Twitter, Facebook, blogs and the future of the LGBT movement
Filed by: Jerame Davis
February 18, 2009 6:30 PM
In a recent interview, Bil Browning and Justin Cole have a discussion about blogs and social media that I think is really important for the future of the LGBT movement. One of the points they touch on is how too few LGBT organizations have figured out how to properly leverage the power of blogs. (Part 2 of the interview is the blog conversation)
And now, with the boom in popularity of social media tools like Facebook and Twitter, many organizations are far behind the curve in understanding the power at their fingertips. What's worse is how few organizations have a coherent online strategy that incorporates these wildly popular sites.
Need more proof these tools work? How about the recent election of Nick Shalosky to the Charleston, SC school board as a write-in candidate? He organized his campaign almost exclusively through Facebook.
There has never been a more level playing field to get your message in front of others. Let's look at some of the raw data.
Facebook is the obvious choice for getting started in social media organizing. There are many ways to use Facebook to reach your target audience and the growth rate of the service is phenomenal. As of this writing, Facebook has 175 million active users who spend a combined 3 billion minutes on Facebook each day.
They share more than 24 million bits of web content (blog posts, news stories, etc.) each day and upload 850 million photos each month. The average Facebook user has 120 friends.
What are you doing to get your slice of that messaging power? Do you have a strategy? Are you getting your whole staff and membership involved? They're probably already using Facebook anyway.
Facebook makes it easy to spread the word about your organization or cause as well. The built-in Causes application allows you to raise money and spread awareness allowing others to join your cause and allows you to mass message and raise money right in Facebook. If that's not enough, you can also create a custom Facebook application that hooks into your own website.
Facebook helped Nick Shalosky become the first openly-gay elected official in South Carolina. Without spending a dime, he easily organized enough votes to win a seat on the local school board having entered the race only 2 weeks before election day. Sure, school board is a relatively small race, but that doesn't make this any less proof of the power of organizing online.
And Nick Shalosky is in pretty good company. Social media and a stellar online organization (in which Facebook was a part) helped propel Barack Obama into the White House.
Twitter is a wholly different phenomenon and harder for many to understand. The idea of squeezing the message down to 140 characters can seem a bit daunting. The notion of building individual relationship with fellow Tweeters (Twitter users) can give the best communications team a coronary.
But once you understand the potential of Twitter, you'll see why you should use it.
The best way to describe Twitter is text messaging on steroids. What makes Twitter powerful is the way it so easily integrates with your phone (you only need to have text message capabilities to use Twitter from your phone) other websites (have you seen the Twitter feeds on our contributor bio pages?) and even the aforementioned Facebook (you can update your Facebook status via Twitter.)
With Twitter, you're reaching a smaller audience, but you're reaching a very connected and active audience. Tweeters are highly attuned to discussing and sharing information from their fellow Tweeters. And as with any social platform, you benefit from a multiplier effect when a fellow Tweeter "Re-Tweets" your message.
Hard numbers on Twitter are difficult to come by. The estimates I found range from 1.25 to 2 million users, but it's growing very rapidly. Web traffic to the twitter.com domain surpassed the wildly popular digg.com in January, which represents a doubling of traffic just since October 2008. That's amazing growth!
And with a recent injection of $50 million in venture capital, it's likely that growth trend will continue for some time.
Blogs
Blogs seem so old-school when compared to Facebook and Twitter, but blogs are more important than ever to organizing online. Blogs have evolved dramatically over the past few years to become a ubiquitous source of news and opinion - citizen journalism.
Yet so many LGBT organizations, particularly statewide equality orgs, have yet to embrace blogs as part of their communications strategy. Sure, most orgs have a blog they post press releases or news alerts to - but I think these are mostly a waste of time.
If your organization doesn't have a working relationship with the main bloggers in your area (or for national orgs, the big blogs that focus on your issues) then stop what you're doing and start scheduling lunches and coffees. Seriously.
It seems the hardest thing for most orgs to overcome is that they no longer control the message when they deal with blogs. That's OK. Let me repeat that. It is OK to not control the message when dealing with blogs.
If you've created the right relationships with your target bloggers, you don't need to control the message. It's the blogger's job to break down big issues into bit-sized pieces. They do this every single day with or without you. Wouldn't you rather be in a position to guide them in that analysis rather than having to do damage control after the fact?
