Breaking the Rules of Engagement

As a special reward (or perhaps punishment) for reading this blog, you now have access to an upcoming article from Stephanie Vance, the Advocacy Guru. Entitled "Breaking the Rules of Engagement," this piece looks at how Associations must reframe their view of how members expect to interact with their organization.

The article outlines four rules for quality engagement, which are:

Cultivate the Powerful 1%: In other words, stop tyring to actively engage all members in every project. Find the few that really care and cultivate their interest. Let them join you in finding new recruits.

Stop Using Carrier Pigeons to Reach a Tech Savvy Audience: Some organizations are still deciding whether to deliver their newsletter electronically. "Nuff said.

Get Members Talking: The new generation of advocates expects to have a conversation with the organizations of which they are members. It's not enough to push information out. You must pull them in through an open and respectful forum.

Give Up Control: Without a doubt, the most difficult, but the most important rule for Associations to follow. To truly engage your members you must release your stranglehold over the conversation -- only then will the ideas (both good and bad) begin to flow.

Click here to access the article

Politics Imitate TV

Anyone watch the "Sopranos" finale? Hillary Clinton is betting on it! Her new campaign ad spoofs the "Sopranos" ending to introduce her campaign theme song. Who knew campaigns even had theme songs? I sure didn't! (Hint: It's by Celine Dion.)

American Library Association and Second Life

Our clients are so cool! Check out this recent article about the American Library Association and its adventures in Second Life, the online virtual world.

According to the article "ALA will have one half of ALA/Arts Island, which will be utilized as a new method for disseminating ALA news and information. It will also be used for reaching out to new audiences, holding events, interacting with members and the public, and exploring the future of library services."

How cool is that? I know many of us think of our local library as a dusty old place with a bunch of books -- ALA's adventures in Second Life prove that the library is moving to a whole new level (or world!). If your local librarian can have an avatar in SecondLife, don't you feel a little behind the times if you don't?

I'm just hoping that libraries will be inspired to start charging virtual late fees as well :)

Advocacy Circle Webinar

Advocacy Circle members are invited to join us online on June 5th at 4:00pm to discuss basic principles of effective advocacy. The session will provide an overview of the factors that influence elected officials as well as the unbeatable power of constituency. We will look at the four components of message development and delivery as well as the top 10 things that elected officials and staff HATE to hear.

For more information about the circle, go to http://www.advocacyguru.com/the_government.htm

For more information about the June 5th webinar, go to https://www.gotomeeting.com/register/206850938

Want to Know Your Neighbors Politics?

Maybe not... But if you and your neighbor are on Facebook, you (or they) could choose to use a couple new tools from the Washington Post and Slate that allow you to share a little bit more about your politics on your page.

The "Compass" tool from the Post identifies (through a short Q&A) where you fall on the political spectrum. That information is then shared with your network. The Slates "Political Futures" application allows the user to place a virtual bet (using virtual money) on the 2008 horse race -- uh, Presidential race. Then it shows how others on the network placed their bets.

As Caroline Little, Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive's CEO put it "It's a new way to share political news we're known for with such an active audience."

Or it may be a new way to engage in virtual fisticuffs online.

Is the Internet the Talk Radio of the 2008 Election Season?

As laid out in the Washington Post's recent interesting article "Online, GOP Is Playing Catch-Up," the differences between how the D's and R's are approaching and utilizing the Internet are striking. Dems are out-raising, out-podcasting, out-youtubing and out-friending Republicans by significant margins. By almost every measure, Democrats are utilizing the web more creatively and more productively than the Republicans.

Nope, that's not partisan politics speaking -- Michael Turk, who was in charge of Internet strategy for President Bush's 2004 campaign says "We're losing the web right now." Some point to the Republican party's traditional focus of "staying on message" as the culprit -- the web is clearly more suited to the chaotic, many voices, "I don't belong to an organized party, I'd a Democrat" approach that has long characterized the Democratic party.

As Peter Leyden of the New Politics Institute puts it, "All this talking and discussing and fighting energizes everyone, involves everyone, and gets people totally into it." That's one of the benefits of the web and a clear advantage for Democrats.

In the midst of all this hoopla, though, the larger lessons of the application of the Internet in politics remain murky. What this campaign has the potential to show us is whether all the online rabble-rousing really will make a difference -- or whether the more traditional approaches will still serve to sway the hearts and minds of voters.

Probably a little of each.

Politics and Web 2.0

In just another demonstration of the connection between politics and engagism on the web, Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the keynote address at the 2007 Personal Democracy Forum. He commented extensively on how the Internet is (spoiler alert) changing the face of American politics (shocking, I know).

A key component of the discussion was whether the "connected world" is always a good thing, with Thomas Friedman, who joined the conversation with Schmidt, noting that when the MySpace generation starts getting involved in politics, there will be much more information (and pictures) available on them -- not all of it flattering. As Friedman put it "George Bush never could've been elected president if he'd been at Yale now and there'd been cell phone cameras around."

Schmidt suggested that tomorrow's leaders will likely be more careful in their activities today, knowing that cameras and media attention abound. However to me the more interesting question there is whether the "engagist" generation will have a more forgiving perspective on the exploits of political leaders. As more and more people experience the consequences of less-that stellar online decisions, will they be more forgiving of others that have those same experiences?

It's certainly possible. In fact, perhaps the surfeit of negative information on candidates might lead to an end of negative campaigning. We can only hope.

More information on the keynote address here.