pepsi, says the article. So the big boys are putting their big advertising bucks online…

Public information film NOT as they used to be. Remarkable, and a hit.

The same article also gives a top ten of current online advertising videos. There is a remarkable ultra slow motion dog food advert (I learnt from a careers fair decades ago that Pedigree pet foods is part of the Mars Corporation, so there’s money there too), and the amazing  Evian baby spot that’s been doing the rounds (am I alone in thinking that, though a cool video, there is something slightly “off” about using babies this way?).

I am however most struck – and mightily relieved – that it’s not all megabuck multinational corporations in there. There is a public safety campaign at no. 6, from the unlikely-sounding source (why do I say that?) of “Sussex Safer Roads Partnership”. I’d already been sent this by someone in the office. Over three million views; how many in Sussex, I wonder. If you haven’t seen it, watch it (whether or not you are in Sussex), it’s superb.

Anyway, there is definitely a place for the smart, highly-produced YouTube/”viral” video in the communications mix, it seems, including for the public sector. Hmm. It’s close to a year since we released our election videos, perhaps it’s time to think about the next official offering. Something based on the euro-West Wing concept perhaps?

Elderly people on computer

If I look to my family – I find we are all on the web, but doing different things there. We are all there for daily news, seeking for the most interesting title. OK, not all of us – the youngest one (7 years old) is not interested in news yet and the oldest one – 84 years old grandma -prefers one special TV news programme, because “the moderator is the son of my sister’s friend’s friend.” My nephew is on the web to socialize. He is one of the so called “mobile generation” and is my guide into WAP. My mother uses the web for research and goes to Youtube for classic music. She is the one who is ready to pay for good content. And she does. On the contrary, my father is on the web for everything he can get for free. He always says that this is the best thing about internet. That is the reason he tries tirelessly but unsuccessfully to teach his old mother to read her regional press printed out from the web. A pity she has a problem with her eyesight, otherwise he would try to convince my granny to sit and read these stories online. Although my dad has made some progress. My granny has been on skype for me for a few weeks already…

New media has changed my habits of media consuming. But that’s not surprising.

Myself, I am still not so advanced as to be on Twitter or to use all multimedia features possible, but I’m happy to watch Youtube documentaries, mostly those made by the BBC. Whenever I want and whenever I have some burning question. The last one I was pleased to find and watch was “Michael Jackson Story 1958-2009″, also powered by the BBC.

Youtube is always there for you – with both lots of amateurism and most important, lots of valuable information. So, no regrets that I do not have my real paper magazine in my mailbox anymore.

GUEST BLOGGER: Today is a big day in the life of the ep-webeditors blog. Nay, a rite of passage, a coming of age, an arrival in the sunlit uplands of Parliament bloggerdom. Today, our big boss, Jaume, Director and EP official spokesman, no less, appears for the first time on this blog. What’s more, he wants to talk about us! I read words like: “mischievious”, “smurfs”, “irresponsible” – but I’m reading nothing into it! Anyway, as they say, we are honoured to welcome onto our humble stage… The Director.

Keeping up without being killed in the attempt

One of the scariest moments in the professional life of the European Parliament’s Media Director comes when the people in charge of the Web Communication team storm in his office with the faces of mischievous children and a folder marked “new project” under their arms. It could be anything ranging from some doubtless vital overhaul of the website’s on line archives to the appearance on his desk of a group of strange blue-and-yellow little dolls resembling overweight smurfs that answer to the cryptic name of “YaBs”.

When the Director is introduced to a new internet project is a double test for him. Firstly, in relation to his capability or incapability to understand what the topic is. The Director is aware that he needs to understand at least one out of every three concepts and avoid letting his facial expression unmask his enormous ongoing neuronal effort.

Nevertheless the Director soon developed the conviction that a poor knowledge of the topic in question is often an advantage when it comes to proposing solutions which are acceptable for all the parties involved.

