“The revolution will not be televised,” said Gil Scott Heron. He was right. Television did not end the Vietnam War and create global peace. But television did expose our nation to the reality that the war wasn’t happening as our leaders said it was. And that revelation galvanized the anti-war movement across the country (though it was not as wide-spread as the mythology would have us believe). This anti-war movement pressured our government to alter course in Vietnam, moving us towards ending the war.

It was the combination of what we saw on television and the mobilization of feet on the ground that gave rise to the anti-Vietnam War movement. Television was not the revolution, but it played a role by revolutionizing how we saw war.

Now, Malcolm Gladwell tells us “the revolution will not be tweeted.” True. Revolutions are not driven by technology. They never are. But, as with television, Twitter and other social media technology are breaking down time and distance barriers that in the past have slowed the spread of public awareness of pressing issues. And more than television, Twitter and other social media technology are speeding up the process of mobilizing people across time and distance to take action on those issues.

But to say that technology, not issues, is the driving force of revolution is fool-hardy. Gladwell is right about this. But equally so, Gladwell is posing “technology as the savior” as a straw man that he easily tears down.

Yes, Gladwell is able to find many people who have postulated the “Twitter is the revolution” straw man. But their claims are just nonsensical as his. Technology is a tool in the hands of the revolutionary. And while, as McLuhan wrote, technology is not ideologically neutral (and therefore favors some revolutionaries over others), it is the revolutionary’s cause that drives the revolution. Without a cause that a mass movement can urgently organize around, there can be no revolution, in the sense that Gladwell describes it.

But this assessment is aside from another class of revolution. Are Twitter and social media revolutionizing how we implement revolutions? This is the real question about technology. For example, the invention of the airplane revolutionized how we conduct war, but it did not create revolutionary wars.

Twitter is revolutionizing how we spread information. It is opening doors for regular folks to communicate with movers and shakers. It is revolutionizing communications and advocacy. But that is very different from creating a political or social revolution. Those are about ideas, not methods.

Gladwell offers a critique that confuses two distinct uses of the word “revolution” as if they were the same thing. And he is creating quite a buzz about it. But in the final analysis, he is wrong in suggesting they are the same thing. Revolutions of method are different from political/social revolutions.

I often remind people that knowing how to use social media is not the same thing as knowing how to use it strategically and tactically.

I have trained many college students (in my classes and interns at work) who claim to know how to use social media at the start of the training. By the end of the training the invariable comment that they never thought it through strategically or tactically before.

Our strategy at the Center for American Progress and Center for American Progress Action Fund is to use social media to influence influencers so they will share our ideas with their audiences. Sometimes that is simply to get our policy reports, videos, and interactive graphics out to an influential audience. Sometimes our goal is to mobilize people to take action to influence policymakers.

This means we need tactics that ensure we recruit as many influencers to our audience as possible, that we work to deepen our relationships with those influencers, and that we provide value to those influencers so they have a reason to help us. This requires a lot of research to identify influencers and a lot of outreach to engage with them once they are identified.

We use a variety of tools to do our research, more tools to facilitate our engagement, and even more tools to measure our effectiveness.

Metrics are always a big challenge with social media. Yes, new tools are always emerging to help with this effort, but few, if any do everything needed. As a result, we are forced to used a multitude of tools and assemble our metrics from them.

Like any effort to measure success, this is involves operationalizing our success metrics. For example, one measure of success is driving people to our website to read our products. Tools like Bit.ly and HootSuite help us measure the number of clicks on the links we share, but experience shows that not every click results in a page view (discrepancies between Bit.ly and Google Analytics, for example, are different by an average of 8%, but that gap varies as the number of clicks increase).

Measuring influence is a lot harder. Size of audience is important, as is the number of Twitter and Facebook impressions generated by our posts, but that doesn’t translate directly into actual views (much as gross rating points for a TV ad doesn’t exactly translate into eyeballs on your ads). We like to use a combination of measures, including number of retweets on Twitter and the number of likes, shares, and comments on Facebook. As well, we like to look at the influence ratings for the people sharing our messages (on Twitter you can use Twitalyzer or Klout).

Moving forward, I expect that these tools will get better. One of the better premium services, Thrive from SmallAct.com has good metrics already and are developing enhancements as we speak.

So, returning to Jeff’s assessment, as you can see, a real social media strategy goes far beyond posting things to social media. You need clear goals, effective tactics, and a program to evaluate your efforts so you can refine them. Only then do you really have a social media strategy.

