Thursday, August 20, 2015
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
TV/Interent Commercial Giveaway Announced
Video Innovations of Plymouth, PA, is announcing its second annual video giveaway. This year, Scott Cannon, the owner of the company, will be giving away production for a 30 second television/internet commercial valued at $1,200.00 to a local business owner.
The commercial can be used for televsion and/or posted on the winning businesses website and social accounts, as well as sent via email to perspective customers.
Last year Video Innovations launched the Wyoming Valley Business Channel on YouTube. Videos on the channel range from all of the television spots the company does for its clients to mini documentaries on events in the area including the Pittston Tomato and Plymouth Kielbasa Festivals. It is an inexpensive way for businesses to have a professional video made, and then posted on the internet.
Video Innovations is giving away the $1,200.00 package on Monday March 8th, with the deadline for entries on Friday, March 5th, 2010. Details and contest rules can be found at videoinnovations.com.
Scott Cannon, the owner of Video Innovations, is located in Plymouth, Pennsylvania. He has been in business for 20 years and formerly worked as a video producer at WBRE and WVIA.
The commercial can be used for televsion and/or posted on the winning businesses website and social accounts, as well as sent via email to perspective customers.
Last year Video Innovations launched the Wyoming Valley Business Channel on YouTube. Videos on the channel range from all of the television spots the company does for its clients to mini documentaries on events in the area including the Pittston Tomato and Plymouth Kielbasa Festivals. It is an inexpensive way for businesses to have a professional video made, and then posted on the internet.
Video Innovations is giving away the $1,200.00 package on Monday March 8th, with the deadline for entries on Friday, March 5th, 2010. Details and contest rules can be found at videoinnovations.com.
Scott Cannon, the owner of Video Innovations, is located in Plymouth, Pennsylvania. He has been in business for 20 years and formerly worked as a video producer at WBRE and WVIA.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Good Info On How Videos Can Increase Sales
You have a fantastic product and a great Web site to promote it, but something is missing. Internet video marketing is quickly becoming a strong tool companies are using to attract leads or new customers through their Web sites. Some of the reasons video is an excellent resource to enhance your Web site include: 1. Modern technology has created a demand for new ways to promote materials and services. Now potential clients are skimming the Web and popular sites like YouTube at the office, in restaurants, on the bus and anywhere else they might be, while using handheld computers, smart phones and other devices. Having quality video on your site allows potential clients to view your business, product or services quickly and easily. Plus, video helps to boost your Web site in the Search Engine Optimization (SEO) rankings. 2. Videos can educate and create awareness in just two to three minutes, allowing you to tell about your product or service without wasting a lot of Web space or boring your viewers with a large block of text. A picture is worth 1,000 words, so just imagine how valuable a moving and audible picture can be. 3. Studies are finding that Web sites containing videos have better-educated shoppers making purchases and keeping those purchases without many returns. That means a better bottom line for your business. 4. It's not just the teenagers and 20-somethings viewing marketing videos. These interactive programs allow you to connect with customers of all ages on a more personal basis, which makes your customers feel the content on your site is more accessible. Plus, a video can be used just like a paid salesperson - without the employee expenses. If you're ready to bump your Web site up to a new level with video marketing, companies like Fathom SEO can work with you to develop the perfect video to promote your products or services. Fathom SEO's Internet video production and marketing team uses SEO principles and trenchant keywords for audio search indexing to market and increase your video's popularity, and they also convert actual Web site pages into videos for easy viewing on-site. These video pages are then distributed through video portals. Take a look at your Web site. Is it in need of conversation, better explanation of your product or services or stronger SEO rankings? Consider adding an Internet marketing video to make your Web site work smarter for your company. Courtesy of ARAcontent
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Are you a lawyer advertising in the phone book, still?
Here is a wonderful article on the benefits of lawyers advertising on YouTube. My videos are as professional as Findlaws, and at a fraction of the price.
Commentary: Marketing with YouTube
by Jane Pribek
January 6, 2010
The other day, after viewing the latest humorous Saturday Night Live skit on YouTube using a link someone e-mailed me – I mean, the other day while I was working – I got to wondering about the potential for YouTube as a marketing tool for lawyers.
I searched “Wisconsin lawyer” and “Wisconsin attorney” and found that a few of you have incorporated the free, online video-sharing Web site, now owned by Google, into your marketing repertoire.