Secondly, because he will feel obliged to decide where to set the limits when it comes to accepting undoubtedly attractive proposals that however do not always reflect the degree of seriousness required of institutions such as the European Parliament.

The famous T-Shirts for the new website's launch

With regard to the first challenge, the Director is already the lucky survivor of a similar experience when, some years ago, he supervised the construction of a new press room full of electronic gizmos, hardware and software. Sounding intelligent in permanent discussion with audiovisual technicians, IT experts, architects and representatives of the press is not something you generally learn in any prestigious European Academy, nor would this ability be requested in a European Personnel selection competition.

Nevertheless the Director soon developed the conviction that a poor knowledge of the topic in question is often an advantage when it comes to proposing solutions which are acceptable for all the parties involved.

The second challenge is much more complicated because web teams, following their instinct and their duty, are continuously proposing tools that in most cases have “just arrived from the other side of the Atlantic” and which haven’t quite been used yet in institutional communication, let alone in Parliamentary communication. The Director will find himself quickly trapped between a rock and a hard place. The rock being those who rightly think that we have to adapt to new times – “Boss, Obama is doing this” – and the hard place being our hierarchy in the Parliament who do not necessarily accept ipso facto,the use of tools that don’t seem to correspond, a priori, to the solemnity of the Parliament.

Back in time it all started with something as innocent as overseeing the redesign of the main website so that it paid more attention to the ordinary citizen and less to European experts. But then it was about launching the new website surrounded by people in black t-shirts with surreal messages on them such as “A hemicycle is not half a bike”, or as militant as “Who cares for Europe? I do”.

In less than five years the way the European Parliament communicates has dramatically changed. It has become more modern, more accessible and more plural. Probably more coherent as well. But there is still a lot to be done and to be improved, especially if we don’t want to miss the train of the internet – one that resembles a Japanese bullet train.

Next came the production of audiovisual content (“Why should a Parliament be able to send press releases but not videos?”), or organising chats with the Parliament’s President. Later, taking advantage of the everything-is-possible principle of the European elections, a (partial) transition to full Web 2.0 interactivity took place. The Parliament explored social networks, blogs, wikipedia, online questions and debates. It also had viral campaigns with hysterical girls and gregarious cyclists and the use of all kinds of multimedia platforms. The majority of these instruments have demonstrated that they are valid and, after the elections, have been integrated with almost no discussion in the spectrum of the communication services of the Parliament.

In less than five years the way the European Parliament communicates has dramatically changed. It has become more modern, more accessible and more plural. Probably more coherent as well. But there is still a lot to be done and to be improved, especially if we don’t want to miss the train of the internet – one that resembles a Japanese bullet train.

Don’t worry. One of these days the Director’s desk will be filled once more with strange projects and his screen with intriguing slideshows. All the while, several expectant eyes in his office will try to guess from his face if he understands anything of what he sees, if he likes what he sees – and if he will be irresponsible enough to accept it.

But next time I will tell them the truth, I promise.

WeBelong batting for Lisbon and Ireland

Plenty of No videos seem to be doing the rounds, spreading the message of the Lisbon Treaty ushering in an improbable world of abortion clinics on every corner, Irish soldiers dying in faraway foreign fields under EU orders, the entire fishing fleet scuppered somewhere off he Galician coast and famers cast into destitution by an EU commissioner wearing a monocle and black leather gloves and known to his friends as Dr Death. The End-Of-Ireland-As-We-Know-It generally, in other words.

My quest: find those shy retiring Yes-videos and see what they were doing to counter the, erm, somewhat tendentious, if not occasionally bizarre, claims of the No camp.

But where are the Yes-videos? Google searches turned up plenty of the above, but the Love Lisbon genre seemed a rather rarer beast. Hence my quest: find those shy retiring Yes-videos and see what they were doing to counter the, erm, somewhat tendentious, if not occasionally bizarre, claims of the No camp. I concentrated on independent sources, not political parties.

