Deep Currents

This is my latest Monitoring and Scanning Report to the leadership of the Packard Foundation on behalf of the Monitor Institute as part of the “Philanthropy and Networks Exploration” (PNE), a series of projects exploring how our rapidly-developing understanding of networks can be put to innovative use in philanthropy. The reports alternate between collections of relevant links and brief overviews of related topics. (The report writing will be handed off to another person for the time being.)

Technology-enabled activism is known for mass movements and street protests, but it is becoming a tool for creating change in less confrontational ways. The savviest leaders are using the base’s enthusiasm and creativity to advantage, encouraging co-creation of the message, recruiting virally through games and contests, and in turn displaying increased authenticity and responsiveness. The savviest campaigners also know they perform a service that operates under tight constraints: they have a short time frame to tap into large numbers of people activated by an event, and they have to provide a relevant and productive outlet where taking action is both easy, fun and satisfying. This report will highlight some of the more recent examples that illustrate the trend.

Many observers would say technology-enabled activism began was with the founding of MoveOn.org in 1998 and the 1999 “Battle for Seattle” when unexpectedly powerful anti-globalization protests, partially organized online, shook the WTO. The trend continued with the 2003 global protests against a war in Iraq, the 2004 “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, the 2005 “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon, the 2006 pro-immigration protests in the US, and it continued this year in June when several thousand protestors took to the Moroccan streets and used cell-phone cameras and YouTube to contradict the state media by showing the protests to be large and the police brutal (http://is.gd/Tuv).

The poster child for today’s networked political practices is of course Obama’s presidential campaign (http://is.gd/TuO), which has demonstrated great comfort with supporters co-creating the message and a high level of responsiveness to his base. Even his style of address has been characterized as echoing the facilitative tone of bloggers. Online tools have been central to this strategy, particularly Obama’s social network at http://my.barackobama.com. The campaign has used social networking sites to first build relationships with his base and then ask for financial contributions, thus enabling a new model of campaign funding through repeated small contributions from an unprecedented number of donors. One reason those donors have been so deeply engaged is that the campaign has created many opportunities for them to express their own version of the message. For example, the “Yes We Can” music video, the Ché-style rendering of his head have been cheerfully incorporated into the campaign with only lightly moderating for the most inappropriate of content.

Other groups like MoveOn.org have activated their bases for Obama in much the same way. MoveOn first asked its members, “Should we come out in support of Obama over Clinton?” i.e. included members in setting the agenda. Then they launched a video competition on YouTube where the more creative members uploaded their videos and the rest voted for their favorites. The millions of views of pro-Obama messages mattered far more than the video that actually ended up on air via traditional media.

This contrast is instructive. What Obama has been able to do with his online advocates is create a free and highly targeted media channel. Typically a person only passes on what s/he thinks will be of interest to his/her friends. For the friend’s part s/he only reads it if it comes from a person they trust. The targeting and attention level created by using multiple personal social networks is something a TV commercial could never do no matter how carefully designed and placed. Yet in exchange this loyal community demands increased respect and increased authenticity from its leaders. For example, when Obama shifted his position on FISA/telecom immunity, hundreds of thousands objected immediately online and on the phone. Obama considered this important enough that he responded directly (http://is.gd/TuT, http://is.gd/W2F) with a letter posted on the campaign website shortly after the protest formed. The letter’s tone was honest, direct, and personal; while he didn’t budge on his position, he explained that it was a difficult call and made the case for why he believed that the bill he voted for was a reasonable compromise. It is that intimate relationship that has built Obama strong connections with his base.

In general, the Democrats do seem to have an advantage and facility with using these tools. McCain’s campaign on the other hand, uses Web 2.0 only sparingly and he personally has been taking heavy criticism for his near-total ignorance of information technology (http://ndnblog.org/node/2436). Two exceptions appears to be a youthful group of bloggers highlighted by columnist David Brooks who are pushing a focus on the “Sam’s Club vs. Country Club Voter” (http://is.gd/Vc0) and the Ron Paul campaign which garnered few votes but built a deeply committed activist movement through a frank, direct, honest style and savvy use of the Internet (http://is.gd/VdR). While some Republican bloggers welcome the new ideas, it may well be that the GOP has benefited so much from central coordination and dissemination of the message that they are having trouble adapting to the new reality.

By contrast, on the Democratic side the Dean campaign was pioneering the use of bloggers for generating “netroots” support as early as 2004, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) enjoyed great success when it used Facebook to get out the vote in 2006: nearly 500,000 voters responded to a last-minute push in 41 critical districts and 38 of the races were subsequently won by Democrats. In Connecticut’s second district, Democrat Joe Courtney won the race by just 83 votes on the strength of a 600% turnout increase in the precinct containing the University of Connecticut, which had been a major target of a Facebook flyer advertising campaign. It was during the same 2006 Congressional campaign that progressive bloggers began acting as marketers and fundraisers for lesser-known candidates, the result of which was that the Democrats fielded more candidates than either party had in 40 years and covered nearly all of the 435 districts (http://is.gd/Txs). Local bloggers’ political clout continues to grow: one year later, journalists started noticing a rising tide of local blogs that have now become community mainstays by engaging in news-finding, investigation, and activism on local issues (http://is.gd/Txy).

Similar approaches are having an impact in the policy arena. The ACLU, Audubon Society, CalPIRG, and many others organizations make frequent use of email alerts when an event touches on a key concern, and they now often poll their members to gauge support before taking action. But emails from constituents are no longer given much credence in the halls of Washington, so calls to action are driving more direct and personal contact with legislators such as telephone calls, in-person meetings, or putting pressure through letters to the editor of local papers.

One simple but novel innovation is the use of SMS messaging combined with phone-in campaigns. In 2006, Working Assets ran a campaign to promote certain bills before the Congress during its first 100 days. Supporters received text messages with a phone number that when called played a recorded set of talking points and then connected the caller directly to his or her representative. The resulting response rate was very high. John Edwards’ presidential campaign took a similar tack when it sent its supporters an SMS urging them to donate and included a phone number that connected directly to the campaign’s call center (http://is.gd/Tvc).

What does this mean for foundations? It suggests grantees with social agendas will increasingly need to take advantage of trigger events, respond with greater speed, and when they do reach energized and activated constituents be more creative by offering fun and engaging ways to take action. The people reached may or may not be “members” in the traditional sense. As Marty Kearns says, you may need to reframe your opportunity as a million people at your disposal for a minute versus a small number of members working for you over a couple of years. It also appears for the moment that Web 2.0 may level the playing field against entrenched interest groups with greater financial resources. To take advantage of Web 2.0, foundations and their grantees may need to take a more collaborative approach with their base and give up a measure of control over agenda setting, content creation, and message in exchange for greater engagement.

Written: July 21st, 2008