Since March will be such an important month for media at SFU (election & referendum happening), I’ve decided to increase the VFM contest award pool to $600:
1st prize $200
2nd $160
3rd $120
4th $80
5th $40
If you’d like to enter, the form is linked at www.votermedia.org/sfu. Looking forward to some insightful content!
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
UBC VFM Results
University of British Columbia’s student union (Alma Mater Society) recently completed their second voter-funded media contest. (Their first was a year ago.) Below are my impressions of the results.
Overall, VFM succeeded in making a positive contribution to this democratic community. In spite of the late launch of the election and the VFM contest, the media contestants dove into energetic analysis and discussion of the electoral candidates. This gave voters more intelligent insight to base their choices on than they could have achieved without this media help. Like last year, it also educated candidates about their prospective positions and responsibilities.
Unfortunately, voter turnout was lower than last year, in both the election and VFM voting. This was primarily because of the late launch, short campaign and voting periods, relative lack of advance publicity, and voting on VFM after the election instead of concurrently.
The long-term success of VFM requires a feedback loop from media to voters and back to media. We need voters to reward media that provide public benefit. While voter assessments of media quality will never be perfect, we can see a substantial maturing of those assessments from January 2007 to January 2008.
The prime example is UBC Insiders’ move from 7th place to 2nd place. Their excellent content was not widely appreciated in January 2007 because they were new and VFM itself was new. But their continued blogging throughout 2007 spread their reputation, and a growing number of students participated in their comment discussions. By January 2008, students seeking insight into electoral candidates knew where to look, and were not disappointed.
Voters have also learned to catch on faster to media quality: new-in-2008 contestant The Devil’s Advocate sprinted from nowhere to a 3rd place finish. However, their modest but astute conjecture is that much of the voters’ improved insight came from self-selection: only students who follow the media bothered to return to the polls for VFM voting after the election was over.
It’s hard to tell how changing the VFM voting system may have shaped the award allocations. In 2007 we used approval voting (very simple – like or dislike each contestant) but this year we used “Interpolated Consensus” (more complex – vote each contestant $0 or $500 or $1000 or $1500 or $2000). Besides the apparently more accurate assessments of media quality, this year’s awards show several positive features. The top three places are closely spaced, supporting healthy competition among media groups rather than dominance by one or two. They represent substantially differing political perspectives, showing that a “tyranny of the majority” is not marginalizing all minority views. Nonetheless, not everyone wins a prize. A few entrants that voters deemed not worthwhile did not recover their $150 entry fees. This discipline helps discourage a proliferation of weak entrants from cluttering VFM ballots.
Some contestants won awards without providing much election coverage. I think The 432 and The Underground have been blamed for this. But to me, VFM has never been only about election coverage. For both of the last 2 years at UBC, I wanted to launch VFM in September, to encourage media to cover AMS issues for 4 months (including the election) and then get rewarded for it in a January vote. This incentive can work even before VFM is formally launched. So those media groups that have been connecting with students all year have earned the extra support they get.
The mix of serious and humorous content is of course up to media and voters to choose as they wish.
I’m also glad to see that VFM has induced a healthy debate on the quality of competing media [read comments]. I hope the debate and the incentive to build reputation among voters will encourage a steady improvement in both new and established media.
I hope to offer a year-round monthly VFM contest at UBC soon, like the one we just started at SFU. This could solve several problems, including late start, high entry fee, over-emphasis on elections and slow media-voter feedback learning.
VFM is gaining momentum at other student unions, including BCIT, Langara College and McGill University. I’m giving a public talk at Kwantlen University College (Richmond) on February 20.
Various websites’ discussions of VFM are linked from www.votermedia.org/forum.
Overall, VFM succeeded in making a positive contribution to this democratic community. In spite of the late launch of the election and the VFM contest, the media contestants dove into energetic analysis and discussion of the electoral candidates. This gave voters more intelligent insight to base their choices on than they could have achieved without this media help. Like last year, it also educated candidates about their prospective positions and responsibilities.
Unfortunately, voter turnout was lower than last year, in both the election and VFM voting. This was primarily because of the late launch, short campaign and voting periods, relative lack of advance publicity, and voting on VFM after the election instead of concurrently.
The long-term success of VFM requires a feedback loop from media to voters and back to media. We need voters to reward media that provide public benefit. While voter assessments of media quality will never be perfect, we can see a substantial maturing of those assessments from January 2007 to January 2008.
The prime example is UBC Insiders’ move from 7th place to 2nd place. Their excellent content was not widely appreciated in January 2007 because they were new and VFM itself was new. But their continued blogging throughout 2007 spread their reputation, and a growing number of students participated in their comment discussions. By January 2008, students seeking insight into electoral candidates knew where to look, and were not disappointed.
Voters have also learned to catch on faster to media quality: new-in-2008 contestant The Devil’s Advocate sprinted from nowhere to a 3rd place finish. However, their modest but astute conjecture is that much of the voters’ improved insight came from self-selection: only students who follow the media bothered to return to the polls for VFM voting after the election was over.