Did I strike gold? Well, it’s a mixed bag.  I had high hopes at one point of a guy in giant green spectacles, but for all his undoubted commitment and sincerity, I don’t think he’s going to swing it single-handed.

If your idea of a good campaigning online video is something short, graphically neat, with a simple message and a decent tune, I think so far an offering from WeBelong currently has it for me. (They need to make it easier to share though.)

Not bad stuff from an outfit called Generation Yes, either. My favourite from them goes in for a bit of negative campaigning (not unreasonably, given the large quantities of mud being flung by the other side), while another, rather earnest one, focuses on human rights.

The biggest formal non-party organisation campaigning for a Yes, IrelandforEurope, has definitely got the message that it needs to make online videos, and offers over 40 on its website. Most of these though are talking heads videos – many celebrity endorsements, which is great – but I was really looking for something with viral potential. For me, the pick of the bunch was one which attacked the other side AND made a positive case for the treaty.  Mentions too for themed videos on climate change (nice tune) and humanitarian aid.

Characterisations of the politicians on the two sides of the argument – the Yes side being “incompetent, inept and corrupt” and the No side being “unemployable feckin’ headbangers” – give this over-long video some viral potential

As celebrity endorsements go, my own attention was detained for longest by a video which is anything but slick and graphical: the launch of Ryanair’s pro-Yes campaign, featuring Michael O’Leary in typically trenchant form. His characterisations of the politicians on the two sides of the argument – the Yes side being “incompetent, inept and corrupt” and the No side being “unemployable feckin’ headbangers” – give this over-long video some viral potential, but less so than if O’Leary wasn’t already famous, and loved and loathed, for expressing these sentiments frequently in public. His parade of Ryanair girls in the video give it a slightly anachronistic corniness, but will irk as many as it diverts.

And that’s about it (so far). Not an awful lot, it has to be said. It causes me to reflect on how much harder it is to promote something wordy, technical, legal and complicated (however positive and necessary), as opposed to slagging it off any old how, without having to worry too much about detail and accuracy. Inevitably, going for the people on the other side is easier, something which comes out in the videos above.

Maybe, as in rock’n'roll, the devil has the best tunes

So, what do we conclude? Maybe, as in rock’n'roll, that the devil has the best tunes. Maybe too that the Yes camp needs to get its creative juices flowing before 2 October.

Know any good Yes videos, the one that cracks it? Let us know. The angels can sing too maybe.

Meanwhile, from Generation Yes:

Design by our friends in the EP StudioWeb.

I heard that in the modern virtual world they call people like my mother in law “digital immigrants”. This is the opposite of “digital natives” – for whom digital technologies already existed in the time they were born. In this sense I am maybe a sort of “digital non-citizen”, or better “digital asylum-seeker”. Let us take the social media. By the time our team started using them in the election campaign I was the last person among my colleagues without Facebook account and who thought that Twitter is a sort of Belgian beer.

And look at me now, two months later! I am administrating widgets on MySpace, publishing posts on Facebook and cannot imagine a day without Twittering. With the same enthusiasm my Danish colleague uploads videos on Youtube every day. It is a special flame! That flame you can also see in the eyes of my Portuguese colleague, when she is inviting friends on MySpace. But nothing can compare with the flame in the eyes of our coordinator announcing almost daily new records of visits on our web pages.

It is amazing how quick it happens – our diving in the social media, and at the same time the change in the European Parliament – from web scepticism to web enthusiasm. (Please, see also the post by Steve). Yes, our work became more, (does Steve see that also?), but I think we enjoy this very much. We’re on YouTube and thousands are our friends in Facebook and MySpace. Yes, we dared to start direct communication with the citizens of Europe and it makes us feel satisfied, it makes us feel real. (See also Tibo’s and Kristiina’s posts.)

And look at me now, two months later! I am administrating widgets on MySpace, publishing posts on Facebook and cannot imagine a day without Twittering.

The best thing is that we really got in touch with our readers. We see how many people react and comment on our articles and are interested in European issues. It is satisfactory to see hundred thousands have watched the viral videos online.

