The Advocacy Iceberg

The Advocacy Iceberg

November 16, 2012

Thoughts on campaigning and where the dodo got it wrong

Subscribe on

You have no subscribe urls set, please go to Podcast → Settings → Feed Details to set you your subscribe urls.

Show Notes

The dodo was pretty much doing fine until the Dutch arrived on Mauritius. Kodak was an iconic brand until floored by disruptive technology.

In evolutionary terms, there’s no such thing as a ‘best strategy’, it is context-defined. There’s no law that says organisations at the top of their game stay there; more likely the opposite.

And in the world of campaigning, a set of social, technological and political trends are calling into question some of the basic ways that NGOs typically operate.

NGOs have always had to wrestle with the tension of trying to make campaigns ‘manageable’ in the context that social change can be hugely complex, often unpredictable, and highly difficult to control or steer.

This isn’t new. Many of the key moments in the civil rights movement for example – from the Freedom Rides to the sit ins – were spontaneous reactions, decentralised initiatives, ‘unplanned’ moments. Major campaigns over past years have pivoted on, or otherwise benefitted from, uncertainty and chance: from the ‘Frankenfood’ frenzy around GM to the unexpected turns the landmines campaign took on the way to the treaty ban.

But in more recent years, key external trends – notably developments in social media – have increased the significance and resonance of these dynamics, creating conditions of greater volatility and unpredictability (for example by speeding up information flows and exponentially amplifying the spread of ideas, offering enhanced possibility to make and exploit new and unusual connections).

At the same time, social media offers opportunity for a radically different response (such as flatter, quicker and more decentralised ways of working, favouring more loosely structured entities).

‘Barriers to entry’ have been radically reduced, as was quintessentially shown by the #Spartacus social-media-led mobilisation around and crowdsourced analysis of the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance.

Politically, it’s no great insight that representative democracy is in malaise, for all kinds of reasons. The thousands of hours spent influencing the Copenhagen Climate Change COP15 negotiations when the final ‘accord’ effectively sidestepped the entire process is one example of how taking representative democracy at face value doesn’t always work.

But the NGOs’ campaign ‘offer’ is often still predicated on change through representative advocacy. In this model we as supporters can often be two steps from the action, our efforts mediated first through the NGO and then the decision-making target. New movements such as Occupy operate to a different – and more compelling – paradigm: people looking for solutions in their own hands. Obviously it’s horses for courses, and there are pros and cons of different approaches, but the rebalancing from ‘representative’ to ‘participative’ democracy clearly points to new ways of thinking about change.

Faced with these trends, NGOs’ internal dynamics typically pull in the opposite direction.

One reason for this is that campaigning in more recent years has typically moved from the margins of organisations to being more centrally embedded.

There’s nothing wrong with that per se, but it can introduce problematic implications – including an increased desire to retain organisational control of messages and channels of distribution, and a greater tendency towards brand-heavy approaches (linked to the perceived need to show, and show credit for, ‘results’). In practice, integration of campaigning and marketing is often weakly strategised and poorly implemented.

Consequences of this can include that NGOs in their campaigning pursue simplistic/meaningless goals for profile purposes, and/or impose artificial internal timescales onto campaigns. There is a greater tendency too for NGOs to require (in often ill-thought-through ways) campaigns to demonstrate ‘value for money’. In some cases, NGOs are additionally hampered by over-reliance on statutory funding, or are too wedded to insider approaches that can veer towards cooption

And so the worry is not only that NGOs are finding themselves in the wrong campaigning space, it’s their inability to adapt – in this case particularly difficult given that radical change may well be required.

In more recent years, new campaigning forms and movements have emerged, from Avaaz to UK Uncut to MoveYourMoney. The new groups are themselves hugely diverse, but have in common that they are responses to the new reality. In combination, they are introducing fundamental changes to the overall landscape of campaigning, bringing challenges but particularly opportunities in their wake.

The NGO campaigning sector is not a monolith and many NGOs are alert to trends, some working effectively with the new movements and evolving new ways of working, and/or already operating to more adaptive models. Campaigners themselves are certainly aware of the shifts in context and implications for ways of working.

But these are organisation-wide questions and there remains a paramount need for  the NGO sector both (a) to adapt in ways that allow for greater internal campaigning effectiveness, and (b) to link up more effectively with, and support and be supported by, the new campaigning movements.

This is likely to require tough choices, addressing some of the trade-offs involved in a meaningful response, rather than simply imagining that business as usual (only with more of everything) is a viable route forward.

 

A growing group of people, loosely encouraged by myself, Liam Barrington Bush and others, have been discussing ideas around the changing nature of campaigning, and the implications for the campaigning sector (in a broad sense). This post is an attempt to set out (my version of) some of the faultlines. Anyone interested in hearing more should get in touch or join the discussion using hashtag #socialchangeV2 @jim_coe