Advocacy, Activism, Alliances and Anarchy
By RightSideRedux Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There's been a flurry of interesting debate items between Dean Barnett, Robert Bluey, Matt Lewis and now Patrick Ruffini... Let me ask this simple question.
What is the difference between these four blogger-initiated efforts:
The first three efforts were launched with numerous prominent bloggers across a diversity of blog sites. The RedState "war" was launched from RedState.com.
The first three efforts were launched with specifically branded initiatives, hosted on seperate domains, with legal entities (501c3 or otherwise). The RedState effort was not.
The first three efforts used a modicum blending of online orderly petitioning, emails, and Capitol Hill efforts to get their word across. The RedState effort was run bascially from one person's Inbox.
I don't mean this as a dig against RedState but if we are going to be successful we need to know how to influence Congress. We need to understand that moving Congress from a distance will not cut it.
(Ask NZ Bear how many trips he made to DC to see the NRSC Pledge through and to build the subsequent Victory Caucus.)
Last November I attended "Customer Day" for Capitol Advantage, the leading software provider for advocacy campaigns. Numerous Hill Staffers were on hand to describe what the most effective ways to influence congress. Here was the consensus:
- Personal meeting with congressional elected official - Most impactful by far!
- In person meeting with congressional staff - Very influential
- Correspondance - Next most powerful
- Telephone - least effective
The virtual campaign that RedState has launched had no major buy-in from other sites, no core-branded message, and no effort beyond the least influential medium for influencing congress.
Erick and Robert should not be surprised that few bloggers pre-empted their daily posts to hop on a bandwagon where they were simply taking orders.
I had a really bad client experience last year. I was developing a new media strategy for a non-profit organization. I felt really good about it. The PPT deck was tight. The talking points were fantastic. The reaction was not. Why? Because I failed to adequately include them in the creation of the strategy.
We started again, from scratch and came up with a new strategy which was essentially the same as the one I created. The difference was simple this time: buy-in.
Sometimes a fight is worth fighting, even if you are the only one fighting. A few cynics view this as a "business decision." I view it as a matter of principle. I'd rather fight alone for what's right, than follow Messrs. Boehner and Calvert over the cliff come 2008.
Well, stick around. The buy in has happened. We're just rolling stuff out slowly. The House GOP Steering Committee has had this week to think about it.
Next week, the heat gets turned up. The next week, the heat gets turned up some more.
I've been running political campaigns for ten years. While a blitz can do wonders, a slow build can be quite effective.
On Monday, one of the largest grassroots organizations in the nation will join the fight. Then you'll see more. Slowly we'll build to crescendo.
This will have maximum impact over time, and I'm a very patient man.