Therefore I tried to answer the question of my mother in law about the blog in a way that makes her like it. I wanted to translate it in her language. “To blog is to write in the Internet about things you have experienced, about things you are interested in. It is something like an online diary“, I said. “Oh really?” she replied. Didn’t I see that flame in her eyes?

This minstrel has seen some changes himself

Writing in Prospect magazine this month Steven Johnson and Paul Starr debate the question of whether the changes brought to the media by the internet herald “a golden age of serious journalism” or whether it will bring down standards.

As someone whose job is to write on the web, I naturally hope it will be the latter – especially in regard to political reporting and content. The European elections are just a few weeks away and we are beavering away at all manner of things for the website, YouTube, Facebook – you name it – trying to persuade people to vote. We even have some viral stuff – and I’m not talking about swine flu either.

A recent gift by my Polish colleague, Leszek, got me thinking about how different methods of political communication have changed over the last 200 years.

It was of a reprint of “The Times” after the Battle of Waterloo providing a fascinating insight into news back in 1815. The front page is filled with adverts for lodgings, meetings, Governesses and tutors. The inside pages have a full account of the battle itself by the Duke of Wellington and an “official bulletin” from Downing Street which celebrated the end of “a long and sanguinary conflict”.

This was political communication 1815 style. The date is 22 June, 4 days after the battle – a period of time that would be unthinkable now in the modern news cycle.

This was of course the newspaper age – something that is perhaps still with us – but which faces a serious challenge for its survival from the internet and global recession. It survived the telegram, the radio, cinema and the TV, which have all indelibly shaped politics. Above all TV has shaped modern politics. Famously in the 1960 TV presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F Kennedy those who listened to it on radio thought Nixon had won, whilst the TV audience gave victory to Kennedy due to hid healthier pallor and Nixon’s perspiration.

A flickr of genius

Traditionally the best way to convince the voters is by making speeches to large numbers of voters. Many tended to be long-winded affairs with the oratorical giant like William Gladstone holding his listeners spellbound for hours as he denounced the policies of his old foe Disraeli.

Recently a lawyer from Illinois has been in the news for getting elected as US President in part due to his speaking skills. It was another lawyer from that State, Abraham Lincoln, who in November 1863 combined oratory and brevity in equal measure with a speech at the site of the Gettysburg battlefield.

Renowned orator Edward Everett delivered a two hour oration before Lincoln – but who remembers that now? After he had finished Lincoln stood up and spoke for perhaps 2 to 3 minutes summarizing the Union’s aims in the Civil War in 10 sentences, which have rightly gone down in history.

Whatever the format I think well chosen words and an effective delivery always have impact. Recently a certain British MEP delivered a pretty blistering assault on Prime Minister Gordon Brown after his speech to the European Parliament. With the help of the old media – namely the right-wing newspapers extolling its brilliance – it has now been viewed over 2.2 million times. Whether or not one shares his views, he has demonstrated is that the YouTube format does work when carrying effective speeches from Brussels and Strasbourg.

Face to Face book

One of the most tried and trusted way to persuade the voters is by meeting them – although as any candidate will tell you this can are a nerve wracking affair.

Being “on the stump” is a good way for aspiring candidates to meet their electorate. My sister, who lives in London, recently told me that a nice old lady from the Conservative party had knocked on her door the other day and asked whether she would be voting for them. Something about this quaint British tradition of canvassing door to door I find really appealing. It gives you a chance to see your candidates and get a measure of them.

Naturally, if they are the party you have no intention of voting for the trick is to keep them talking at length on the doorstep so they have less time to go to other people…

Here in Belgium they have this nice habit of coming round markets and asking if you intend to vote for them – this weekend I accumulated several leaflets from the Green party as I sat having a coffee. The slight irony of the greens giving out leaflets has always struck me but I’m sure it’s recycled paper!

