Political vs. Entertainment VOD

Found an interesting analogy from Joseph Carrabis comparing online video to true video on demand.

With serious videos we might be preaching to the choir and have greater chances of getting our supporters further involved, while with lighter, more entertaining pieces we could to reach out to new audiences.

“Branding in online video is subject to VOD (Video on Demand), but there's a
catch. Political branding can't be entertaining because a candidate won't be
taken seriously. Also, political branding is much more about reinforcing an
image than it is about winning converts to a new product or service.
[…]
Entertainment VOD doesn't have this constraint because people seek out
entertainment and, even when VOD based […] Not so political VOD. Here the whole
point is to get the visitor reafferent: highly involved! Vote! Contribute! Tell
your friends how good I am!”

Also, he mentions the value of online video to keep people on your site and its effect on branding.

“Time on your site means your brand is in front of your visitors and not your
competitors' brands.”

Every revolution evaporates...

...and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.

There's been some back-and-forth on the Progressive Exchange listserve this morning about whether the revolution in citizen advocacy online has made any difference whatsoever to the bureaucracy on Capitol Hill. List member Mark Rovner cited a couple of quotes from the CMF:

Many congressional staff doubt the legitimacy of identical form communications, and want to know whether communications are sent with constituents’ knowledge and consent. Half of congressional staff surveyed believe identical form communications are not sent with constituents’ knowledge or consent. Another 25% are unsure about the legitimacy of these communications. Additionally, 89% would like the ability to differentiate list-generated campaigns from those sent through direct constituent action.

and:

Personalized or individualized messages to Congress have more influence on Members’ decision-making process than do identical form messages. Only 3% of staff surveyed say identical form postal mail would have “a lot” of influence on their Member of Congress if he/she had not reached a decision. In contrast, 44% report individualized postal letters would have “a lot” of influence.

So if boiler plate emails are astroturf, or if they only work on a very limited basis, what's the alternative?

- - - - -

* The quote is from Kafka. Okay, it might be a little melodramatic, but I thought it would get people's attention.

MCA 1 vs. Habeas Corpus 0

Incredible. U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Flipping the Funnel

I'm on a mission to flip our funnel. Yes, you can raise money online. But the Internet spreads ideas much more effectively than it raises money. The potential to create massive movements online is unmatched. But it means being remarkable, which means taking risks. It means doing things differently than you would with direct mail, because direct mail is about not making waves. Try not to get others upset at you, try to be likable by all, and effectively, you become as bland as bland gets. Want to spread an idea? Make that your primary objective. Give people tools to express their voice. Stop trying to control every message. Let individuals determine how the movement shapes and grows. Push fundraising to the way back burner, maybe solicit your flipped funnel once or twice a year. And, ironically, if we do this successfully, our fundraising will only be more effective.