There are blogs in almost every state that are part of the progressive 50 State Blog Network. LGBT issues are very well covered in the blogosphere and it is easy to find blog-allies in every part of the country. There is no reason not to have multiple bloggers you work with regularly.
See you online
You don't have to become an online junkie to harness these tools for your organization. That's what is great, you harness the masses in tiny bits to multiply your own reach and power. It only takes one Tweet on Twitter (140 characters max.) or one message to your Facebook group to reach anywhere from thousands to potentially millions of people.
The other, smaller, more niched social sites are all great, but if you're just now realizing you need an online strategy, your focus should be on Facebook, Twitter and blogs. Facebook is growing faster than any other service and both Facebook and Twitter are starting to get traction with users over the age of 30. And blogs are very much the future of online news.
I realize I've only touched the surface on each of these online phenomena and there are plenty of others I haven't mentioned. But the three I've discussed here have the lowest barriers to entry (You gotta know a little something about video for YouTube, for example) and will give you the best returns on your investment of time.
Got questions? Leave a comment or you can:
Find me on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=27318078
Find me on Twitter here: http://twitter.com/jerame
Or send me an email: jerame at bilerico.com
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
24 Comments
May I add an observation about blogging? Bilerico is a perfect example of a blog that grew up to be an online magazine. That has ramifications for the contributors that I don't want to disclose yet because of a process in which I am involved in NYC. As Time Magazine dies, Bilerico and the like rise up from the ashes of old school pulp.
Father Tony | February 18, 2009 9:18 PM
Reply to this comment
I'm no luddite when it comes to understanding the power of social media, but I'd be more cautious aboutt dismissing the relevance of "old" media; rumours of its imminent death are quite unfounded. I'm in the unique position of being a blogger and a conventional journalist and, quite frankly, am appalled at what passes for "journalism" on a lot of blogs.
There's a lot that's very good, but the majority of "citizen journalism," IMHO, is generally crap. For instance, a lot of this so-called journalism relies on the press releases sent out by groups or organizations -- and they don't know to actually reveal that to the reader (that, or they're simply being disingenous). I recently covered a V-day protest, and got some exclusive pics and interviewed the people involved. I got back home and found the blogosphere buzzing with material from bloggers and "citizen journalists" who simply lifted quotes from press releases verbatim and presented them as interviews.
That kind of carelessness has terrible long-term effects on the dissemination of news as news. As opposed to news as second/third hand hearsay, which is what's mostly available on blogs.
But more on that later. Glad this discussion is opening up on bilerico.
Yasmin Nair | February 18, 2009 11:22 PM
Reply to this comment
Well, yeah. A lot of blogs ARE crap. But a lot of old media is crap too. And when each medium got its start (newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, whatever) there were all sorts of bad examples to point to. They eventually worked it out.
The fact that there are lots of blogs is proof that the barriers to entry are low, like I said in my piece. The crap blogs won't last, just like the crap (insert medium here) didn't last during the heyday of said medium.
There is always going to be room for real journalism, professional journalists. A blog, for example, cannot have correspondents to cover all the news all the time.
Keeping the real journalists honest. Digging deeper into stories. Keeping stories the "old" media lets die, alive. Pushing stories the "old" media doesn't cover. Analyzing what's going on and pontificating on the day's events.
These are some of the things blogs do well. And there are some shining examples of "good' blogs.
But the "old" media needs to learn how to fit in and make a profit too. They haven't figured out how to compete other than brute force, which will eventually break them.
As much as I hate watching the guy, CNN's Rich Sanchez has tapped into something with how he does his 3PM show. He uses Twitter, MySpace and Facebook as running commentary on his show. He interacts with his viewers even when he's off the air.
He's annoying as fuck, but he gets it when it comes to new media. He's winning the cable news ratings in his time slot week after week and his audience is still growing. And he's doing it with social media.
His show is a great example of a terrible attempt at figuring out new media and blending it with old. It won't last, but others are starting to imitate and improve upon his model.
We need paid, professional journalists and the news gathering machines that come along with them. Blogs can't supplant that and I honestly I don't think they should.
Old media outlets will adapt, or they'll get bought up by new media companies that know how to blend the two, or they'll die. There have already been casualties and there will be more.
