links for 2009-08-27
by Brian Reich | 27 Aug 2009, 11:02am
-
Good post from Scott Henderson, summed up; "When combined, online media and cause marketing offer you new opportunities to engage your current supporters and reach a much wider circle of new supporters."
TAGS
leave a comment
Honoring Senator Kennedy
by Brian Reich | 27 Aug 2009, 7:42am
Senator Edward Kennedy died yesterday following a sometimes-glorious and sometimes-challenging five decade long career in public service and a brave 15-month battle with brain cancer. Our nation lost a political icon. The Democratic Party lost a passionate advocate and leader. Working Americans lost a great champion. The people of Massachusetts, where I have lived for the past seven years, lost a friend.
The well-deserved tributes to Senator Kennedy and his work are coming from around the world. But here in Boston, the sense of loss is very personal and raw. The local media coverage is different - the television news anchors are reserved and the radio hosts are struggling to fight back tears as they share memories and stories. The local coffee shops are filled with people telling stories about their personal encounters with Senator Kennedy, and everyone seems to have a story. The streets of Boston are more quiet than usual.
I met Senator Kennedy several times, mostly at political fundraisers and events. An event where Senator Kennedy was participating was different than other events. He was a true political celebrity. But Senator Kennedy never saw himself as a celebrity.
I remember one event during the 2000 campaign, while I was working and traveling with Al Gore, the Vice President and Senator Kennedy had arrived, via ferry, for a rally in Boston. Before they took the stage, I was standing next to Senator Kennedy in a small circle for a pre-event briefing. I didn’t say anything; I was there to answer questions if one was asked, but none were. It was a windy afternoon and the Senator leaned in to hear the details being discussed. As he did, he put his big, soft hand on my shoulder for balance. An hour later, after the event had finished and the Vice President was shaking hands with supporters, the Senator called my name from the stage (how did he know my name?) and gestured for me to come over. He handed me an envelope that a constituent had given him and asked me to make sure the Vice President received it. That was it - a hand on my shoulder and an envelope in my hand. To this day, as I think about all the different elected officials I have met, that moment still stands out. Senator Kennedy was warm, personable - human.
Many people will die during my lifetime, not all of them great or memorable. Senator Kennedy was both great and memorable.
I hope that people are inspired by Senator Kennedy’s work, the issues he cared about, and the passion and energy he put towards his work. I have been.
To help honor Senator Kennedy’s life and work, I hope all our elected officials can recognize when it is appropriate to be a hard-nosed partisan and when its necessary to reach across party lines to make real progress.
To help honor Senator Kennedy’s life and work, I hope people will commit to some form of public service, to do more to help those less fortunate. I hope we will all do more of the little things, the private things, that made him a great man and a leader. I will.
And, to help honor Senator Kennedy’s life and work, I hope we don’t pause for too long reflect, instead choosing to work harder, every day, going forward, on everything.
TAGS
: Senator Edward Kennedy
1 comment
Do Those Take Action’ Causes and AutoFill Forms Really Work?
by Brian Reich | 26 Aug 2009, 7:15am
My friend, Amy Jussel, the Executive Director of Shaping Youth and an all-around super smarty-pants on the issues of how media and marketing influence kids, tweeted me last week to ask modern-day advocacy and activism. Specifically, she asked me: “Do Those Take Action’ Causes and AutoFill Forms Really Work?”
Amy has now written a very full post — including some of the thoughts I shared. Here is an excerpt from that post, my answers to three questions that she posed over email:
Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: When cause-marketing prompts us toward ‘urgent action’ for a piece of legislation, lobbying at a state level, etc. does it ‘do any good’ to pick up a phone, quick click an autofill form, retweet, SMS, or otherwise respond to digital pleas? Does it ‘count/matter?’ How so? Give us the inside scoop from the back end of these campaigns!
Brian Reich: Each situation is different. But the short answer is yes – feedback from constituents plays a big role in the outcome of a vote by a Member of Congress or similar. There are lots of factors that go into a decision on an issue, how to vote — not to mention a host of different meetings and votes along the way. Still, at the end of the day, elected officials want to know that their vote reflects the will of their constituents and provides the best possible outcome for their district/state. That’s who they answer to in an election year (and when it is an election year, or a big election issue, that is top of mind). Providing a personal word of support or opposition on an issue can have a big impact.
That said, there are some important things you should know:- Email is a commodity. It has become so easy for people to send emails to their members of congress that the direct impact of that form of communication has become limited. e.g. Members of Congress receive so many emails that most of the time what is presented is just a summary; a chart showing what percentage of the emails are in favor of a piece of legislation and what percentage are opposed and use that, along with a host of other things, in their decision making. Calls, texts, etc. are treated the same way by many officials.
