Disruptive Proactivity

A minor storm in the teacup of the campaining-twitterverse picked up this week, with Malcolm Gladwell talking about the lack of effectiveness of twitter (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell) and various people replying the other way – Anil Dash,  well, and Alexis Madrigral sooner

It’s generally recognised that the internet has had a massively beneficial effect on campaigning. Geographically distributed groups or individuals can now work collectively on an idea can now easily work together. We saw the “Fair Votes Now” demonstrations in the days during which the coalition government was formed. Organised by facebook, twitter, and with the backing of 38degrees and other organisations.

This was a good thing, and had a significant impact, on coverage if not immediate policy. But Malcolm Gladwell’s piece aims for a higher plane of impact – actually achieving something substantive every time, and finds examples of where it doesn’t. Of course, in a medium-length piece, there is a huge amount that can’t be mentioned, and he picked his case studies to support his argument.

It has long been said that the UK needs it’s own MoveOn equivalent. MoveOn.org being the US based organisation which campaigns for “progressive causes” in the US. 38degrees.org.uk wants to be the MoveOn of the UK (1, 2). Adding a twibbon to your facebook profile photo is in no way comparable to diving into the sea in front of a 200m long ship, or sitting down at a lunch counter in the segregated south, but both might do something. I rarely add avatars to my profile photos on facebook/twitter, but have done for 10:10:10 – not as the core of the stuff I’m involved in, but as another, visible thing.

Engagement is good. I doubt anyone reading my blog would disagree with that; and often more engagement is better. But it has to be meaningful; and it has to have at least the hope of being effective. Often campaigns will lose – but that should be because of a decision, not because of the messenger.

A few weeks ago, Dominic Raab MP publicly (told 38degrees (or at least, they told the press) that he didn’t want to hear from his constituents through that service. 38degrees, predictably, were a little unhappy at this, and there was a bit of coverage in the media. I see no credible reason for Dominic Raab to say this, unless he truly believed it.
While I’m not able to add reason to Dominic Raab’s request, the focus on 38degrees, suggests that the reason might have something do with messages sent like this:



That’s the message as sent. My regular reader will notice that not only is that not my name, it’s not my email address, and Tony Lloyd is not my MP. I would imagine that everyone involved in talking to MPs in any way would notice that “Dear [insert MP name]” is possibly not the best thing to open an address with. And most letters have someone’s name at the bottom, this has a nice blank spot.

Most people with some level of clue about effective online engagement would say that maybe the message didn’t get sent like that. Wondering the same thing, I asked 38degrees, who confirmed it had been sent (see the email conversation below, reproduced with permission).

38degrees have said about 80% of their messages are customised. By customised, 38degrees may only mean “you replaced the placeholder with the name of your MP” – which, if nothing else, means that 20% of messages that MPs get from 38degrees campaigns do not replace the placeholder for the MPs name. Which means, going off 38degrees’ own figures, twice a week, an MP gets a communication from a constitutent who saw the headline, but couldn’t be bothered to copy in their MPs name. That’s not accounting for how many just lie about all the other details.

When 38degrees say they sent 20,000 mails on a topic, what they omit is that 4000 of them opened with “Dear [insert MPs name],”. I can see why MPs may consider the service something different to what it claims to be.

It’s also not accounting for those who sent form text which is fundamentally inaccurate (see the yellow highlighting). I believe the time of my MP, your MP, and all others, is valuable, and that it should not be wasted irresponsibly.

I appreciate that, with their focus on open and response rates, and the focus on “building the list” and the ladder theory of change, 38 degrees do see nothing wrong with that. Those benefits are good, but what is it doing to everyone else looking to campaign?

In the UK, we have access to the real email addresses of MPs that they use for business. Which means, you, right now, could open a web browser in another tab, and send a message that will be read by your MP (sometimes they may have staff look at the e-mailbox too, but most seem not to). And for those who don’t have email, WriteToThem.com will send a fax. This is something campaigning groups in the US would absolutely love to have, but they don’t due to years of distrust built up because of actions from organisations like 38degrees, who get a marginal benefit today, at a long term cost. Without those actions, all groups get similar access to our elected politicians through various services.