One such lawyer is William H. Green of Green & Kapsos LLC in Milwaukee, who has posted five videos on YouTube.
The videos were filmed and edited by Findlaw, and they’re posted on the firm’s Web site as well. They weren’t cheap, Green says – he declined to give an exact pricetag, but said they cost several thousand dollars.
Still, he has no regrets. “They were a bargain for how professional they look,” he says.
More importantly, Green is fairly certain that prospects don’t use the Yellow Pages to find lawyers as often as they used to. So he’s opted to spend fewer marketing dollars on the Yellow Pages and has diverted that money to upgrading the firm’s Web site.
Adding the Findlaw videos was step one toward that goal.Posting videos on YouTube is simple. You need to login to Google, click on the yellow “upload” and “video file” buttons, locate the file on your computer to upload, and click on it. You can add a title, description and tags to make the video easy to find.
You can also opt for strict privacy settings for videos of your family, or “public” for a video about your law practice. And, for the Web 2.0 types reading this, there’s an autoshare feature, so that you can automatically post your YouTube videos to Facebook and Twitter.
Green faithfully surveys all new clients and prospects about how they found him. So far, no one has claimed his YouTube videos brought them in. But the videos haven’t been posted for very long, and the holidays are a slow time for lawyers like Green who concentrate on divorce and bankruptcy.
He predicts that he will see business from the videos soon. Until then, he’s committed to creating a “multimedia presence” and experimenting with new technologies for marketing as they become available.“I know a lot of lawyers who don’t advertise, who don’t do anything to market themselves or try new strategies to build their client base. It shows in the way they practice law; they don’t challenge themselves in that regard, either. But I’m trying to build something here,” he says.
Is there a downside to YouTube? I wrote a column several months ago about attorneys advertising on Craigslist, the free online classified advertising service, and a reader commented that it seemed like “advertising in a brothel.”He makes a point: People judge you by the company you keep, and there are a lot of just plain awful videos on YouTube – along with a few really hilarious SNL clips, sports highlights, political commentary, etc.
But on Oct. 9, 2009, on the third anniversary of YouTube’s acquisition by Google, one of its creators announced in a blog posting that YouTube was serving "well over a billion views a day" worldwide. That’s a huge audience and a great deal of potential exposure.
Commentary: Marketing with YouTube
by Jane Pribek
January 6, 2010
The other day, after viewing the latest humorous Saturday Night Live skit on YouTube using a link someone e-mailed me – I mean, the other day while I was working – I got to wondering about the potential for YouTube as a marketing tool for lawyers.
I searched “Wisconsin lawyer” and “Wisconsin attorney” and found that a few of you have incorporated the free, online video-sharing Web site, now owned by Google, into your marketing repertoire.
One such lawyer is William H. Green of Green & Kapsos LLC in Milwaukee, who has posted five videos on YouTube.
The videos were filmed and edited by Findlaw, and they’re posted on the firm’s Web site as well. They weren’t cheap, Green says – he declined to give an exact pricetag, but said they cost several thousand dollars.
Still, he has no regrets. “They were a bargain for how professional they look,” he says.
More importantly, Green is fairly certain that prospects don’t use the Yellow Pages to find lawyers as often as they used to. So he’s opted to spend fewer marketing dollars on the Yellow Pages and has diverted that money to upgrading the firm’s Web site.
Adding the Findlaw videos was step one toward that goal.Posting videos on YouTube is simple. You need to login to Google, click on the yellow “upload” and “video file” buttons, locate the file on your computer to upload, and click on it. You can add a title, description and tags to make the video easy to find.
You can also opt for strict privacy settings for videos of your family, or “public” for a video about your law practice. And, for the Web 2.0 types reading this, there’s an autoshare feature, so that you can automatically post your YouTube videos to Facebook and Twitter.
Green faithfully surveys all new clients and prospects about how they found him. So far, no one has claimed his YouTube videos brought them in. But the videos haven’t been posted for very long, and the holidays are a slow time for lawyers like Green who concentrate on divorce and bankruptcy.
He predicts that he will see business from the videos soon. Until then, he’s committed to creating a “multimedia presence” and experimenting with new technologies for marketing as they become available.“I know a lot of lawyers who don’t advertise, who don’t do anything to market themselves or try new strategies to build their client base. It shows in the way they practice law; they don’t challenge themselves in that regard, either. But I’m trying to build something here,” he says.
