My campaign was called “Hollywood’s Financial Safety Net” and it’s main intent was informational. It focused on franchises and how they’re used as a utility in the film industry as the most largest, most dependable source of profit. For my genres, I used a Facebook page, a website, and a YouTube video, targeting an audience of the “internet everyman”. By this, I mean generally anyone, whether they have existing knowledge on this topic or not. For some, the main idea of my campaign is common knowledge. For others, it might be something they’d never really thought about before. I tried to run my campaign in a way that catered to both ends of this spectrum. For example, my Facebook page calls for feedback in the comments of its posts, allowing for response from and interaction between audience members. To those who are already aware of some of the things my campaign may be trying to inform people of, this appeals to them by allowing them to share their own opinions in response.

​

My main way of getting my campaign off the ground was through my personal social media accounts. I made two posts to my personal Facebook page, just briefly telling my Facebook friends what it was about and asking them to go ahead and check the page out if they were interested. I also made similar posts to my Twitter and Instagram accounts. I used these as springboards to get initial followers for the campaign and spark interest. I figured this would be effective, since I have 562 followers on Instagram, 155 followers on Twitter, and 391 Facebook friends. I also took advantage of the feature on Facebook pages that allows you to invite someone to like your page. I invited almost everyone in my friends list. None of my genres allowed for the possibility of following someone in the hopes of them following back. I think this is the closest my campaign got to anything like that.

​

Judging by those who liked the Facebook page, I would say that Facebook was the most successful, as I am friends with most of the individual like-ers I saw (from the notifications I received) liked it. I cannot say this with complete certainty, however. Some of these people are also on Twitter and/or Facebook, so it is possible they saw the promotion on one of the those platforms and not Facebook. After my initial promotion, I made posts on the Facebook page every few days. As I previously mentioned, these posts were essentially ways of interacting with the audience and allowing for input from those viewing the page. For example, one post featured a blurred-out Ghostbusters (the 2016 reboot) poster and read “Can you guess this 2016 reboot? Hint: Ectoplasm, wacky comedy, and jumpsuits! Comment below!”. This was actually one of my posts where I got a response. My friend Will commented with the correct answer, also taking the time to disparage the movie. Other posts included a link to an article highlighting recent rumors of a Matrix reboot, and another that asked what sequel people thought was better than it’s predecessor.

​

The overall workload of this project was very different from Project 2. Things like the Facebook posts and the entire promotion aspect in general really made planning and executing ahead of time crucial to the project’s success. Papers are different from this in that their work can be divided into bursts. I could designate a specific weeknight to the development of a large part of my paper. After a few of these, with no method to how they are spaced out, I would have a completed product. sMy campaign, however, required that less be done all at once. The postings themselves required a discipline and consistency that was very different from the experience of sitting down and writing a few paragraphs. The use of a YouTube video as a genre was a very welcome change. When creating it, I was in my element, and found the process to be much less taxing than conveying the same message in text form.

​

This all brought with it, however, the challenge of creating interest. When one is writing a paper as a project for a class, the chain of events is very straightforward. Their professor will, of course, read it. My campaign was a different beast, as I was not just creating my different genres and trying to make the communication aspect effective. There was the added element of having to make them interesting. I quickly realized that this was a big difference from Project 2. Also different from Project 2 was the fact that I needed to cut my video’s runtime down. In contrast, I struggled to reach the required word count for my paper. I attribute this to my topic and selection of sources. For both Project 2 and Project 3, sources versus the medium was the primary struggle. With Project 2, the research paper confined me to the use of only academic sources. Conversely, my bounds were obscenely loose on the video essay. For such a medium, the restrictions were much less relaxed, which resulted in me trying to fit too much in.

​

If I could go back in time and give myself advice about Projects 2 and 3, and would tell myself to avoid this topic entirely. Yes, it is very relevant to my interests, relevant in general, and current, but it isn’t something that people write about for peer reviewed journals. Finding sources was agonizing, so much so to the point where I had to alter my topic to allow for more opportunities. My approach to my topic also wasn’t the strongest angle, falling flat when explained. Some people, upon hearing the premise, would simply have an “I knew that” response. Had I chosen a topic that allowed for more exploration, for a statement to be made, I think my research paper and eventual campaign would have been much more effective.