Sorry to rant there, but I really think old media and new media need each other. It just happens the old media have nowhere to go but down and the new media have nowhere to go but up.
And being on the downslope is never where you like to be - especially when you don't have a clue how to fix it.
Jerame Davis | February 19, 2009 12:28 AM
Reply to this comment
Despite your something-of-a-disclaimer above, I would like to get your opinion of GLEE.com, considering that it is a social networking site that has a GLBT focus. Specifically, is it likely to survive? Is it worth messing with today?
I also want to mention the blog that IE has begun, pointing out that it appears to me to suffer from exactly the problem that you point out: it tries to over-control the content, and that's just not what blogs are for. Any blog that is just a propaganda machine is a blog too boring to visit regularly. I mention this not to bash IE, but as a wish/hope/nudge that it might evolve into something better. But as things stand right now, I prefer Bilerico-Indiana head and shoulders above the IE blog if I want to know the major "real" stories about what's going on in political GLBT Indiana.
A. J. Lopp | February 19, 2009 2:26 AM
Reply to this comment
It's hard to tell yet if GLEE will survive. I can tell you their users aren't nearly as engaged as Facebook users. The Bilerico Project account on GLEE has more than 3 times the number of "friends" as we have on Facebook. Yet we get little to no traffic from GLEE and there's very little interaction with the users on the site.
As for IE...Yeah, they just don't get it. I know their communications guy is pretty smart, but I think he's hitting the same brick walls I did. Hell, I couldn't even get them to blog even on their own site.
When I wrote this piece, I had IE in mind, but they certainly aren't unique in their disregard of online organizing. There are other problems with IE aside from that, but I am not going to trash them and lay bare all their weaknesses.
If they and the other statewide orgs don't figure it out, another org will come along that does and sweep them away. Maybe they'll get some new blood in the leadership who actually gets it, but that's a pretty insular group that's tough to break into.
Jerame Davis | February 19, 2009 1:12 PM
Reply to this comment
THX for comments, Jerame. We've both said our purpose at hand is to discuss effective online networking, not to make IE look bad. Let everyone please be perfectly clear on that point.
And in fairness to them, they are primarily a political lobbying group, and such a group might be exactly the type of group that starts out thinking that they need to control and over-control the message. After all, somebody says something controversial on their blog (or any other blog), and if it gets lots of attention, next thing they know, they are sitting face-to-face with an Eric Miller type and having to either backpedal, defend, disavow, or maybe just explain where that guy is coming from. By way of this or similar mis-steps, loose cannons in their midst can unintentionally cause doors to slam shut that it took maybe years of political courting and hard work to pry open.
So I can see how they might perceive that to stakes are too high to allow anything other than the, say, most "carefully protocol-ed" discussion space (if I might take license to change "protocol" from a noun to a verb).
This, though, leads me to wonder whether they might be the last type of org that should explore the Facebook-type version of cyber-organizing. Is it truly a matter of proper networking technique, or are they running the risk of spending a lot of time and bandwidth attempting the political equivalent of herding cats? Organizing a group to go bowling every other Friday night is one thing, but could it be that pulling people together to influence state laws might be entirely another?
A. J. Lopp | February 19, 2009 7:32 PM
Reply to this comment
A.J.
You may be right in terms of the organization they've set themselves up as...But the current model is doomed to failure, if you ask me.
If they want to only lobby the legislature and be secretive and opaque, that's fine...But they need a few deep-pocketed benefactors because that kind of organization just doesn't fly anymore.
If they don't want to do the kind of broad-based, grassroots organizing that's necessary, then they need to help another organization get it done. That's not happening either. They're the only game in town and that seems to be the way they like it.
A viable and thriving statewide org needs more transparency and more involvement from the community they're there to serve.
You can't raise money without engaging your community and involving them in the effort. And in organizing - it's all about the money.
Besides, they don't seem to want to be just a lobbying organization. That may be where all the money goes, but they certainly make attempts at being more. It just doesn't work out too well.
Jerame Davis | February 19, 2009 8:19 PM
Reply to this comment
I agree with you 100% ...