Poster child

The Belgians also erect billboards around the town so that parties and candidates can paste up their pictures it can be quite amusing and parochial, but it’s faintly reassuring.  Election posters are a whole genre in themselves. It also seems the worse the regime – the better the posters. I defy anyone not to be impressed by the visual splendour Soviet posters depicting all manner of Communist “triumphs”.

Politics online

In the 2004 European Parliamentary elections the internet played a part but it is in the last 5 years that it has really come of age with YouTube, Facebook and Twitter entering the lexicon. Given the amount of people who use them I doubt they will fade easily.

Here in the Web Communication Unit of the Parliament’s Communication Department have not only developed a website in the EU’s 22 languages that gets over 100,00 visits a day but have embraced them along with Facebook, MySpace and flickr to try and get the message across.

The good thing about this is that it allows people to communicate with us and get their own message across.

Never on Sunday? Hmm. Though it was not the first time that I heard an excuse about not voting, it hurt. The reason is difficult to explain. It goes beyond the fact that I work for the European Parliament, beyond my strong faith in the EU. How can I tell people that (whatever) their vote is valuable without being labelled as a brainwashed eurocrat? I am searching to do it through a story… Maybe Europe is an ugly frog that can turn into a prince if we kiss it? No, that’s not it. How is Europe (conveniently?) seen today by many people? As a big bad wolf. That’s it, that’s my story and that’s my reason for voting, however over simplistic it might look to some.

Europe, a big bad wolf? - Photo by dinonikk on Flickr

Once upon a time there was a big bad wolf called Europe (the taurus story is a myth as we all know). While walking in the forests, it devoured all human beings it crossed: bad and good. They made him move to the left, to the middle or to the right -according to where his stomach weighed heavier. Sometimes the human activity inside of him brought the best out of him -some people made him lean to a field and think “why not plant a flower here?”- or the worst -some made him crash all flowers it met on its way… The reactions among the people that were lucky enough to stay out of his stomach varied: others watched him with fear, anger or disgust, while others with awe, astonishment, sympathy or just indifference. Whatever their feeling, they just watched him, unable to take responsibility and act to change a situation that deep down they did not really like. Sometimes they even said “why bother? The big bad wolf is too far to reach me!”. Until the big bad wolf invaded their secret garden and smashed their own flowers. And then they cared but it was a bit too late to act… “The rest is silence” (as Shakespeare would say).

I might be caricaturing, but I am sure you all know what am talking about. Responsibility for our (in)actions. Whether the EU is “too far” and can communicate with us as well as a wild animal, there is no excuse for inactivity. And by inactivity I mean not voting in the forthcoming June elections of the European Parliament. The wolf in my story devoured everybody it met without distinction, without asking for permission, but luckily in today’s democratic world we can have our say as to whom it will absorb via one very valuable but at times disregarded thing: our vote. Am not saying the European Parliament is indeed destroying every good thing on this planet -I believe quite the contrary in fact- but I can accept the idea that there are good and bad people in it, some efficient ones and some inefficient. Just like everywhere else in our society. But it could be that the EU goes into a whole different direction than the one we want it to go. Do we really want to stand by and watch our worst fears turn into reality? It’s up to us to make the reality the way we want it to be… And to have no regrets whatsoever -because, whatever the outcome, at least the not yet born will not blame us for being passive observers.

Lack of knowledge about “complicated EU stuff” and no time to read the online election pages that we work so hard for or the myriads of relevant information available online or on paper?

Lack of knowledge about “complicated EU stuff” and no time to read the online election pages that we work so hard for or the myriads of relevant information available online or on paper? Here is the one thing you need to know in order to vote on 4-7 June, apart of course from the exact date of the election in your country: just like you have representatives in your national parliament, that you elect, you have also representatives in the European Parliament (coldly known as “MEPs” though they are as normal as the rest of us -and by “normal” I mean who laugh and cry too at times and who act according to their beliefs). They represent the citizens of the current 27 EU member states (yes, you too!) and decide on some issues that affect our daily lives -so yes, that would make their selection quite significant. It is as simple as that in my view.

