Too Many Action Alerts Runnin’ ‘Round My Inbox
Today’s question comes from an old friend of mine. Marc earned his Ph.D. in political science studying social movements.
Question (Marc): The thing that most plagues me about Internet advocacy is the unbelievable proliferation of emails. I CANNOT pay attention to them any longer. And most of my friends have unsubscribed because they can’t take it. I’m on about 5 lists (MoveOn, PFAW, the usual cast). I get at least 2 and sometimes 3 per day from each organization, with each wave on the same topic. Even messages from the more specialized organizations I subscribe to, like the Human Rights Campaign, send messages at the same time of day and on the same topics as each other and as MoveOn and PFAW, blah, blah, blah. It’s almost an homogenization of activism, with an inappropriately hysterical message in each mailing. The organizations have become such pests that they have destroyed much of their effectiveness and usefulness. New methods and strategies are sorely needed. Something makes me think an activism widget (like on the new Apple OSX Tiger) would be more useful; something that is like a background ticker with the important topics and ways to take action, if desired. The ticker could track several substantive areas one on top of another, much like the stock exchange tickers do. It would re-incorporate the activist/control aspect into the relationship. Now I feel spoon-fed. With something like this, there is some spoon-feeding, but an opportunity to peruse many topics and choose. What are your thoughts?
Answer (DrDigiPol): Marc, I understand your frustration. Organizations must be judicious in their outreach. That said, though, when an issue is coming up for decision, it requires repeated action by activists (leading up to a committee vote, floor vote, conference committee, presidential signature and agency rulemaking. That is life in policymaking and activists need to understand that is what they are signing up for.
That also means an organization is well served if they educate their activists about this repeated need for action.
Other ways to deal with this:
On the activist side, setting yourself up to receive action alerts via RSS feed unclutters your inbox. Unfortunately, while the grassroots software (Capwiz, Democracy in Action, and GetActive) used by about 2500 advocacy organizations all provide RSS feeds, almost none of the groups using these software have turned that feature on.
Also on the activist side, it makes sense not to maintain subscriptions to redundant groups. Once you recognize that group agendas overlap, choose the group with the most comprehensive agenda and keep that one only. Since the email software they use will not identify the organization behind the action alert (the email comes from YOU), you can use one group’s software to send email to policymakers on any topic (or you can go to a site like Congress.org to send email to policymakers on any subject). Also, if you have your favorite organizations set up in an activism bookmark/favorites folder, you can visit their websites on your own and check their current action alerts (this is not as efficient as RSS feeds, but it is a solution you can implement on your side of the transaction).
On the organizational side, many steps can be taken. For example, groups can segment their email list for selective activation. These days, form email campaigns are losing effectiveness because they reflect low levels of active engagement by activists (they just have to click SEND to become an activist). The key to effective email campaigns is to have personalized messages from activists. If emails are personalized, fewer of them will be more effective. Since you can rely on fewer emails per call to action, you can subdivide your list and rotate which group you activate.
Also, groups would be well served to establish an editorial calendar. Organizations should carefully plan their editorial calendar so they know how often they are reaching out to activists. Also, it makes sense, if a group has a full action agenda, to provide activists with a calendar of actions it is planning for the upcoming month (though this raises opportunities for the opposition to discover your plans and plan a response).
And, as I indicated above, advocacy groups should turn on their RSS feeds.
Finally, for some time now, I have been promoting new advocacy strategies based on a community approach. Rather than running a series of top down campaign, mobilizing your activists only when you need them, I am encouraging organizations to cultivate a real online/offline community (supported by discussion forums, Blogs, Meetups, etc.) where activists become stakeholders and initiators of local and online action, without marching orders from HQ. There is a lot more to this approach, and it works much better with public interest issues compared to private interest issues, but the long-term payoff is turning activist email lists into communities, which can form the core of a movement.
Reply (Marc): Your point regarding communities is the most interesting to me from a purely intellectual standpoint. The others were very interesting, but this one is extremely interesting. Having done a lot of research into social movements, as you know, and also having done research into the concept of “community,” I think you have hit on an extremely relevant thing. Interestingly enough, a couple of years ago, “Idealist,” which is a job searching site for the nonprofit world, but more than a site at the same time, started holding gatherings in different cities with different segments of their users. They sent out email messages to NYC users interested in particular issues inviting them to a sponsored networking meeting in NYC. About that same time, I started reading about the idea of a flash mob, which I found very intriguing, but rather pointless, of course. But it is the idea of mobilizing in the flesh via the cyberworld I’m after.
Now on community alone and community versus movement, I have a whole lot to say, as you might have imagined. First, community has become so overused it can be nauseating at times. However, the reason it has become overused and the reason it is nauseating are hooked into my comments about the homogenization of our society. Yes, there are communities, real communities out there, but to truly be called such, requires some real ties among the members, otherwise they’re affinity groups, in my view. Ties require a lot of forging, be they familial or otherwise, but community ties are very powerful and take time to nurture. What I mean is the concept/label of “community” should be used rather sparingly, I think. Why? Because, like you, I think that communities that become active in a political manner can spur movements. But the fact is that they usually do not. Why? Because Americans don’t have a hell of a lot of time to think about the public interest, as you put it, nor do they have a whole hell of a lot of huge gripes.
Let’s face it, everyday life here is pretty cushy for most people economically—at least compared to many in other parts of the world—and especially cushy for those in control of the influential institutions here. MOST people care on paper about discrimination, but see much less of it than previous generations did. They simply don’t see enough to get up and protest about because they are not aware of it because the media doesn’t tell them!!! MOST people may now disapprove of the Iraq war in polls, but it does not affect their everyday lives enough to make them do anything about it.
Nuf said. I think you get my point. BUT, what does this mean? Maybe we need to examine what activism means today. PARTIES came about as an affinity group, as a very broad voting/social cue. They are not at all interested in activism because activism can supplant their mainstream power function. ACTIVISM is issue-oriented. MOVEMENTS are both issue- and philosophically/lifestyle- oriented (broader than issues) and they can comprise communities. The appeal of a party was that one could give up on following every issue and vote for a slate of people that would likely do things one supported. But now the parties are largely homogenized and mainstreamed and spineless and represent nothing to issue activists and do nothing for movement ideologues either. But at the same time, it takes too much damned work to make a citizen examine every issue. There is too much to pay attention to for so little social gain. Even for those like me who DO give a damn and a big damn, it can be too much. I don’t have an answer here yet, but I’m working on it 
Reply (DrDigiPol): You raise many important points regarding community. True community does indeed require deep connections among members. It cannot be asserted (as Senator Kerry likes to do when he emails his list) and it takes time to cultivate it.
Also, you are right that until people understand an issue in terms of how it affects them personally, they will not be motivated to become part of a protest or community, let alone a movement.
That said, perhaps we should consider those living in Camp Casey, down in Crawford, TX, a good case study. These are people for whom the war has had a tremendous impact on their daily lives, and as a result, they have formed a real community.
Through a combination of offline and online action, instigated by real events in Iraq and real speeches made and actions taken (or not taken) by President Bush, hundreds upon hundreds of anti-war activists have gathered outside the President’s ranch. Online, the community is spurred and supported directly by Gold Star Families for Peace and Meet With Cindy. It received an additional boost from efforts by MoveOn and other advocacy groups. Offline, the enormous media coverage of the protest has driven more and more supporters (and opponents) of Sheehan to Crawford. Once there, they are drawn deeply into this blossoming community.
In the end, the combined effect of a shared offline and online experience should help to transform anti-war protesters into an antiwar community, and ultimately (hopefully) an anti-war movement