I'm now a newbie Tweeter. Found you, Jerame, and Waymon and Pam Spaulding, and following you folks. (I'm not following Nathan 'cuz I want to be a tweeter, not a stalker! (That's a joke, Nathan ...))
Also following some of the famous folks ... ABC's George Staphanopolous and NBC's David Gregory have interesting tweets, MC Hammer has a bit of problem with technology 'cause he sends multiple tweets that are too similar ... Shaq is listed, but Shaq doesn't tweet (I bet his fingers are too big for his Blackberry) ... follow Britney? No thank you, thank you ...
... haven't figured out quite how Tweeters form those tiny URLs that involve the bit.ly domain name, there must be some sort of shorthand mechanism that I've haven't found yet ... I have no followers yet, and I'm not sure I want any because I have privacy questions. Also the obvious, like all other cyber-things, Twitter can be a bottomless time-waster if you're not careful.
... in a word, Twitter makes me feel like I'd make a good grandmother. I'm there, but I haven't completely figured out why yet. ... And, folks, pls don't send me raspberries on my Blackberry ...
A. J. Lopp | February 21, 2009 12:31 PM
Reply to this comment
A.J.
Well, I'm glad you're on Twitter. And while it's OK to use Twitter however you see fit, I think you'll get more out of it if you use it and garner some followers. The two-way interaction makes it fun, but you can certainly get utility out of it in just one direction.
It can be a time-suck, but that's up to you and self-constraint. Getting a Twitter client that works for you is part of it. But the other part is knowing when to use Twitter.
I put out updates when in transition periods - when switching from one task to another or one project to another. I also update when I'm bored or something big happens. If you have something to say, it shouldn't take you more than 20-30 seconds to put it down in 140 chars.
I read through my Twitter posts during some of these same times. No more than 5 minutes or so at a time. Most of them I scan and I have a few folks I read everything they write. I respond to some if and when I can, but not always. Priorities are just that.
But Twitter is great for filling the time when you're standing in line (that's where phone clients come in) or waiting for someone to join you or something to start.
And let's be clear - if you don't like text-messaging or instant messaging, you probably won't like Twitter.
The other thing that I want to address is this "privacy" thing. I've heard a number of folks address the privacy angle when dealing with online services like Twitter and Facebook.
Here's the deal for me. I would never, ever put anything I didn't want the world to know on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace or a blog. Ever. Why would you?
We all have public and private lives. These online services are just an extension of your public life. If you need to interact with your friends in a private way (as in, how you would act at home rather than in a restaurant or mall) then pick up the phone or go to their house.
I can't understand using one of these services and then locking it down like Ft. Knox. It just doesn't make sense. The idea is for people to be able to find you and you find them. It's about networking and socializing even when you can't be together physically. It's not about sharing intimate moments.
It can initiate private conversations. Just yesterday, a friend wrote me on Facebook to ask me to call them for a private conversation. I don't even know what it's about, but I know it's something that doesn't belong on Facebook.
I think a lot of the privacy concerns come from a generational gap. Having grown up in a time when sharing info is easy and being more public is common, it's easy for me to adapt to these concepts.
Not that all people of my generation and younger think like me, mind you. But the more access and experience you have with technology, the more I think people realize where the lines are.
I don't mean to preach, but there's nothing Twitter, MySpace, Facebook and the like CAN divulge about you that you didn't give them in the first place. So, if you don't want it known, don't post it to begin with.
Anytime you put information online, it's no longer safe. No matter what a company tells you, no matter how many safeguards are in place. Humans are the weak link every time.
You can post pics, messages, or give info to your friends and only share it with a select few, but that doesn't stop that friend from passing that info, pic, whatever on to someone else. Just look how much this very idea has pissed off the music industry.
But that's also proof of how easy it is to communicate with these tools as well. I can send pictures, movies, songs, books, messages, whatever I want to anyone in the world and never have to exercise more than a few fingers. When it's that easy, you can't stop it from happening except by never putting it out there to being with.
Jerame Davis | February 21, 2009 1:16 PM
Reply to this comment
Jerame,
I should have made it clear that I was responding very specifically to F. Tony's post: "As Time Magazine dies, Bilerico and the like rise up from the ashes of old school pulp." Yes, a lot of old media's crap - but supplanting it with the crap of "new" media isn't the answer either, and I'm wary of all the hype around social sites somehow becoming the answer to organising woes.