Troubled about who to vote for? The political world obeys no fixed compass. Just follow your heart and choose the ones that you feel will plant the most flowers. Lets make Europe flourish in all possible ways -not only in spring but also in the summer (as of June) and in all the (difficult?) winters to come… Whether we “happily live ever after” (“and go to the sea shore” as Melina Merkouri adds in the unmemorable film “Never on Sunday”) or not is up to nobody else but ourselves.

I say the “happy position”, because it is great (and easy) to be the cool guys constantly bidding for an idea and able to moan virtuously when the ol’ fuddy-duddies didn’t get it. Trouble is, they did! 

We are on MySpace!

What changed? For us, three factors. First, the world changed (not just for us, but for us too). The internet became what it is, technology moved on and we entered an era where NOBODY could ignore strange phenomena like MEPs’ speeches getting a million views in two days on YouTube or improbable Scottish singers becoming 50-million-view sensations…

Second, Obama happened. Politicians everywhere saw tangibly, and in the highest-stakes democratic contest in the world, how clever use of the modern internet for political communication can mobilise and motivate in ways hitherto unsuspected. Rightly enough, suddenly all politicians want a piece of that particular action.

How many times have we girded our loins, prepared our pitch, convinced that our latest scheme for something dangerously hip on the internet would be a tough sell to our flinty-eyed superiors, only to find the door wide open and be told to get a move on?

Third, the European elections loomed. Let’s not beat around the bush, EU people are worried that turnout could decline once more and the elections fail to receive the attention they are due. So the moment is propitious for trying new ideas, heading in new directions. Turnout is not determined by EU communications campaigns, but the cry went up nonetheless “we have to do whatever it takes!”

So, in a short space of time, we have an environment where suddenly the seemingly impossible, or, better, unimaginable, became urgent, where ideas which had hitherto been pushed in vain sailed through with barely a squeak. It was disconcerting: how many times have we girded our loins, prepared our pitch, convinced that our latest scheme for something dangerously hip on the internet would be a tough sell to our flinty-eyed superiors, only to find the door wide open and be told to get a move on? Will it last? Maybe not, but these are good times for innovation and it is hard to imagine how the internet genie can now be persuaded back into the bottle.

So why a hint of nostalgia for those sunny days when we banged our heads against a wall of seemingly implacable web-scepticism? Well, we’ve gotta do it now, haven’t we! 

Someone once said be careful what you wish for… I sympathise. Once upon a time, the web team of the EP spent its days researching and writing articles for the headlines page of the EP website. It was a full time job, done well. It still is.  (A full-time job, done well). But today your friendly web editors have one or two other things to keep them out of mischief:

+ moderating comments for our interactive features on the elections website

+ administering a MySpace profile, blogging, posting videos and photos, making friends, moderating comments

+ from today, very much the same for a Facebook page

+ managing a Flickr account, uploading photos, responding to users (and a separate “Guest photographer” photstream)

+ blogging on this blog (no, that’s a pleasure!)

+ getting out there, spreading the word, linking, commenting, posting, networking

+ and (soon) managing a new YouTube channel (part of EUTube)

Meanwhile, we’re not out of ideas yet. More projects are in the pipeline, but  a degree of suspense about those for the moment.

It’s great, of course, and there is SO much more to be done (as a rather intimidating encounter with a man from the UK Central Office of Information recently brought home to me), but it’s also rather a lot of work in the meantime. It’s all very well to set up cool new social networking sites, to finally “get it” (thanks Nosemonkey), but once you’ve started there’s no going back. Social networks, by definition, need daily input, a truth the EP web team  is discovering by doing.

So sooner or later, recognising a reality that public administrations traditionally feel hard to deal with, our strategy will have to be as much about what we are going to stop doing as about all the new things we can find to keep us busy. Just for now though, those elections continue to loom, all hands are on deck and there are seven weeks to go (it says so on MySpace) and, dammit, we’re enjoying it!