Is there a downside to YouTube? I wrote a column several months ago about attorneys advertising on Craigslist, the free online classified advertising service, and a reader commented that it seemed like “advertising in a brothel.”He makes a point: People judge you by the company you keep, and there are a lot of just plain awful videos on YouTube – along with a few really hilarious SNL clips, sports highlights, political commentary, etc.
But on Oct. 9, 2009, on the third anniversary of YouTube’s acquisition by Google, one of its creators announced in a blog posting that YouTube was serving "well over a billion views a day" worldwide. That’s a huge audience and a great deal of potential exposure.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
How Much Do Television Ads Cost?
This is a great article explaing the ins and outs of making and airing a local commercial. Author Unknown.
Television Advertising Costs - A Primer
How much does a TV advertising campaign cost? Many entrepreneurs assume television is incredibly expensive and don't even consider it. The reality is that it's worth learning more about television advertising costs. Advertising on television may be more economical than you might think.
Sooner or later, every entrepreneur is tempted by the allure of television advertising. Yet most will never seriously explore the possibility of promoting their product in a TV commercial because they assume it is cost-prohibitive. But is that really true? Is television advertising cost-prohibitive for small- to medium-sized business owners? The answer is, well, complicated.
(article continues below)
When pricing a television commercial, you need to weigh the costs of two separate things: (1) the cost of producing the commercial, and (2) the cost of airing it.
It has been estimated that the average cost of producing a 30-second national TV commercial is nearly $350,000. But before you panic, understand that like any other form of advertising, a television commercial can be as simple or as complicated as you want to make it. Not surprisingly, the cost to produce the commercial goes up as the quality and complexity of the commercial increases.
Small- to medium-sized businesses cannot afford to invest $350,000 in a single commercial. But, decent quality TV commercials can be produced for as little as $1,000 if you know where to look. The best place to start is with freelancers or small production agencies.
A word to the wise: Some local television stations may offer to produce a commercial for you at a highly discounted (or even free) rate if you agree to advertise on their station. Don't do it! The quality of these commercials is usually very poor compared to those that are professionally produced. A poorly produced commercial can have a highly detrimental effect on your television advertising campaign's effectiveness and may leave viewers with the idea that your company is cheap, cheesy, and out of touch.
The second cost involved in television advertising is the price you will pay to run your commercial. Commercial time is sold in 30-second spot blocks. The cost of a 30-second spot varies according to the number of viewers expected to be watching it.
The standard half-hour of television contains 22 minutes of program and 8 minutes of commercials - 6 minutes for national advertising and 2 minutes for local. National advertising is obviously your most expensive option, but even then the rates vary by Nielsen-rated viewership. Highly-watched programs can command rates in the millions of dollars. For example, a 30-second spot during the 2005 Superbowl sold for $2.4 million. Commercials during less-watched programs are more affordable, but the cost of those commercials may still run in excess of $100,000 per 30-seconds.
Most small- to medium-sized business owners find that local advertising fits better with their budgets and marketing goals. A 30-second time slot in a medium-sized market can be purchased for as little as $5 per 1,000 viewers, meaning that you could easily expect to pay less than $100 per commercial slot. Even cheaper rates may be available for off-hour programming.
The best advice is to avoid surprises by checking out how much it will cost to air your commercial locally before you shell out the money to have it produced.
Television Advertising Costs - A Primer
How much does a TV advertising campaign cost? Many entrepreneurs assume television is incredibly expensive and don't even consider it. The reality is that it's worth learning more about television advertising costs. Advertising on television may be more economical than you might think.
Sooner or later, every entrepreneur is tempted by the allure of television advertising. Yet most will never seriously explore the possibility of promoting their product in a TV commercial because they assume it is cost-prohibitive. But is that really true? Is television advertising cost-prohibitive for small- to medium-sized business owners? The answer is, well, complicated.
(article continues below)
When pricing a television commercial, you need to weigh the costs of two separate things: (1) the cost of producing the commercial, and (2) the cost of airing it.
It has been estimated that the average cost of producing a 30-second national TV commercial is nearly $350,000. But before you panic, understand that like any other form of advertising, a television commercial can be as simple or as complicated as you want to make it. Not surprisingly, the cost to produce the commercial goes up as the quality and complexity of the commercial increases.