Most decisions are made long before votes. There are some cases where the vote is very close and some Members of Congress (for example) are wavering one direction or another. In those situations, a last minute flood of calls/emails can have an impact. But, in most cases, the decisions are made well in advance. So, what is more important is for people to show their support, share their stories, lodge their opposition or similar early on – when a bill is being shaped, when a committee is taking up the issue, before an elected official has decided their position and announced their intention to vote. And if you really want to get your opinion known by an elected official, set up a meeting, attend a town hall, talk to them personally — they remember that stuff for sure. (AJ-yay, I did it right!)
- Local is key. The most important people that an elected official wants to hear from is their constituents. You can get millions of people to send a note or make a call, but if they don’t live in the district, if they don’t vote, if they are only spewing advocacy organization created talking points, it will fall flat.
Personal, genuine, authentic communications win the day. Technology can help speed and scale the delivery of those, so organizations should use them accordingly. Millions of the same note aren’t as helpful as a handful of the right notes.
- List Building: A big reason why groups send out the last minute requests is to build their lists. Every time you send an email or similar you add your email address to their list — and open yourself to future fundraising solicitations, requests for action and similar. If you are already on their list, responding shows that you are interested and willing to be active in future efforts.
From my view, the organizations don’t always interpret that action as they should… that you were interested in a specific issue or action, and that your support may not be broadly for the entire organization or effort.
- There are exceptions. I worked for a member of congress years ago who voted in favor of the assault weapons ban in 1993/1994, knowing full well that the decision was right for the country but not supported by his constituents. And then, as expected, he was voted out the next election. He was personally lobbied by the President (Clinton) and his head/heart was what drove the final decision, not electoral politics or constituent feedback. So, every situation is different.
Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: Is one media form more impactful than another? (obviously fundraising is quantifiable but I’m talking lobbying actions/legislation-appeal)
Brian Reich: There is no way to quantify the effect of one media over another any more — to get your message across, to get an elected official to consider your issue, etc. you have to present your argument across a variety of channels and hope that it finds the right target.
In terms of how to figure out a specific approach or tactic, start with an understanding of who the decision makers are. Most of the time, elected officials aren’t reading their own mail, or in some cases working on the details of the legislation themselves. Their aids and deputies are. What do those people read? In the ten minutes before the LA or LD goes in to meet with a Member of Congress to advise him/her on how to vote, what sources are they checking? That is the media you want to use.
In a lot of cases, the audience that you are trying to reach is only one person, and determining not only what channel to use in reaching them, but also what content/argument/experience you need to create for them to understand and appreciate your argument is what matters.
Mainstream media still has sway in that regard – an editorial from the local paper in the district, or a high-profile article in the Washington Post will get read.
Blogs are increasingly powerful for the same reasons, because certain blogs, on certain issues, or representing certain geographic areas, have influence and audience.
That doesn’t mean the YouTube videos or Tweets don’t get watched/read, but it means that a campaign focused around a really compelling video may not find its intended target. And that doesn’t mean that a mass virtual protest won’t get an issue some needed attention.
But at the same time, some of the tactics that result in big, measurable numbers have the opposite effect you want (e.g. if so many people call the office, urged on by an angry radio campaign, and it shuts down the phone system and stresses out the staff, you made your point that people care about this issue, but you also may have burnt a bridge).
The way I see it, you have to look at activity vs. impact:
You could get 100,000 people to watch your online video, but if the LA or LD, the member of congress, or whoever advises them isn’t among that audience, and you don’t flip their vote on an issues as a result, that effort was a failure.
Obviously, getting 100,000 people to do anything is pretty impressive, but you have to look at using online/social media/technology to facilitate the kinds of actions that will get the results/have the impact you want.
In the case of media/social media, many of the decision makers still aren’t using the tools, or haven’t figured out who to trust online. So, you have to use a mix of traditional approaches and more innovative online approaches.
And again, if you look at the organizational goals, getting 100,000 people to watch a video may be exactly what they want, regardless of the outcome of the vote – because those people get fired up, they join the email list, they make donations, they spread the word… and all that allows a group to sustain its operations and live to fight another day.
My personal belief is that too much time is spent serving the cause and not solving the cause – meaning that groups spend a lot of time raising money and keeping the lights on, but don’t apply the smart strategy and tactics to getting their issue passed, or similar. Its a different approach and very different use of media, and social media, and technology in general, when you are trying to drive and measure impact vs. activity.
Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth: How can change agents more effectively mobilize and activate time-crunched consumers?
Brian Reich: That question requires a very long answer. But I would suggest three things quickly:
1) Engage them early and often… you want to build relationships with the audience/consumer so that when you need them to take action, they are already interested and motivated.
2) You need to add value… don’t just ask for money or action, give them something in return. Something they need. Something they want. Add value.
3) Have impact. I know full well when I sign an online petition that the likelihood that petition will result in a meaningful, measurable change on an issue is slim. Everyone knows that now (or soon). So the more times you ask for help, and direct action, and still can’t produce a real impact, the sooner you will find yourself asking and getting a response.
Here is a related blog post turned US Airways Magazine article I wrote on this called “The Internet Has Made Us Lazy.”
I hope you will read the entire post, and I encourage you to pay attention to Amy’s work generally - its super important, and there are lessons for all media and marketing efforts, regardless of audience, that you can take from her focus on kids.
Thanks for asking, Amy!
TAGS
: advocacy Marketing media politics Shaping Youth
2 comments
links for 2009-08-20
by Brian Reich | 20 Aug 2009, 11:06am
-
The current agency model is broken. Yep
-
What’s the best way to provide value to the 2 billion people coming online via mobile devices? What are the implications of having full access from anywhere on the planet, anytime? What life-altering applications can be created? Is the Freemium model a good way for the social sector to create enduring services?
TAGS
leave a comment
links for 2009-08-17
by Brian Reich | 17 Aug 2009, 11:05am
-
Those who think there is one silver bullet to fix the newspaper business are mistaken. Newspapers have almost always had multiple streams of revenue to support themselves and the future will likely not be any different. That doesn’t mean, however, that the money-making models newspapers will use on the web will look the same as the ones they have used for print.
TAGS
leave a comment
links for 2009-08-15
by Brian Reich | 15 Aug 2009, 11:01am
-
There's a cultural revolution afoot in the Boston innovation economy. Which side are you on?
-
“Customer service is a series of activities designed to enhance the level of customer satisfaction – that is, the feeling that a product or service has met the customer expectation.” But what does that really mean?
TAGS
leave a comment
links for 2009-08-13
by Brian Reich | 13 Aug 2009, 11:02am
-
How do you make money making soda cans–not the branded soda inside, but the can? The old imperative might have been to lock up raw-material supplies, hoard critical technology, and lock-in customers. Then, reap rewards for having things both valuable and scarce. That won't work now. Someone else bids for what you want. Someone else woos the customer to whom you want to sell, and, all the while, a bunch of really smart people are figuring out how to do what you do, but better.
TAGS
leave a comment
links for 2009-08-12
by Brian Reich | 12 Aug 2009, 11:01am
-
Well-publicised simple steps like using energy-saving light bulbs may be making it more difficult to prepare people for the bigger changes needed to tackle climate change, argue psychologists
-
Forty years after the Woodstock music festival glorified and exacerbated the generational fractures in American life, the public today says there are big differences between younger and older adults in their values, use of technology, work ethic, and respect and tolerance for others.
TAGS
leave a comment
links for 2009-08-07
by Brian Reich | 7 Aug 2009, 11:03am
-
Advocates, as customers, are pivotal to growing a brand. So how do you do it?
-
A task force assembled by the American Psychological Association hopes to spur more research on the role of the human mind in shaping the behaviors resulting in rising greenhouse-gas emissions as well as on traits that can impede an effective response to global warming and similar slow-building environmental risks.
TAGS
leave a comment
Some thoughts on Charity 2.0
by Brian Reich | 6 Aug 2009, 12:31pm
A couple of days ago, CNET’s Caroline McCarthy published an article called “Crowded Roads Ahead for Charity 2.0” reflecting on how the landscape has changed for fundraising on social networks. Beth Katner, an all around super-smarty pants when it comes to thinking about nonprofits and their use of technology and social media, crafted a very thoughtful post, and asked the following question of her audience:
Given how the social media landscape has changed over the past few months - with the growth of Twitter and entrance of many more nonprofits and individuals fundraising through social networks, how does this influence or shape your organization’s social media strategy? How will you remain effective?
The following is my response, which I published in the comments of Beth’s post (but decided to re-post here as well):
There is absolutely a challenge for organizations looking to break through and use social media to engage audiences and address serious issues and causes. Over-saturation by group is definitely a factor. Audience fatigue, which is not often considered, is also important to understand. The challenge to getting people to become more involved in an organizations’ efforts, whether as advocates or donors, or even just interested onlookers, depends more - I think - on the user and meeting their expectations, then on the strategy of the organization conducting the effort.