Mr Hannan's viral video (YouTube)

Who’d have thought it possible? The internet’s most popular video, apparently for rather more than the mythical 15 minutes of fame, at least in the UK, was this week a recording of a three minute speech by a Conservative MEP, sitting as a non-attached member in the European Parliament. 

Yes, that’s a speech by an MEP…  With 1.4 million views at the time of writing (thus in under four days).

The office is buzzing with exchanges, admittedly mainly between the Brits, about how on earth this was possible. Mr Hannan himself seems perplexed, pointing out that he has made many speeches in Parliament, many of them attacking Labour, without any of them making him an internet star. It helps of course that he was speaking directly to the UK Prime Minister, present in the chamber, who just had to sit and listen, but that hardly explains the phenomenon. UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, no oratorical slouch himself, also had a go, but somehow languishes in relative internet anonymity at present. The video, posted on YouTube, has attracted not only views, but also over 9000 comments, many of which call for him to become UK Prime Minister without further ado.

No-one quite knows why one virus catches and another does not, why one rampages through a population and another peters out in short order. It seems however to depend more on the ecosystem than on the virus itself. 

Suffice to say this is an internet communicator’s dream. The snag is that it is difficult to explain why it happened. Doubtless a spot of zeitgeist: there is no doubt that Mr Hannan voices the views of many on the right of politics about the political reaction to the recession being implemented in several countries. This view is supported by the fact that the video seems initially to have caught on with conservatives in the United States, whose views about Mr Brown are unlikely to be as personal and passionate as those of Mr Hannan, but who probably harbour similar feelings about the new US president and his policies. Mr Hannan doubtless also articulates the feelings of a strand of British opinion about their Prime Minister – the YouTube comments confirm this – but he is hardly the only one doing so.

Others have pointed out that the form of the speech, dictated by the rules and habits of the European Parliament, where speakers have brief, but uninterrupted, opportunities to distill their thoughts, lends itself very well to the YouTube format. Had he taken the floor for ten minutes, or suffered constant heckling or interruption, the video would have suffered considerably.

But we’re still not there, are we? Such considerations cannot really explain the extraordinary phenomenon we have witnessed. And I’m sorry, I can’t buy all the slightly heated stuff in the commentariat about Mr Hannan’s popularity representing some kind of mass groundswell of opinion against the liberal media establishment – even if there are many interesting points to be made about how the internet communicates political opinion independently of traditional media. The secret – and the mystery – are in the word which describes what has happened: viral. No-one quite knows why one virus catches and another does not, why one rampages through a population and another peters out in short order. It seems however to depend more on the ecosystem than on the virus itself. What we do know is that once a virus starts to spread, it does so exponentially. Thus it was with Mr Hannan. Most people have surely seen the video not so much because of its intrinsic merits but because hundreds of thousands of others had. It started off speaking powerfully to a small but influential group, but ended up, like the proverbial modern celebrity, by being famous for being famous. (That did not stop it, of course, from speaking powerfully to many of its later viewers too.)

This is not a reflection on the quality of the speech, without doubt a good one, though not one even its speaker considers exceptional, but on why it spread, which is a different question. As this episode shows, viral effects like this are surprises, they happen as often as not out of the blue, as surprising for their originators as for anyone else. What the initial spark was is unclear, but what is clear is that once the fire caught hold, it rampaged.

Whatever the explanations though, in terms of outcomes, Mr Hannan’s experience holds many lessons. First, it is more and more possible for political messages to reach a mass public without the intermediation of the organisations and individuals known collectively as the media. Possible, but not yet reliably so.

Second, traditional media ideas about what people are interested in and/or willing to consume in terms of political news are not always a reliable guide to reality. Exciteable internet chatter about the traditional media “suppressing” Mr Hannan’s speech is clearly wide of the mark, even the man himself started from the assumption that no-one very much would be interested. Few would have predicted, including among those now enthusing, that a three minute speech by an MEP would be of such great interest. Yet it sold like hot cakes.