Ultimately, my concern isn't even with whether or not journalistic standards are being met - it's about whether the basic standards for research or writing are being met (and journalism, in the end, has to meet those standards). And whether the "new media" folks are willing to go beyond merely reiterating blog-news/opinion and actually ask tough questions of real people.
I have no patience for those who dismiss new media out of hand, but as someone who's been an activist for years and is also a journalist "on the ground" (and relatively new at it, I should add ): I'm tired of many twitterers and facebookers assuming that the sheer ability to say something while an event's going on is news itself. That's usually only part of the story.
Yasmin Nair | February 19, 2009 5:34 AM
Reply to this comment
Yasmin,
I reckon that 95% of anything will always be, as you put it, "crap".
Wouldn't you consider the possibility that younger newer talented writers will be more attracted to blog/facebook/twitter etc than traditional "slower" media? And haven't you noticed the appallingly lowered quality of the content of mags like Time?
I don't worry about the fact that most people who write cannot write well. I do worry about the fact that younger writers are willing to sacrifice quality for speed. For them, everything is ephemeral. Words are consumed today on the fly and forgotten tomorrow. The new writing is like self-scrubbing graffiti.
Father Tony | February 19, 2009 11:22 AM
Reply to this comment
Tony,
Writing well isn't just about style and syntax. I say that even as I confess that the crimes committed in the name thereof make this former writing teacher want to scream. It's also about the ability to put together very disparate material, the willingness to sit through hours of what might seem like pointless conversation, and being able to discern when the direction of your story should change - and a million other intangibles that a lot of people who go into what they fondly imagine to be writing/journalism are generally unprepared for.
I don't think those are necessarily taught in journalism/writing school, to be honest. Having j-school creds is a peculiarly US-based phenomenon. But that's a topic for another day.
Time magazine's failings are your concern, not mine. Let me be clear: I'm less concerned with issues of grammar and style and more about what we imagine to be news and analysis. Like many other people, I've been concerned about that long before twitter and FB showed up. The travesties of the New York Times (as in: Judith Miller, whose lies propped up the Iraq invasion) are as bad as the mushy mess that often shows up in the blogosphere.
And let me also conclude with this: I'm someone who combines blogging and facebooking with "old media." I'm the last one to scoff at the power of new media, and I understand too well the limits of the old. But I don't think it serves us to make sweeping statements about the supposedly revolutionary potential of one and the supposed demise of the other.
Yasmin Nair | February 19, 2009 11:52 AM
Reply to this comment
I think that when we watch a bridge collapse during an earthquake, it is not such a "sweeping" statement to announce that we are having an earthquake.
I am not concerned with the style of writing in Time. Instead, I would point to exactly what you are talking about:their lack of ability or willingness to treat a subject clearly, evenly and intelligently. There is a desperation to their format. And it's not just that mag but others like it that have been around for decades and are not successfully menopausal.
Also, I think your attachment to print may be sentimental.
(I am enjoying this discussion.)
Father Tony | February 19, 2009 3:21 PM
Reply to this comment
Tony,
In what parts of the following from my previous posts:
"Yes, a lot old media's crap" and "I have no patience for those who dismiss new media out of hand..." and "I'm someone who combines blogging and facebooking with "old media." and "I'm the last one to scoff at the power of new media, and I understand too well the limits of the old."
do you find any sentimental attachment to print on my part? Look, can we just explore the nuances of this issue instead of pitting this whole discussion as one between luddites and brave new worlders, new media vs. old media? As I've made perfectly clear throughout, I don't think it's an either/or situation.
I happen to agree with pretty much everything that Bil and Jerame have pointed out, and am eager to know more. So, frankly, I don't enjoy your constant distortion of my points. I'd hope that bilerico at least would be a good place for a nuanced conversation.
This is what irritates me about blogging back-and-forths, and why I've occasionally been reluctant to engage with people - this constant need to paint everything in black and white terms, the constant need to find adversaries even when none are required, and the equally constant need to get the last word out, with no regard to what's actually been written. Keep writing, Tony. But at least read what I write before making up arguments on my behalf. Although, it's obvious that nothing I write will convince you to do otherwise.