Well what do you know? Nestlé listened. Following a two month Greenpeace assault on palm oil purchasing practices of the food giant, Nestlé announced earlier this week that they will stop purchasing palm oil (used in many popular products like Kit Kats) from companies that own “high-risk” plantations and farms. These high-risk plantations are accused of driving the destruction of natural habitats for animals like the orangutan. The new “zero-deforestation” policy is in partnership with The Forest Trust that will work with Nestlé to amend its palm oil purchasing policies.

Nestlé’s decision comes after a tumultuous 8-weeks in which Greenpeace released a provocative video on YouTube to raise awareness of Nestlé’s questionable methods for acquiring palm oil. The video, which likens eating a Kit Kat to eating an orangutan, was subsequently removed by Nestlé; an action that spurred an even greater backlash from the Greenpeace community who bombarded Nestlé with calls, emails and Facebook page comments. Now enter social media “meltdown” as Nestlé representatives responded to Facebook comments with mild requests for users to stop using altered versions of the Nestlé logo as their Facebook profile picture or risk their comments being taken down. Needless to say, users were not happy with this restriction of their right to publicly protest on an open forum like a company’s Facebook page and the comment threads were shared on blogs and news articles across the Internet – directing even more negative attention toward Nestlé.

As a result of the targeted Greenpeace campaign and the added headache of a social media crisis, Nestlé was forced to pay attention and had to address the problems with the palm oil it buys. Hopefully, Nestlé’s new policies will help save some orangutans and make some of us feel better about eating Kit Kats.

As with all of these self-organizing, “barcamp-style” unconferences, participants are actively tweeting their thoughts throughout the sessions. The depth of these sessions and Twitter discussions is such that this article cannot adequately cover them. Thankfully, the tweet-stream is available online here (or you can follow the hashtags #TCamp2010 and #TCamp10 yourself).

Some of the key points raised in sessions include:

1. Making government data accessible in online, machine-readable format is essential.

2. Transparency is essential to improve trust in government by making it more accountable.

3. Transparency is a long-term need, so building a strong foundation to ensure it continues to develop is essential.

4. Building a foundation for transparency means we cannot use as a short-term success metric how many people use what we are building now (that audience will grow over time).

5. Digital divide issues remain important and they are building universal broadband network, getting computers and mobile devices into the hands of underserved communities, training them on how to use these tools, and developing a culture that encourages people to use these resources.

The conversation will continue on Twitter and elsewhere, so book mark the Tweetstream link, follow along, and add your thoughts.

The idea of using Foursquare for advocacy makes a lot of sense, taking the flash mob notion to another level. Because Foursquare lets you post the address where you are and a brief comment, it is a great way to tell the world about demonstrations, events, and other activist activities you want people to join.

This has great potential, and it doesn’t matter that there are only 1 million Foursquare users, which is rather a lot, anyway. Not only is Foursquare mobile, allowing you to check in from anywhere, but it can post your check-in message and address to Twitter and Facebook. This immediately reaches out to all of your followers and friends and taps into the viral potential we all know and love.

But it can be even more effective if you include hashtags to your message for Twitter. Adding #p2 will expose your Foursquare post to hundreds of thousands of progressive activists and adding the #tcot/#teaparty/#sgp tags will expose your post to comparable numbers of conservatives.

If you are at a health care reform event, add the #HCR hashtag to reach people engaged on that issue. Or #CO2/#climate/#green/#COP15 to reach clean energy and climate activists. At a labor rally? Add #labor or #EFCA to reach beyond your list to the broader labor community.

So, don’t feel constrained by the relatively small audience on Foursquare. Because it links to two of the largest and most vibrant social networks for activism, you are limited only by your own creativity.

So start your Foursquare networks and come visit me at Toscana West.

I want to let you know about an important upcoming event that may have the potential to change how you conduct citizen-based advocacy campaigns. On Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 from 8:30am to 12:30pm, George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management will be hosting a forum on the ethics of grassroots. In light of recent advocacy-related events, including the sending of fake “grassroots” letters to Capitol Hill, angry citizens yelling at members of Congress during town hall meetings, and policy persuasion campaigns based on inaccurate or misleading information, this forum will address the question “is it time to consider an ethical code of conduct for grassroots advocacy practitioners?” As one of the organizers of the event, I can tell you that we want and need your opinions on this topic. You can view a draft code of ethics at the registration site, which is www.gspm.org/ethics. Attendees will have an opportunity to review the proposed code and share their views before, during and after the forum — as long as you do it nicely with no yelling .