With that, I want to add a couple of thoughts to your excellent post (above) about cause fatigue and the challenges for nonprofits.
1) More than movements. Realistically, if organizations want to have real, meaningful, measurable impact on the issue(s) that they are designed to support - hunger, the environment, education, whatever - they are going to have to do more than create a movement to support their work. People want to see real change. They want to feel like they are involved in something that is having an impact. And they want to know that the investment they make, in time or treasure, is worthwhile. That feeling has no time limits.
We have known for a while that launching a campaign wasn’t enough - its a good way to raise awareness and attention for an issue, but when the campaign ends, the momentum fades. Movements are designed to go further, do more to sustain people’s interest and participation, and of course drive greater impact. But in the vernacular of organizing, especially online, I’m increasingly concerned that the word ‘movement’ has simply replaced the word ‘campaign.’ Everybody wants to start a movement now, and understand how to use technology, and social media, to make that happen. But few are willing to embrace the huge organization and institutional commitments necessary to create and sustain a movement. The term is being co-opted, the level of excitement and commitment towards creating movements is growing, but we are still running in place in terms of truly shifting how causes are addressed and most nonprofits use the web.
The holy grail of organizing, offline and now online too, is the ability to create sustainable shifts in behavior. Getting people to do something once or twice is critically important, and no small task in its own right, but it still just one of the very early steps towards real impact. To make people healthier, or to significantly reduce their carbon footprint, or to transform communities, or to dramatically improve schools or really anything of significant size requires a commitment that is operationalized day after day after day after day. Its not enough for the numbers to improve for a month or a year, only to have people fall off the wagon and go back to their old behaviors when the pressure on them lets up. Its not enough for an organization to reach its goals and then move on to other projects, leaving society to fend for itself. Some organizations, like the American Heart Association and Feeding America (note: a client) are starting to think that way, while also realizing the longer-term approach is much more complicated than just maintaining effort for a longer period of time.
Behavior change can be generational, or glacial. Within organizations that might mean new leadership emerges, not by coup but naturally over time, so that a new perspective and capacity just evolves internally. You want a different donor base, you may have to wait for the old donor base to disappear, or for the organization to re-organize and re-present itself so that new and different audiences find it compelling and relevant. For communities, that change occurs as houses change ownership over time and kids grow up, as the fabric of the neighborhoods change and priorities of local officials adapt. Those changes are happening faster today, because of the influence of technology and the internet, the level of awareness and particiation from people at the grassroots level in issues where they were never involved before. But, you don’t see the long-term commitment by organizations in most cases. You don’t see the organizations changing their mission, their focus, their staffing, and their tactics (not to mention their technology) to reflect the changing times. Many either focus on their operational needs (which I have ranted about before, as you know), which sometimes obscures the larger focus, or simply add new discrete projects around a particular issue or opportunity — failing to coordinate their thinking or look at how all the pieces fit together and create real change.
2) A reset: I like to talk about a reset, a total re-thinking and re-structuring of how our organizations operate, where they focus, the efforts they pursue, and how they support them. Nothing is sacred. Everything has to be revised, from business models and organizational structures to the audience(s) that are being served and the tools, messaging, and support a group provides. That begins with a shift in focus, away from campaigns (and even movements) and towards a focus on long-term, sustainable, shifts in behavior - if you have a whole new, different challenge, the natural response is to come up with a whole new, different way to address that challenge. But it also includes a greater commitment to collaboration between groups, and coordination across the sector. There are simply too many groups competing for attention and resources, trying to figure out the answers to complex questions on their own. Similarly, there are too many consultants offering tools and advice that doesn’t do anything but serve one group’s interests, when the larger community and society is what needs the attention and support.
We need to more thoughtfully and fully engage the audience/community in the process of re-thinking the approach, the structure, and similar. I would also suggest a new role, for experts and advocates, people who aren’t connected to one group or carrying water for one form of communication or platform, to help address the broad changes that need to occur, to help the individual groups to adapt their focus, and similar. And the media, the way it operates, what it covers, and the role that we - as organizers and advocates - expect it to play must all be transformed. Everything is in play, everything needs to change, and I am under no illusions that these changes will happen naturally, without help, or soon. But rather than think about a different strategy for using social media to tackle an issue, I suggest we look at how the concept of social has revolutionized and changed our whole society, what that means to the strategies nonprofits and causes must pursue, and then look back at what we can do to use the tools different and more appropriately to meet our goals.
Thoughts?
TAGS
: behavior change Beth Kanter Charity 2.0 CNET organizing Technology
1 comment