Small- to medium-sized businesses cannot afford to invest $350,000 in a single commercial. But, decent quality TV commercials can be produced for as little as $1,000 if you know where to look. The best place to start is with freelancers or small production agencies.
A word to the wise: Some local television stations may offer to produce a commercial for you at a highly discounted (or even free) rate if you agree to advertise on their station. Don't do it! The quality of these commercials is usually very poor compared to those that are professionally produced. A poorly produced commercial can have a highly detrimental effect on your television advertising campaign's effectiveness and may leave viewers with the idea that your company is cheap, cheesy, and out of touch.
The second cost involved in television advertising is the price you will pay to run your commercial. Commercial time is sold in 30-second spot blocks. The cost of a 30-second spot varies according to the number of viewers expected to be watching it.
The standard half-hour of television contains 22 minutes of program and 8 minutes of commercials - 6 minutes for national advertising and 2 minutes for local. National advertising is obviously your most expensive option, but even then the rates vary by Nielsen-rated viewership. Highly-watched programs can command rates in the millions of dollars. For example, a 30-second spot during the 2005 Superbowl sold for $2.4 million. Commercials during less-watched programs are more affordable, but the cost of those commercials may still run in excess of $100,000 per 30-seconds.
Most small- to medium-sized business owners find that local advertising fits better with their budgets and marketing goals. A 30-second time slot in a medium-sized market can be purchased for as little as $5 per 1,000 viewers, meaning that you could easily expect to pay less than $100 per commercial slot. Even cheaper rates may be available for off-hour programming.
The best advice is to avoid surprises by checking out how much it will cost to air your commercial locally before you shell out the money to have it produced.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A Video Producers Take on the Luzerne County Judge Election
As a video dude, I followed certain aspects of the Luzerne County Judge Election closely, since I was hired by Richard Hughes’ campaign to shoot some web videos and set up his YouTube site. Keep in mind that I am not taking into consideration radio, newspaper, billboard, or signage here, just video and internet media. I thought I might share my observations with anyone interested.
Of the top 3 vote getters in the Primary Race for Luzerne County Judge, all used
A. TV commercials
B. Websites with videos on them
C. Social media.
Television, first and foremost, shows people what the candidate looks like, how they speak, and act. No other form of media can tell you more about a person in 30 seconds. Most candidates air their commercials on local newscasts because that is what most voters watch. Spots on WNEP and WBRE run about $1000 a pop. I’m surprised that no candidates ran their ads on lower cost cable outlets like CNN, MSNBC, or other cable news shows. Spots run only $5 to $15. Granted, the audience is a lot smaller, but if you only have $1000 to spend, it can be aired a lot on cable. Television is essential with this many candidates in a single race.
Websites are essential. They are available for people to get information about the candidate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, or for those of you with A.D.D., 24/7. Add the fact that you can now ad video or a link to video, and you have a potent marketing tool. If you have video and don’t put it on your site, shame on you! I told one of the prothonotary candidates that if one of them put a video up on YouTube that explained what a prothonotary did, they would win. Well no one did, and I still don’t know what a prothonotary is. Is it a courthouse pharmacist or something?
Social Media is here to stay. Because Tina Polachek Gartley spent the least out of the three top candidates, it gives me an indication of just how important new technology and the young people using that technology is to the election process. Social Media (FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter) is a cheap form of communication that can bring people together almost instantly.
The most alarming thing I came away with from studying this election is this - The Quality of the Commercial Doesn’t Matter! Yes folks, good production values, finely crafted lighting, modern editing techniques, all the things I’ve been striving to excel at as a video producer don’t mean Jack Squat! If you look at the top two vote getters commercials, you’ll find examples of bad composition, poorly designed uneven graphics, and unflattering lighting. Maybe it’s the message and how the candidates deliver it that is the most important part of video, though it breaks my heart!
Here is a rundown on how I thought the candidates and their teams performed using video and internet marketing. …and remember, hind sight is 20/20.
Bill Amesbury
TV Commercials: 3 commercials. Poor, unflattering lighting on 2 of them. The spots ran early and often.
YouTube: None
Social Media: Good use of FaceBook account
Website: Nice website with videos
Overview: Despite his commercials looking like they were filmed in an Al Qaeda cave, they were effective because there was a variety of them, and he addressed the camera directly, engaging the audience.