Among the sponsors are ASAE, the Public Affairs Council, Women in Government Relations, the American Association of Political Consultants, the Congressional Management Foundation and a host of others. Speakers include Dave Wenhold of the American League of Lobbyists, Brooks Jackson of factcheck.org and Frank Sesno of the GW School of Media and Public Affairs. In addition to an interesting topic discussion, this event will offer government relations practitioners the opportunity to network with others in the field and get up to speed on the latest developments in the field of grassroots.

Anyone involved in the practice of grassroots advocacy should plan to attend this event. It is free and open to the public and will be held at the Jack Morton Auditorium at 805 21st Street NW in Washington, DC. Again, there is more information at www.gspm.org/ethics.

We hope this will prove to be a groundbreaking conversation and we sincerely hope you’ll be a part of it.

Why tweet?

In the US alone, there are 26.5 million people on Twitter and among them are many, if not most of the most influential people in the country. These people are talking about all of the issues of the day, from the most mundane to the most profound. If you are not on Twitter, you are not part of the conversations that matter most to you and your cause, and you are missing the opportunity to engage with the people who are most able to influence large segments of the country and the key decision makers affecting your mission.

What are three simple things people can do to maximize their twitter impact?

1) Make sure your audience includes the most influential people in your issue space.

2) Be sure your tweets are engaging and valuable to your target audience, providing links to useful content, easy to use facts and talking points, and, whenever possible, are directly engaging people and conversations already in progress on Twitter.

3) Be human! Make sure people can see that there is a real, live, caring person behind your tweets.

Explain the importance of the hashtag and the retweet.

1) Hashtags (#text) are how Twitter aggregates conversations and creates affinity groups. They are completely informal (you can make them up on the spot). Within a tweet, a hashtag is a link to a search query. So, if you click on #iranelection in a tweet, for example, it takes you to a Search.Twitter.com results page for that hashtag, where you can see what everyone is saying about that topic. Why else use them? Because hashtags get your tweets in front of new audiences, people who are not already following you.

2) Retweeting is a way to share the love on Twitter. When you see a tweet you like, retweeting it (reposting it with attribution to the original source): a) Shares the information in the tweet with your audience (and hashtag audiences you might add), b) Creates a deeper connection between you and the original tweeter, and c) Helps grow your audience and enhance your reputation as a member of the Twitter community.

How important is twitter as a marketing tool?

1) Twitter is essential for monitoring real-time reactions to your brand and issues.

2) Twitter is a real-time response channel to deepen your relationship with your constituents, customers, and friends.

3) Twitter is a great channel to get new ideas and products into the market, to create a buzz about what you are doing, really fast.

What are the biggest mistakes people make using twitter to get attention for their cause?

1) Writing tweets without conveying value to audience. For example, tweeting what the important point of an article you are linking to is better than just tweeting the title and the link. That is why auto feeds to Twitter don’t do well unless the headlines are written for Twitter.

2) Tweeting too much or too little. Too much varies depending on the quality of your tweets. The more valuable the information, the more often you can tweet. Too little tweeting means your tweets fall off your audience’s radar and you lose their attention.

Jon’s post

Colin’s response to Jon

Here is my response:

At the risk of being inflammatory (no offense meant Jon)… come on folks… aren’t we past the days when we refer to a tool (or a communication channel) as a strategy? The internet is not a strategy. A blog is not a strategy. And neither is Twitter.

These are channels for communication and we develop strategies for using them.

I am a big fan of Twitter. And I am always developing strategies for using it. But that is fundamentally different from saying Twitter is a strategy. Twitter can be used to inform people about ideas, promote events, engage conversations, and mobilize actions. And for each of these you can adopt a variety of strategies and tactics (using hashtags to engage different groups, linking groups together, etc.).

I also believe, as McLuhan wrote, that technology is not ideologically neutral. Tools are not just tools that can be used for any purpose. Each communication tool has its own ideology. For example, socially dynamic tools like Twitter are inherently more democratic than broadcast tools like TV. Thus, strategies for Twitter that exploit the democratic nature of the channel will work better than command and control strategies. And vice versa for TV.

What makes Twitter inherently democratic? Well, 1) generally anyone can follow anyone else and 2) no one can restrict who uses a hashtag or how they use it. What makes TV inherently undemocratic? 1) only the producers of the content control the content, 2) access to the channel is restricted, and 3) no feedback loop.

OK… so the ideology of Twitter constrains what strategies work on it (or at least work better), but the bottom line is still: Twitter is not a strategy, but a channel that allows us to pursue a variety of strategies for how we use it.