Brands Struggled With Social Media in ‘08 (ClickZ)
While it would seem like everyone has success in their social media outreach attempts, 2008 saw a lot of online campaigns that just didn’t cut it.

The idea behind the question is that the government becomes SO transparent and easy to interact with that professional associations, nonprofits, and (gasp!) advocacy vendors become obsolete. My reaction is three-fold: 1) Add value to the raw data of government; 2) Provide expertise for interacting with government online; 3) Continue to use the aggregate power inherent in organizing.

First, government is unlikely to provide the type of sophisticated interpretation of government data that advocates need to get motivated or even involved. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services can post online a new fee formula of Medicare payments for doctor procedures, but it will take every medical professional association’s government affairs department to interpret the data and communicate to their members what the new policy actually means to them. That type of analysis is expensive, needs to be tailored to particular audience, and could be too controversial for sheepish government agencies.

Second, it would be ideal if interacting with government was a simple as ordering a book on Amazon.com. But the reality is that both the legislative and executive branches will always be complex, no matter how great the transparency. Plus, added transparency and added data means added noise – it will be difficult to discern what data is valuable and how to use it. Advocacy organizations and vendors will be needed to guide advocates through the maze of bureaucracies in order to have an impact on policy.

Third, the Founding Fathers included the right to peaceably assemble in the First Amendment precisely because they recognized the power that comes from aggregated interests, and the value of that power as a check in our democracy. The dark side of greater “direct democracy” without intermediaries is a diffusion of people’s organizational power. A chorus (or an angry mob) is more likely to be heard by government than a lone voice.

Finally, while I have great hope that the new Administration will genuinely follow through with its promise of new transparency and access to government through the Internet, it will take years to implement. And, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue is the Congress – which is not exactly the most receptive entity to introducing new technologies.

Ensuring Security and Privacy Through XMPP (ReadWriteWeb)
New technology that is still in development could bring more security and privacy to social networking, and might help quiet some fears about online participation.

Although this was hardly a fundraising haul for DeVore, it was the first time a candidate used the microblogging platform to raise money. It generated positive press and got him noticed in a tough race against incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer. The website Hart built tracks donations (promoting transparency) and referrals (inspiring competition).

After observing the success, my Heritage Foundation colleague Nathaniel Ward and I asked Hart to create a similar effort for Heritage. Year-end fundraising is a priority for every nonprofit, and we saw very few downsides to asking for donations on Twitter. Last week we launched Tweet for Heritage.

Despite having more followers than DeVore, we haven’t enjoyed the same kind of success. That could be because DeVore was the first to do it or the holidays are keeping people occupied. Regardless, I hope the experiment prompts other nonprofits to use Twitter in new and creative ways.

Will fundraising work on this platform? The jury is still out for our experiment. But it would be great to have feedback or suggestions for others considering similar campaigns.

6 New Web Technologies of 2008 You Need to Use Now (Wired)
These six new technologies for the web can help your organization be better prepared for the online, viral world.

Most Popular Blog Posts of 2008 (Digital Alex)
Have you not kept up with all of this years posts? Here is a rundown of some of the best posts by topic.

The Secrets of Marketing in a Web 2.0 World (Wall Street Journal)
Is your organization still learning the social media ropes? Here is the beginner’s guide according to the Wall Street Journal.

Social Media in 2009: Our Predictions and Desires (ReadWriteWeb)
As 2008 comes to a close, ReadWriteWeb makes some predictions on where social media can still go after a year that saw a lot of social media firsts.

Randall Lane wrote a provocative piece in Monday’s New York Times suggesting a “ballot buddy system” among the states to permit apportioning of electoral votes among counties or congressional districts.  The idea seems like one of those suggestions likely to go nowhere, except when you realize that (a) 2 states (Maine and Nebraska) have already moved in that direction, (b) the 2000 election may have permanently disencumbered any remaining pillars of the infallibility of the electoral college system and (c) the Obama campaign’s social media breakthroughs may have demonstrated the irrelevance of the system in the first place.

(Full disclosure: Lane’s current company, Doubledown Media, is a corporate law client of my law firm.)

In “A Ballot Buddy System”, Lane argues that the big win for deconstructing the electoral college was vividly illustrated in Nebraska, where Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin both campaigned in Omaha in the last weeks of the 2008 campaign – something not otherwise thought likely for an otherwise reliably red state.  When counties are in play, versus whole states, “winner takes all”, a different campaign dynamic kicks in.

Of course, the Obama campaign campaigned just as vigorously in reliably red counties in Ohio and Virginia, states that were viewed as vulnerable but where lower loss margins in Republican counties could sway the state-wide picture.  It may therefore not be entirely predictable what would happen if apportioned voting becomes the national norm.

The constitutional argument for apportionment is that abolishing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, while individual state action of apportioned delegations would not.

As background on the problem, Lane’s essay is well-written in the Forbes tradition of understandable explanations for complex problems.  (In a former life, Lane was Washington bureau chief for Forbes.)  But Lane’s most nifty idea is that of his title, suggesting a system where equal-size electoral states (e.g. New York and Texas) that are, respectively, reliably Democratic and Republican can be persuaded to go the apportionment route to soften the political blow of the loss of a state-wide red or blue margin.  That may be, but that too gets complicated by the disproportionately skewed demographics of a state like New York, heavily Democratic in just a few, albeit populous counties, while Texas is more broadly Republican.

Which simply raises obstacles that have to be gotten around, but that need not kill the deal.

What’s more, there’s political precedent for this sort of thing.  The admission to the Union of Alaska and Hawaii in 1959 was smoothed by recognition of the states’ balanced party representation – Alaska was likely to be heavily Republican, and Hawaii equally so Democratic.  For some background on this, see this AP story from June 30, 1959.

Responding to Overzealous Followers (Word of Mouth Marketing)
Gaining followers on Twitter can’t be a bad thing, right? Except perhaps in the case of a Twitter user who won’t leave your organization alone.

Our speakers include:
*Marty Kearns, Green Media Toolshed, Netcentric Campaigns
*John Kelly, Morningside Analytics
*Ken Deutsch, Morningside Analytics

The event will take place on Thursday, December 18, 2008, 3:00pm—5:00pm at the Center for American Progress Action Fund (1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 2000).Please RSVP here as seats are limited.

You can also follow the event via a live stream here. Also, check out the archives of past Internet Advocacy Roundtables and announcement of upcoming events here.