Tina Polachek Gartley
TV Commercials: 1 commercial. Lighting was unflattering and the graphics and editing were choppy.
YouTube: 2 Videos, one homemade and one from the Times Leader
Social Media: The most use of Facebook in all the campaigns. Almost too much, I wanted to turn my spam filter on. Tina even Twittered!
Website: Nice Website with videos
Overview: I think the FaceBook activity really elevated this campaign. It got the volunteers organized cheaply and effectively.
Richard Hughes
TV Commercials: 2 spots, decent quality (I didn’t make them) They ran a little late in the campaign.
YouTube: I set up his YouTube Channel. I had all his commercials, the Sam LeSante Show appearance, and an announcement and interview video..
Social Media: Good active use of FaceBook account.
Website: Nice website with video.
Overview: A well rounded campaign. I think Richard should have spent more on TV ads, and a lot earlier that the last week of the election.
Joe Musto
TV Commercials: 2 or 3 spots. Good production.
YouTube: 2 commercials and announcement video
Social Media: Had Facebook account, but didn’t do anything with it. I requested Joe as a friend. He dissed me, and since he had no friends, I’m guessing the powers that be didn’t think the Facebook was important to maintain.
Website: Nice site with video
Overview: A nice well rounded campaign
Joe Sklarosky
TV Commercials: 1 TV Spot. Nice production, but everyone looked stiff.
YouTube: None
Social Media: He had a FaceBook account, but didn’t do anything with it. I requested Joe as a friend. He dissed my request.
Website: Nice website with video
Overview: His TV spot needed to be warmer and friendlier, and Joe needed to talk to the camera instead of the 4 second side angle shot of him with his family. Plus, he needed more Facebook activity.
Mike Blazick
TV Commercials: None
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: Nice site, but the video of Mike on his site sputtered, making it difficult to watch. I even emailed his campaign to let them know and the problem was never fixed.
Overview: Signs and billboards are not enough to win a campaign.
Gene Sperazza
TV Commercials: Nicely produced spot but didn’t show the candidates personality
YouTube: None
Social Media: Had a MySpace and FaceBook site but didn’t utilize use them
Website: Nice website with video. An earlier video on the website had him addressing the camera, but he looked stiff.
Overview: Gene spent the most money for the longest period of time. I would have liked to see him do a spot with his family. More attention should have been paid to FaceBook. Why have social media sites if you don’t use them. They’re important.
Daniel Zola
TV Commercials: 3 Spots for cable in Hazleton only. More like Powerpoint presentations, not very engaging.
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: Simple website, with the TV spots put up late in the campaign.
Overview: I know Dan can fold his arms, because that is the only image I’ve seen of him throughout the entire campaign.
C.J. Bufalino
TV Commercials: 3 TV commercials, good production. They ran often.
YouTube: His ad agency had his commercial on YouTube, but not a specific “Bufalino” channel
Social Media: Little use of FaceBook account.
Website: Good website with videos
Overview: Good, well rounded campaign.
Molly Hanlon Mirabito
TV Commercials: None
YouTube: 3 homemade videos, poor quality
Social Media: None
Website: Low budget feel with homemade videos. She didn’t even have a professional photograph.
Overview: Low budget, low votes. Unfair, but that’s the way that it is.
Tom Marsilio
TV Commercials: Ran in Hazleton Only. Didn’t get to see them.
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: Low budget feel, no video. At least post the commercials that only the Hazlton people saw.
Overview: Not enough effort as needed to win a campaign
Tony Lumbis
TV Commercials: One or two low budget chroma key spots.
YouTube: Yes, the two commercials
Social Media: Fair use of FaceBook
Website: Nice website with video. It was even available in Spanish!
Overview: Too little, too late. He did make sense in his TV spots.
Joe Terrana
TV Commercials: 3 spots. The best production value of all the candidates.
YouTube: Yes. All the commercials are there.
Social Media: None
Website: Nice Website with video
Overview: A nice well rounded campaign. The TV spots had some thought behind them. Should have done FaceBook.
Jennifer Rogers
TV Commercials: She made 2 decent TV spots but I didn’t see any airing, and I’ve looked.
YouTube: 2 videos, the above, aforementioned TV spots.
