A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about the change in online communication habits from email to Social Media, suggesting that communicating via social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter could some day replace more traditional email communication as the method of choice for activists.
Many of the follow up comments I received after the post went something along this line: Excellent – I agree, but how can I convince the ‘higher-ups’ in my organization that we need to use these new tools?
At the most recent Innovative Advocacy conference, two attendees asked one of the panelists similar questions:
How can I convince my Executive Director that we should include Facebook in our advocacy strategy when he or she thinks it’s simply a fad for their high school kids? And, how can I get approval for a policy blog when the general counsel’s office is nervous about not having control over what the public can write in the comments section? READ MORE »
Posted by: Alan Rosenblatt
Mobilizing online activists is the bread and butter of many advocacy organizations. But successful campaigns need to go beyond signing petitions and sending emails to policymakers. Yes, these remain important elements to any campaign, but it is equally important to use the internet as a persuasion vehicle. While campaigns are driving activists to take action, they should also be working to spread the message of the campaign across the web.
One way to achieve this is to incorporate a fundraising appeal specifically designed to raise money to run online ads for the campaign. Online ads are not only affordable, but they can also be very effective at persuasion and shaping the language of a policy debate.
We have been using this approach recently at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Our two current campaigns, How Did This Happen?, a campaign to educate the public about how conservative policies and ideology are the root cause of the current financial crisis (HowDidThisHappen.org), and the Golden Pledge to protect Social Security from privatization (GoldenPledge.org) each supplement an action request with a fundraising appeal to help run online ads promoting the campaign’s message (see the ad images below).
While funds raised in this manner may be modest for some campaigns, it doesn’t take much to make a difference. For example, running the ads on blogs, rather than major media sites, can be very cost effective. For each $1,500 raised, an ad can be served nearly a million times. That is enough exposure to reach tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of new eyeballs; people who are not already on your email list.
And if you build a tell-a-friend feature into the campaign, so that anyone taking action or donating funds on your website is prompted to send the link around, you have the potential to reach even more people.
After the first House bailout vote went down in flames, I posted a K Street Cafe entry suggesting that it was ideology – not the flood of emails and phone calls to congressional offices – that determined the outcome. I noted that it was not fear of voter backlash that motivated legislators, as 77% of the “no” votes came from House members who had nothing to fear since they won their last election with more than 55% of the vote. In today’s Washington Post Outlook Section, writer Eve Fairbanks offers more data to support this theory by pointing out that none of the freshman House Republicans, who are closely aligned with the conservative Republican Study Committee, voted “yes” on the first bailout vote. She suggests it was conservative ideology that dominated their decision-making process.
So what turned it around the second time? Certainly the tax sweeteners and higher FDIC protection limits motivated some, but there was more evidence in the weekend papers that our K Street Café colleague, Colin Delany, said it perfectly with his blog entry last week: it’s all about relationships. Those people who built a relationship with a member of Congress and communicated their interest in the legislation influenced the outcome. This is a crucial lesson in grassroots advocacy: there is a significant difference in legislators’ minds between those people with an opinion and those with an interest. READ MORE »
“The Hill” reports today that the bailout vote in the House this week was a “Crushing Failure for Lobbyists.” Hill offices are reporting a huge surge in constituent communications. Even earlier this week, I posted a blog that showed an increase in constituent communications as a result of free media coverage of the story. However, a quick analysis of the voting patterns for this week’s House votes suggests it was not grassroots pressure, lobbyists’ arm twisting, or even fear losing election that drove members. It was good-old-fashioned “conscience.” These folks just did what they thought was right.
READ MORE »
Earlier today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Adfero Group and the Politico sponsored the last event in the Innovative Advocacy series: Intelligence, Media Monitoring, and Tracking the Buzz.
Panelists included three K Street Café contributors: Peter Waldheim from the Blog Council, Chris Kinnan from FreedomWorks and Brad Fitch from Knowlegis. Others on the two panel discussions, moderated by Mathew Zablud of Adfero Group and Brad Peck from the U.S. Chamber, were Chris Ramsey from Radian6, James Tipton from Google, and Evan Tracey from TNS Media Strategies.
Here were the key points from the two panels: READ MORE »
Congressional offices this past week reported getting swamped by emails and calls from constituents who are angry about the $700 billion bailout that Congress will vote on this week. Congress.org, which offers a free service allowing constituents to e-mail and write their Member of Congress, sent over 100,000 communications last week on the topic – one of the biggest turnouts for a topic in the last few years. But what is really driving that outrage? READ MORE »
In my column today in The Hill, I make the case that corporate government affairs offices should consider whether to engage policy debates online by establishing a blog:
At the very minimum, corporate government affairs offices and public affairs professionals need to seriously consider whether the organization they represent should engage in the conversation taking place online by creating a blog presence.
Discussions and debates about public policy issues are taking place all the time within the blogosphere — with or without your organization’s involvement. While the concept of blogging continues to be met with skepticism and reluctance at the C-Suite level, the D.C.-based offices of corporations and associations should nonetheless consider creating a blog as part of their overall communications and lobbying strategies.
Relatively few corporate government relations offices have waded into these waters. But those that do – when they do it well – can have a great impact. READ MORE »
Earlier this week, I received an email from my sister-in-law asking me to take action in support of the Protect Our Children Act – a bill currently being considered by the U.S. Senate.
Originally, she learned about the legislation on The Oprah Winfrey Show. Oprah tends to be very selective with issues she endorses, but when she does support an issue or cause, she can generate a sizable grassroots response.
My sister-in-law not only sent the email to me, but also passed it along to about three dozen other friends and family members.
READ MORE »
It all started with a conversation.
A few months ago I was chatting with some colleagues about the lack of a comprehensive resource online for public affairs professionals to keep up to speed on with the latest trends, tactics and strategies in our industry. There are certainly plenty of resources for political pros on how technology is shaping campaigns and elections, but relatively few on how the Internet and social media is changing the way public policy is formed and shaped.
We called on some of the best and the brightest – practitioners and observers in the public affairs realm — who are known for staying on top of the major transformations taking place in our industry to engage in an ongoing dialogue about how the nature of advocacy is changing. It is essential that all of the stakeholder groups in the issue advocacy world are involved - so we invited representatives from associations, think tanks, corporate goverment affairs offices, interest groups, the media, and from some of the key industry organizations in Washington DC including the Congressional Management Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation.
The result is K Street Cafe - a collaborative blog made up of expert contributors who can provide context and analysis of the changing nature of advocacy, and the difference these changes make in the formation of public policy.
So you might ask - why the name K Street Cafe? Doesn’t K Street conjure up some of the negative images we have about how public policy is formed? Yes. But we intend this blog to be conversation about how K Street is changing - away from images of fat cats, smoke filled rooms and back room deals toward a K Street that is open, transparent and with a much broader participation from the public.
Of course, cafes have long been centers of spirited dialogue. We trust this blog will host vigorous conversations on a variety of subjects. And we hope you will join us in the conversation.