How should the institution’s press and information services react to an event such as that we have seen this week? 

Third, though politicians and institutions cannot necessarily predict such viral effects, they can certainly not afford to ignore them either. This applies to those with a message, those with a counter-message and those whose job it is simply to inform the public about what happens in the European Parliament. Mr Hannan’s new-found exposure is great for him, of course, and great also for the European Parliament, but it remains only a part of the political and institutional story of that day. In the comments column on YouTube, several ask about Mr Brown’s response, there are requests that it be posted. There were of course other speakers in the debate. Though many are simply delighted or horrified, according to taste, to hear Mr Hannan’s words, for others, with a broad interest in the issues, the speech could be a way into the wider discussion. Thus, for his political opponents, it is vital to be able to react in kind, posting counter views, the Brown response, etc. (No. 10 Downing Street is, for the record, keen on internet communication – I watched with fascination its Twitter coverage of Mr Brown’s world tour this week). But for the Institution itself, and this is where your friendly neighbourhood web-editors come in, the key is to provide the back up information to satisfy the interest and curiosity aroused at such times. Where can internet users find the Brown reply, where can they listen to the other interventions in the debate, when, where, why and in what context did this debate take place? All this information is available on the EP website, and the entire debate, or separate parts of it, can be watched and/or downloaded (that indeed is where Mr Hannan’s video comes from). Unfortunately, as yet, some work is still required of the user, we cannot provide a url for particular video extracts from the session (though the facility is under development).

But as well as the technical possibilities and constraints, there are issues about organisation to be considered. How should the institution’s press and information services react to an event such as that we have seen this week? To me it seems clear that there is a job to be done, that of satisfying the interest in the Parliament generated by what occurred. Yes, this means providing the information on our website, but in the networked internet of today, it is also important to go where the punters are. Mr Hannan was, note, seen not on Parliament’s website – though he could have been – but on YouTube. Thus, Parliament too needs to be there, not only with an institutional presence in its own right (coming very soon to EUTube, by the way), but also in the comments columns, blogs and forums, responding to the express needs of users. There are limits, of course, both in terms of sheer manpower and in terms of the content, which must remain institutional (objective, accurate, reliable, non-partisan, etc.), but there can no longer be any excuses for not trying.

Looking for new ways...

Ok, so we won’t eat grapes as they do it in Spain or purify the home as they do it in Scotland.  Perhaps we’ll have a video message from Barack Obama fresh on the footsteps of the message Hillary Clinton delivered in person a few weeks ago.

“New year” in the Parliament’s hemicycle Chamber will mean new resolutions and new faces to become familiar with.

Of course, for many MEPs it will be “Nothing changes on New Year’s Day; I will be with you again…” (U2). But for those new faces in the Parliament we need new faces to elect them — that’s why we are determined to conquer Facebook. And MySpace, Flickr and Youtube.

According to a study of the Nielsen Company members of such social networks and blogs have become the fourth most popular online category – ahead of personal email. Ok, we are not the only ones to realise their potential but we are the first public institution of this scale that does it.

But what should be the pre-New-Year’s message? As we see from implementing New Year’s resolutions and previous election campaigns formulating duties and obligations doesn’t really help. We have to encourage, make it easy and fun – be pals, find common language (their language) and show the choices.

The problem is, we are an institution and not politicians, so we have to be neutral and objective, otherwise we’ll be in trouble.

Besides, it’s not a new product we have to convince them of. No, it’s 30 years old! Many of those who spend a big part of their lives on Facebook and MySpace weren’t even born then. So it’s difficult. I guess I’ll have to ask my sister’s advice -  she is going to turn 18 next month.

On the other hand, if they buy it, it will themselves who will get the benefits. Let’s just hope that the political groups and parties enter the game too and make people’s decision easier with clearly formulated objectives. We can talk about choices as much as we want but it is up to the people to make the final choice!