Social Media: Fair use of FaceBook
Website: Homemade looking site. I couldn’t get the videos to play
Overview: She has the warmest personality of any of the candidates, but without TV commercials airing, she didn’t use that to her advantage.
Thomas O'Connor
TV Commercials: 2 spots. Tom’s image didn’t come off as flattering as it could have been. He should wear his glasses in commercials.
YouTube: One Poor quality announcement video pittstonpolitics.com., not his own channel.
Social Media: Fair use of FaceBook.
Website: Nice website, but put up too late.
Steve Menn
TV Commercials: None
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: None
Overview: One of two candidates to not have a professionally shot picture of himself/herself. That is at least the minimum requirement. Should have stayed home. My wife thought he was cute though, that’s gotta count for something!
Michael Pendolphi
TV Commercials: 1 or 2 low budget chromakey spots. The kind TV stations will give you free if you spend a certain amount on air time. It's just like buying 4 new tires and getting a car free!
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: None
Overview: Pretty much drove that car off the map. Seemed like a nice guy though.
Of the top 3 vote getters in the Primary Race for Luzerne County Judge, all used
A. TV commercials
B. Websites with videos on them
C. Social media.
Television, first and foremost, shows people what the candidate looks like, how they speak, and act. No other form of media can tell you more about a person in 30 seconds. Most candidates air their commercials on local newscasts because that is what most voters watch. Spots on WNEP and WBRE run about $1000 a pop. I’m surprised that no candidates ran their ads on lower cost cable outlets like CNN, MSNBC, or other cable news shows. Spots run only $5 to $15. Granted, the audience is a lot smaller, but if you only have $1000 to spend, it can be aired a lot on cable. Television is essential with this many candidates in a single race.
Websites are essential. They are available for people to get information about the candidate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, or for those of you with A.D.D., 24/7. Add the fact that you can now ad video or a link to video, and you have a potent marketing tool. If you have video and don’t put it on your site, shame on you! I told one of the prothonotary candidates that if one of them put a video up on YouTube that explained what a prothonotary did, they would win. Well no one did, and I still don’t know what a prothonotary is. Is it a courthouse pharmacist or something?
Social Media is here to stay. Because Tina Polachek Gartley spent the least out of the three top candidates, it gives me an indication of just how important new technology and the young people using that technology is to the election process. Social Media (FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter) is a cheap form of communication that can bring people together almost instantly.
The most alarming thing I came away with from studying this election is this - The Quality of the Commercial Doesn’t Matter! Yes folks, good production values, finely crafted lighting, modern editing techniques, all the things I’ve been striving to excel at as a video producer don’t mean Jack Squat! If you look at the top two vote getters commercials, you’ll find examples of bad composition, poorly designed uneven graphics, and unflattering lighting. Maybe it’s the message and how the candidates deliver it that is the most important part of video, though it breaks my heart!
Here is a rundown on how I thought the candidates and their teams performed using video and internet marketing. …and remember, hind sight is 20/20.
Bill Amesbury
TV Commercials: 3 commercials. Poor, unflattering lighting on 2 of them. The spots ran early and often.
YouTube: None
Social Media: Good use of FaceBook account
Website: Nice website with videos
Overview: Despite his commercials looking like they were filmed in an Al Qaeda cave, they were effective because there was a variety of them, and he addressed the camera directly, engaging the audience.
Tina Polachek Gartley
TV Commercials: 1 commercial. Lighting was unflattering and the graphics and editing were choppy.
YouTube: 2 Videos, one homemade and one from the Times Leader
Social Media: The most use of Facebook in all the campaigns. Almost too much, I wanted to turn my spam filter on. Tina even Twittered!
Website: Nice Website with videos
Overview: I think the FaceBook activity really elevated this campaign. It got the volunteers organized cheaply and effectively.
Richard Hughes
TV Commercials: 2 spots, decent quality (I didn’t make them) They ran a little late in the campaign.
YouTube: I set up his YouTube Channel. I had all his commercials, the Sam LeSante Show appearance, and an announcement and interview video..
Social Media: Good active use of FaceBook account.
Website: Nice website with video.
Overview: A well rounded campaign. I think Richard should have spent more on TV ads, and a lot earlier that the last week of the election.
Joe Musto
TV Commercials: 2 or 3 spots. Good production.