I spend a chunk of time working on climate and climate change related issues – where the fundamental underlying problem is that there is no penalty or price on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and the world community pays the price for that externality, not those who polluted and caused it in the first place. Often it’s phrased as a price on carbon – because without it, the motivations are to do freely now what’s ultimately destructive in the future.

There is an equivalent to polluting CO2 in the atmosphere of UK (online) campaigning. And at the moment, the level is low enough that we have access to most politicians.

But not to Dominic Raab, because, as a result of the actions of 38degrees, he’s opted out of that as well. And the entire online campaigning ecosystem is made one little bit less effective. 38degrees don’t care, because it got them in the news a bit, and they ticked some boxes on their aims. And good for them, but others may wish to say something somewhat different. It would be unfortunate if he was just the first of all.

My request to 38degrees, and on many issues I support their aims, is this: improve your method. I appreciate that, in the short term, it works. But for those who are not here to win this battle, but to make the world a better place in the longer term. In which the quality of engagement matters, and certainly matters more than winning this small fight at the cost of not only the war, but all future fights.

Criticism is made elsewhere of 38degrees not having an overarching political aim or objective – but is purely “supporter led”. That means, that there is no aim, no goal, no target that can be reached. It is eternally focussed on fighting today’s battle using tactical means alone, because it doesn’t care about any war. Which makes the decisions 38degrees has made completely understandable in the context of 38degree’s objectives. Whether that’s a good thing for everyone else, is a different question.

“Directing mass campaigns is a big responsibility. Fine if you focus on clear-cut issues of justice and human rights. Not fine if you resist change with what appears to be a partisan reflex.” http://williamheath.net/?p=425

Update: Dave Cross has some commentary on this on his blog too.

__ENDS__

The below is the email conversation with Johnny Chatterton of 38degrees below, reproduced with permission. Latest comments are the top, and message quote characters are off in some places. I ask Johnny several questions about their policies below. No answers have been received to those questions that are not reproduced here. The last email received is at the top of the email trail.

__EMAILS__

Hi Sam,

This is an important issue and it would be good to talk to
you about it. Thanks for letting me know about the blog,
I'll look out for it.

Thanks

Johnny

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Sam Smith
wrote: Hi Johnny,

Thanks for looking into this.

My initial reaction to your comments is as much, if not
more, concern than that which prompted my original mail.

Can I just confirm my understanding that, when 38degrees
facilitate communications with an MP, you don't see a
problem worth correcting where the first line that an MP
sees is "Dear [Insert MP Name]" ? And, further, that you
believe that such a message - with no user input to the text
at all - is a worthwhile contribution to whatever debate
you're trying to advance?

It's not a question of whether you can allow your members to
quickly and easily contact their MP (individuals engaging
with their MP is good thing). It's about the perception that
your actions and your platform gives of your supporters, and
you, and, by extension, the perception on the wider e-
campaigning movement. In practice, I care a little about the
former, not at all about the second, and quite a lot about
the third. I talked about externalities below. Do you not
see your behaviour as causing any form of problem to anyone?
That's certainly the impression you gave in the media
recently (but, of course, that may have had only a
tangential relationship to reality).

I'm going to blog about this, and with your permission, I'd
like to include your comments (and mine) completely,
verbatim and in context. If you have a problem with this,
please let me know - it'll probably be the weekend before I
get a chance to do this. I think your comments, thoughts and
opinions are of significant importance in that debate, in
which 38degrees is currently a significant player.

Regards Sam

On 23 Aug 2010, at 12:00, Johnny Chatterton wrote:

> Hi Sam, thanks for your email and for sharing that
> cartoon.
>
> Meeting up would be great. We're always trying to
> improve our systems to better serve our members and if
> you've got ideas for what we could be doing better I'd
> love to hear them.
>
> Regarding your specific point about the e-mail you sent to
> your MP without your name in it or your MPs name. If you
> clicked send then yes that e-mail was sent. If you don't
> think we should provide a system that allows our members
> to quickly and easily find and contact their MPs I'd be
> interested in talking about why not. If you've got ideas
> about how we can improve the system I'd like to hear more.
>
> You will have noticed that you can edit that e-mail before
> you sent it to your MP, something we encourage people to
> do. We don't aim to put words into peoples mouths nor do
> we aim to annoy MPs, we're aiming to help people to take
> action on issues they care about. You can read more about
> us here: http://38degrees.org.uk/pages/about38degrees and
> there is the FAQ you may find helpful here:
> http://38degrees.org.uk/pages/faq/
>
> Looking forward to meeting you soon,
>
> Johnny
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Sam Smith
>
>> Dear Johnny,
>>
>> I did actively try not to reply to this (cf xkcd 386),
>> and haven't posted this to ECF due to the seeming lack of
>> interest there at this time. But I do have one critical
>> question in response to your mail:
>>
>> Johnny, did your system really let me send the mail in
>> this screenshot? Or, if not, did it lie about it and ask
>> me for money afterwards anyway?
>>
>>
>>        http://twitpic.com/2fztyo (if you're unsure, look
>>        at the from address and the first/last lines of
>>        the letter). I can see why 2 per day would be
>>        irritating. Because that's still 2 people that the
>>        MP still has to reply to, but who couldn't
>>        actually be bothered to fill in their name.
>>
>> I'm not sure which of those two it is; but I find the
>> possibility of either deeply concerning about your
>> organisation, positions, standards, strategy and
>> approach.
>>
>>
>> Either way, given how that was perceived, to me, as a
>> user earlier tonight, I can see why MPs get very pissed
>> off if you're sending them emails of the from "Dear
>> [insert MP name]". I can see why they object to the
>> phrase "this weekend I noticed" which is clearly wrong
>> (it's not the weekend, and I didn't). You're putting your
>> words in your users' mouths.
>>
>> If you're lying to your users about sending that to
>> MPs, I can see why your organisation has the reputation
>> it does.
>>
>> If you're behing honest with your users about sending
>> that to MPs, I can see why your organisation has the
>> reputation it does, and why MPs treat you with the public
>> contempt that they do.
>>
>> I don't know which it is. I'm also completely open to the
>> possibility that there may also be a third option (or
>> more) which is simultaneously non-obvious, ethical and
>> accurate.
>>
>>
>> My underlying concern is that all of your aims and
>> processes have incentives that maximise the benefit to
>> 38degrees, and that has a huge number of externalities.
>> In the Climate Change world, we worry about those with
>> Carbon; in the political engagement world, the world you
>> inhabit, I'm wondering what the equivalent externality is
>> that's slowly polluting the atmosphere. And, in many
>> ways, that seems to be one of the things Micah was
>> originally talking about in his piece. Which might
>> explain why you haven't addressed any of it's issues at
>> all publicly (unless I've missed something, which is
>> always possible).
>>
>>
>> All the best Sam
>>
>>
>>  PS: I seem to recall that 38 degrees have publicly
>>      stated that 80% of their emails are customised. Does
>>      that mean that 20% of your emails don't actually
>>      include a personalisation of either Dear/From ? I
>>      appreciate that you shouldn't actually be able to
>>      provide this data; except for the fact that your
>>      privacy policy is completely silent on the matter of
>>      what you can or can't do with MP communications
>>      through your website. Again, this is something that
>>      MPs tend to be little concerned about; with complete
>>      legitimacy.
>>
>> PPS: I'll let you know when I'm next in London with free
>>      time (I don't live in London), and would be happy to
>>      meet for coffee.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 Aug 2010, at 18:01, Johnny Chatterton wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone
>>>
>>> I wanted to quickly come in to respond on a couple of
>>> points here, but I know this is a very UK-centric
>>> conversation, so my apologies to ECFers not in the UK.
>>>
>>> In Sam's email he talks about how 38 Degrees uses
>>> petitions "in a different way" going on to say
>>> "encouraging people to send 20,000 identical emails is
>>> not a petition." Like all campaigners we do encourage
>>> people to speak up and take action about issues they