It’s hard to tell how changing the VFM voting system may have shaped the award allocations. In 2007 we used approval voting (very simple – like or dislike each contestant) but this year we used “Interpolated Consensus” (more complex – vote each contestant $0 or $500 or $1000 or $1500 or $2000). Besides the apparently more accurate assessments of media quality, this year’s awards show several positive features. The top three places are closely spaced, supporting healthy competition among media groups rather than dominance by one or two. They represent substantially differing political perspectives, showing that a “tyranny of the majority” is not marginalizing all minority views. Nonetheless, not everyone wins a prize. A few entrants that voters deemed not worthwhile did not recover their $150 entry fees. This discipline helps discourage a proliferation of weak entrants from cluttering VFM ballots.
Some contestants won awards without providing much election coverage. I think The 432 and The Underground have been blamed for this. But to me, VFM has never been only about election coverage. For both of the last 2 years at UBC, I wanted to launch VFM in September, to encourage media to cover AMS issues for 4 months (including the election) and then get rewarded for it in a January vote. This incentive can work even before VFM is formally launched. So those media groups that have been connecting with students all year have earned the extra support they get.
The mix of serious and humorous content is of course up to media and voters to choose as they wish.
I’m also glad to see that VFM has induced a healthy debate on the quality of competing media [read comments]. I hope the debate and the incentive to build reputation among voters will encourage a steady improvement in both new and established media.
I hope to offer a year-round monthly VFM contest at UBC soon, like the one we just started at SFU. This could solve several problems, including late start, high entry fee, over-emphasis on elections and slow media-voter feedback learning.
VFM is gaining momentum at other student unions, including BCIT, Langara College and McGill University. I’m giving a public talk at Kwantlen University College (Richmond) on February 20.
Various websites’ discussions of VFM are linked from www.votermedia.org/forum.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
UBC VFM voting has started!
Voting finally started today for UBC's voter-funded media contest, on the WebVote system -- see instructions here. You can vote from now through January 31.
Another late development: Ian Pattillo's entry Plain Title: Awesome Content!! which had only been available in print, is now on the web also.
Another late development: Ian Pattillo's entry Plain Title: Awesome Content!! which had only been available in print, is now on the web also.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Suggestions for Media Contestants
Here are some ideas for voter-funded media contestants, especially during an election (like the one happening now at UBC):
1. Busy voters need summaries.
The depth & breadth of your content are great for building credibility among opinion leaders who take the time to read it and spread your reputation. But for those voters who are only willing to spend a few minutes, summaries can help them make intelligent choices. You could make a table of endorsements from your group, and perhaps from other groups too. Clear link(s) from the top of your website to summaries would give more voters the benefit of all your work and insights.
2. Review the media.
You are giving voters guidance to help them vote; they are voting on media as well as on electoral candidates. Remind them that their options are to vote for $0 (“no money”), $500, $1000, $1500 or $2000 for each contestant, with no restriction on their total of voted amounts. (Non-votes are counted as voting for $0.) How will you vote? You could endorse other media, and change this advice through time as more content appears.
3. Use both print and web.
Using more types of media will reach more voters. Even if you only print a 1-page flyer, it can show your endorsements, and reference your website for more depth.
These are my guesses as to what will work, but I’m not the contest judge – voters are. You media may know better than I how to help voters and win votes.
See also:
How VFM contestants can help voters and win votes
Multifactor analysis of UBC VFM votes
1. Busy voters need summaries.
The depth & breadth of your content are great for building credibility among opinion leaders who take the time to read it and spread your reputation. But for those voters who are only willing to spend a few minutes, summaries can help them make intelligent choices. You could make a table of endorsements from your group, and perhaps from other groups too. Clear link(s) from the top of your website to summaries would give more voters the benefit of all your work and insights.
2. Review the media.
You are giving voters guidance to help them vote; they are voting on media as well as on electoral candidates. Remind them that their options are to vote for $0 (“no money”), $500, $1000, $1500 or $2000 for each contestant, with no restriction on their total of voted amounts. (Non-votes are counted as voting for $0.) How will you vote? You could endorse other media, and change this advice through time as more content appears.
3. Use both print and web.
Using more types of media will reach more voters. Even if you only print a 1-page flyer, it can show your endorsements, and reference your website for more depth.
These are my guesses as to what will work, but I’m not the contest judge – voters are. You media may know better than I how to help voters and win votes.
See also:
How VFM contestants can help voters and win votes
Multifactor analysis of UBC VFM votes
Friday, January 18, 2008
UBC final list of 11 contestants now posted
The entry deadline for the voter-funded media contest at University of British Columbia was 4 pm today. We got 11 contestants -- see list and links at www.votermedia.org/ubc.
Monday, January 7, 2008
UBC VFM Contest Open for Entries!
Entry forms for this year's University of British Columbia voter-funded media contest have just been made available at the AMS office, Student Union Building 2nd floor. I'll also post the entry form at www.votermedia.org/ubc when I receive it, probably tomorrow.
More info in these previous blog posts:
Contest Contrast: UBC vs SFU
Media consolidation – yes!
How VFM contestants can help voters and win votes
Contest administrator is Paul Gibson-Tigh (paulgt at interchange.ubc.ca).