YouTube: 2 commercials and announcement video
Social Media: Had Facebook account, but didn’t do anything with it. I requested Joe as a friend. He dissed me, and since he had no friends, I’m guessing the powers that be didn’t think the Facebook was important to maintain.
Website: Nice site with video
Overview: A nice well rounded campaign
Joe Sklarosky
TV Commercials: 1 TV Spot. Nice production, but everyone looked stiff.
YouTube: None
Social Media: He had a FaceBook account, but didn’t do anything with it. I requested Joe as a friend. He dissed my request.
Website: Nice website with video
Overview: His TV spot needed to be warmer and friendlier, and Joe needed to talk to the camera instead of the 4 second side angle shot of him with his family. Plus, he needed more Facebook activity.
Mike Blazick
TV Commercials: None
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: Nice site, but the video of Mike on his site sputtered, making it difficult to watch. I even emailed his campaign to let them know and the problem was never fixed.
Overview: Signs and billboards are not enough to win a campaign.
Gene Sperazza
TV Commercials: Nicely produced spot but didn’t show the candidates personality
YouTube: None
Social Media: Had a MySpace and FaceBook site but didn’t utilize use them
Website: Nice website with video. An earlier video on the website had him addressing the camera, but he looked stiff.
Overview: Gene spent the most money for the longest period of time. I would have liked to see him do a spot with his family. More attention should have been paid to FaceBook. Why have social media sites if you don’t use them. They’re important.
Daniel Zola
TV Commercials: 3 Spots for cable in Hazleton only. More like Powerpoint presentations, not very engaging.
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: Simple website, with the TV spots put up late in the campaign.
Overview: I know Dan can fold his arms, because that is the only image I’ve seen of him throughout the entire campaign.
C.J. Bufalino
TV Commercials: 3 TV commercials, good production. They ran often.
YouTube: His ad agency had his commercial on YouTube, but not a specific “Bufalino” channel
Social Media: Little use of FaceBook account.
Website: Good website with videos
Overview: Good, well rounded campaign.
Molly Hanlon Mirabito
TV Commercials: None
YouTube: 3 homemade videos, poor quality
Social Media: None
Website: Low budget feel with homemade videos. She didn’t even have a professional photograph.
Overview: Low budget, low votes. Unfair, but that’s the way that it is.
Tom Marsilio
TV Commercials: Ran in Hazleton Only. Didn’t get to see them.
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: Low budget feel, no video. At least post the commercials that only the Hazlton people saw.
Overview: Not enough effort as needed to win a campaign
Tony Lumbis
TV Commercials: One or two low budget chroma key spots.
YouTube: Yes, the two commercials
Social Media: Fair use of FaceBook
Website: Nice website with video. It was even available in Spanish!
Overview: Too little, too late. He did make sense in his TV spots.
Joe Terrana
TV Commercials: 3 spots. The best production value of all the candidates.
YouTube: Yes. All the commercials are there.
Social Media: None
Website: Nice Website with video
Overview: A nice well rounded campaign. The TV spots had some thought behind them. Should have done FaceBook.
Jennifer Rogers
TV Commercials: She made 2 decent TV spots but I didn’t see any airing, and I’ve looked.
YouTube: 2 videos, the above, aforementioned TV spots.
Social Media: Fair use of FaceBook
Website: Homemade looking site. I couldn’t get the videos to play
Overview: She has the warmest personality of any of the candidates, but without TV commercials airing, she didn’t use that to her advantage.
Thomas O'Connor
TV Commercials: 2 spots. Tom’s image didn’t come off as flattering as it could have been. He should wear his glasses in commercials.
YouTube: One Poor quality announcement video pittstonpolitics.com., not his own channel.
Social Media: Fair use of FaceBook.
Website: Nice website, but put up too late.
Steve Menn
TV Commercials: None
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: None
Overview: One of two candidates to not have a professionally shot picture of himself/herself. That is at least the minimum requirement. Should have stayed home. My wife thought he was cute though, that’s gotta count for something!
Michael Pendolphi
TV Commercials: 1 or 2 low budget chromakey spots. The kind TV stations will give you free if you spend a certain amount on air time. It's just like buying 4 new tires and getting a car free!
YouTube: None
Social Media: None
Website: None
Overview: Pretty much drove that car off the map. Seemed like a nice guy though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
