The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

An article in yesterday's Financial Times underscores a point most of us have already figured out: Wireless devices will replace TV as our most important medium.

While the article talks about the effects this will have on business, it doesn't discuss the huge ramifications this transition will have on campaign politics...

Recently, I conducted an interview with political consultant Paul Wilson of the media firm Wilson/Grand. When asked about this issue, he said:

"We're going to see people in politics try very hard to make the internet work. ...We know the voter is trying to hide from intrusive ads and that's the problem with the internet. And we, on the other hand, as political advertisers don't care at all about being intrusive. We're happy to be intrusive. We're happy to spam. We're happy to buy their email address. But what we're really trying to do is force-feed them some political information that we think would be useful -- and whether or not we can get through the filters will determine whether or not it is effective."

His point was that this new technology is great for people who seek out information. However, when it comes to mass-based communications, we've created a world where people can easily avoid information. While this sounds like great news for the consumer, it could result in an even wider gap between those who know about politics -- and those who don't. It could also dramatically change the way political campaigns are run.

Next weekend, I'm interviewing Dan Pink, a contributing editor of Wired Magazine, and author of the new book: A Whole New Mind Moving from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age. Dan formerly worked for Al Gore. I will be sure to ask him his opinion on this phenomenon. I have no doubt that in the next five years, campaign technology will be dramatically different than it is today. And whichever side figures out how to use it -- I mean really use it -- will be way ahead of the game.