In case the AMS Elections VFM web page is slow to get updated, I may post some unofficial info at www.votermedia.org/ubc as to who I've heard is planning to enter. Please send me info on this.
More info in these previous blog posts:
Contest Contrast: UBC vs SFU
Media consolidation – yes!
How VFM contestants can help voters and win votes
Contest administrator is Paul Gibson-Tigh (paulgt at interchange.ubc.ca).
In case the AMS Elections VFM web page is slow to get updated, I may post some unofficial info at www.votermedia.org/ubc as to who I've heard is planning to enter. Please send me info on this.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Will VFM Provide Consumer Info?
Will voter-funded media give their communities info on shopping as well as on voting?
To allow complete freedom of the press, VFM contests have so far imposed almost no requirements on media content, format or eligibility. Contest administration is basically an arm of the government, so if the media are to check and balance government power, administrators should have no subjective discretionary authority over contestants. Instead, it is the voters who must sort out the socially beneficial media and reward them. The idea is to empower voters, not to empower government-appointed administrators.
The media are free to try attracting voter support by any means they want, and voters are free to support contestants for whatever reasons they choose. As the SFU contest entry form states:
“We use the term "media" based on what we think contestants will do, but we do not actually require contestants to act like media. This contest is designed to benefit the voting community, and many types of benefit are possible. We think contestants will win high ratings by providing such benefits as websites giving insight on important SFU issues, especially issues to be decided by vote.”
The UBC media contestants in January 2008 will no doubt focus on the student union election that takes place at the end of January, as they did last year, for reasons outlined in this blog two days ago. But at SFU the annual election is not until March, and the media awards are spread throughout the year. What will the contestants offer voters?
Each voter can rate each contestant on a scale of 0 to 10. Awards are given out based on the median of each contestant’s votes: highest median gets first prize, etc. Nonvotes are counted as half a vote for a 0 rating – see rules. To win at this game, contestants must appeal to a wide range of voters.
There are several organizations already providing benefits to the SFU community, including the Simon Fraser Student Society, The Peak (newspaper), and the university itself. Their different mandates cover a wide range of possible benefits. They are well established, and command substantially more resources than the voter-funded media award pool. What could VFM contestants add to this scene? They must look for benefits that are not already being provided.
I designed VFM to encourage media to help voters choose better leaders and to monitor leaders once elected. Existing campus media already do this, but VFM should add a diversity of independent views, with a new competitive incentive linked directly to voters. Different incentives are likely to result in different behaviour, and thus may add some new perspectives on issues important to the SFU community. New media can at least play a gadfly role, critiquing and advising the government.
But contestants may think of other types of benefit that they could offer. For example, these might include information about campus food services or about courses of study. The article “Menu Minefield” (Globe & Mail 2007-11-07) is a good illustration. Media could gather and organize insight from students, in the style of Consumer Reports, Consumers’ Checkbook, epinions.com and yelp.com.
To allow complete freedom of the press, VFM contests have so far imposed almost no requirements on media content, format or eligibility. Contest administration is basically an arm of the government, so if the media are to check and balance government power, administrators should have no subjective discretionary authority over contestants. Instead, it is the voters who must sort out the socially beneficial media and reward them. The idea is to empower voters, not to empower government-appointed administrators.
The media are free to try attracting voter support by any means they want, and voters are free to support contestants for whatever reasons they choose. As the SFU contest entry form states:
“We use the term "media" based on what we think contestants will do, but we do not actually require contestants to act like media. This contest is designed to benefit the voting community, and many types of benefit are possible. We think contestants will win high ratings by providing such benefits as websites giving insight on important SFU issues, especially issues to be decided by vote.”
The UBC media contestants in January 2008 will no doubt focus on the student union election that takes place at the end of January, as they did last year, for reasons outlined in this blog two days ago. But at SFU the annual election is not until March, and the media awards are spread throughout the year. What will the contestants offer voters?
Each voter can rate each contestant on a scale of 0 to 10. Awards are given out based on the median of each contestant’s votes: highest median gets first prize, etc. Nonvotes are counted as half a vote for a 0 rating – see rules. To win at this game, contestants must appeal to a wide range of voters.
There are several organizations already providing benefits to the SFU community, including the Simon Fraser Student Society, The Peak (newspaper), and the university itself. Their different mandates cover a wide range of possible benefits. They are well established, and command substantially more resources than the voter-funded media award pool. What could VFM contestants add to this scene? They must look for benefits that are not already being provided.
I designed VFM to encourage media to help voters choose better leaders and to monitor leaders once elected. Existing campus media already do this, but VFM should add a diversity of independent views, with a new competitive incentive linked directly to voters. Different incentives are likely to result in different behaviour, and thus may add some new perspectives on issues important to the SFU community. New media can at least play a gadfly role, critiquing and advising the government.
But contestants may think of other types of benefit that they could offer. For example, these might include information about campus food services or about courses of study. The article “Menu Minefield” (Globe & Mail 2007-11-07) is a good illustration. Media could gather and organize insight from students, in the style of Consumer Reports, Consumers’ Checkbook, epinions.com and yelp.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