>>> care about. The first step may be signing a petition or
>>> writing to their MP but that's just the beginning. If we
>>> ask people to write to their MPs we will often provide
>>> suggested text but we also encourage people using the
>>> tool to personalise the emails they send. We'll help
>>> people respond to their MPs reply or, if they don't
>>> receive a reply, to find out why not. We haven't been
>>> "encouraging people to send 20,000 identical emails".
>>>
>>> Some MPs (like Dominic Raab) have complained they get
>>> too many e-mails from constituents. But it's worth
>>> bearing in mind that since being elected his
>>> constituents have sent him on average less than 2 emails
>>> a day through our website. We've also heard from other
>>> MPs who are really pleased to have people engaging with
>>> them on a range of issues that they're interested in,
>>> especially at a time when lots of people are worried
>>> about dropping levels of interest in politics generally.
>>>
>>> We've had a very busy year since we launched, we've
>>> grown to 165,000 members,worked with dozens of other
>>> groups, won lots of campaigns, had a four week member
>>> consultation on our general election strategy and much
>>> much more. We're still trying to learn how we can better
>>> help all our members take action on issues they care
>>> about. One of the places we learn from is this list but
>>> also by looking at what other groups are doing in the
>>> US, Australia, Germany, here in the UK and further
>>> afield.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to catching up when we next get the
>>> chance.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Johnny
>>>
>>> PS - Sam, if you'd like to chat about this further do
>>>    give me a ring (PHONE NUMBER REDACTED) or send an e-mail, I'd
>>>    be happy to talk more.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 August 2010 19:52, Sam Smith
>>>>
>>>> Not all of it is a sham, but then, not all of it is as
>>>> rosy as we claim either.
>>>>
>>>> Ben's argument - based on his significant talent and
>>>> expertise - is potentially a victim of success bias -
>>>> you see the successes only. I suspect that the reason
>>>> that the CiF piece ran last week was due to the
>>>> timeliness of the 38degrees/MP/constituent "spam"
>>>> debate that 38degrees made public. The rhetorical
>>>> recourse to Obama is easy - but everything they did was
>>>> in support of getting people to show up and vote.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of managing expectations, some of what
>>>> 38degrees does is possibly less than entirely clear.
>>>> "Petition" in the UK has a meaning -
>>>> http://38degrees.org.uk/page/s/bbccuts#petition - but
>>>> 38degrees uses it in a different way. A petition is the
>>>> equivalent of sticking your hand in the air and saying
>>>> "I agree with this" (or, somewhat recently, "Nick").
>>>> But encouraging people to send 20,000 identical emails
>>>> is not a petition. That volume has little chance of
>>>> being read, and no chance of an individual responses,
>>>> but that's what 38degrees encourages their users to
>>>> expect.
>>>>
>>>> Wile the US House has large staff devoted to
>>>> correspondance, many of the UK contacts go straight to
>>>> MPs personal email addresses. Is it really in the
>>>> interests of the UK e-activist community for that to
>>>> change? Because an elephant has wandered into the room
>>>> and is lurching around semi-blindly, and we should be
>>>> at least considering the implications.
>>>>
>>>> And when 38 degrees users sent many emails protesting a
>>>> vote to the MPs who agreed with them, it only reduced
>>>> the efficacy of those MPs. it wasn't considered, it
>>>> wasn't useful, and it was actively harmful. Not that
>>>> there wasn't a good case for contacting, with unique
>>>> content, other MPs who weren't, but it's a broad brush
>>>> that tars all. And the reverse is true. The question
>>>> comes back to, what does that action achieve? it may
>>>> make 38degrees look good, but at the expense of whom
>>>> and what?
>>>>
>>>> Clay Johnson talks about both here: http://infovegan.com/2010/08/11/how-we-do-it-in-washington-dc
>>>>  http://infovegan.com/2010/08/13/making-petitions-not-a-sham
>>>>
>>>> There's no doubt that 38degrees, and the others of
>>>> their ilk, are fantastic for certain things. But, as
>>>> Ben claims in his piece, that "we can pave the path to
>>>> justice" with better e-tools, while partially true, as
>>>> Ben also claims, it's what happens offline that
>>>> matters. And on that, all to often, a campaign actually
>>>> achieves little in the real world - Your list will
>>>> never solve anything:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6ybX1iXvJQ
>>>>
>>>> And, while 38degrees and BSD are both fantastic best of
>>>> breed tools - their pricetag matches. And not every
>>>> organisation can afford to pay it - to again steal
>>>> Ben's analogy, for some, the path to justice is more a
>>>> pothole filled dirt track; but there's no less value in
>>>> it being travelled.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards Sam