Yasmin Nair | February 19, 2009 7:36 PM
Reply to this comment
So when we are on twitter.. how do we find one another? Is there an etiquette?
Rob Barton | February 19, 2009 10:36 AM
Reply to this comment
The easiest way to is to upload your address book and have Twitter find all of your friends already using the service. Another way is to use the hashtag searches - you'll see stuff like #LGBT in a post. That marks the content as queer and people can search for that tag to find other folking twittering queer content. The code for Creating Change was #cc09 - and it's still being used for LGBT activism.
Bil Browning | February 19, 2009 11:11 AM
Reply to this comment
I'd like to add to what Bil said...
There is some etiquette to Twitter you should know. First, just because you decide to follow someone, that doesn't mean they're going to follow you. That's OK. They can still see your @ replies even if they don't follow you and they can still interact with you without following you. And if you're interesting enough, they may decide to follow you later.
A lot of folks automatically follow everyone who follows them. That's OK too, but don't expect it as the norm.
The other thing to know is that anyone who has lots of followers probably isn't going to do as many 1 on 1 interactions with you. In other words, don't expect direct messages or even @ replies from someone who has several thousand followers. There's just not enough time in the day to reply to hundreds of Tweets.
Another way to follow would be to surf the friends list of other users. People you know. People who are interested in the same things you are. On Twitter, it's perfectly OK to follow someone you don't know and have never met with the caveats I mentioned above in mind, of course.
Don't get offended if people stop following you. Maybe you're too prolific. Maybe you're boring. Maybe they're just not interested in what you Tweet about. It's supposed to be very casual.
Be fun, be chatty (but not too chatty) and realize there are many ways to use Twitter.
Jerame Davis | February 19, 2009 1:25 PM
Reply to this comment
Tool, great, But don't become the RNC who have elevated Twitter to a major strategy.
Whenever the Republican leadership does something, that's a cue to do it ironically.
Rev. Bob | February 19, 2009 11:32 AM
Reply to this comment
I am not the kind of person who believes in putting all the eggs in one basket. Online organizing (not just Twitter) should be a major strategy in any organization, but it shouldn't be the only strategy by any means.
TV, print media, etc. all still have tremendous power. My point is simply to say the online media have nowhere to go but up in this game while the traditional media have nowhere to go but down. They'll eventually meet, but it may not be in the middle.
Jerame Davis | February 19, 2009 1:29 PM
Reply to this comment
One of the ways to emphasize what Jerame is talking about is the person on Twitter yesterday that was promoting the TBP Facebook group via their Twitter feed. I went and looked and that person has over 1000 followers who read their tweets. 1000 people got invited to join our group and we had nothing to do with it. That is a perfect endnote to the idea of "Let go and let it happen for you."
Bil Browning | February 19, 2009 11:52 AM
Reply to this comment
This is a perfect example of how the process works. What's more powerful than someone you don't know pushing your issue for you to their friends?
In traditional organizing, we talk about how important it is to have 1 on 1 connections and how the best way to change a mind is to get a friend of family member to talk to that person.
It isn't all the different online. 1 person sends a message to 1000 people. If only 10% of those people are interested, you've just increased your reach by 100. Now, what if each of those 100 people talk about you to another 1000 people each? Yes, you get a smaller return due the inevitable duplication of contacts, etc. but there's a larger point.
You're increasing your mindshare, which is truly the key to busting through the noise.
Let's say that original person has a contact who ignored the message. But what happens when 3 more of their friends also suggest they join up with your group or org?
Understanding that mindshare is the currency of online organizing is the key. And you'll never gain mindshare if you don't let go of the message and let your fans do the work for you.
Jerame Davis | February 19, 2009 1:48 PM
Reply to this comment
When it comes to using these new media forms in conjunction with your organization, you can preserve that 1 on 1 contact in other ways as well.
Often, orgs think that simply having a Facebook page is enough. When I'm working on a campaign, I encourage organizations to use their phonebook function on Facebook and actually pick up the phone to call their supporters.
"Hi, I'm ____ from ____, and I see that you're a member of our group on Facebook! What you may not know is we're facing a terrible _______ and need your help. Can you donate 3 hours of your time/$100/a new computer/desk so we can get our office up and running/produce a new ad/talk to voters/feed the homeless... etc..."
The same thing should happen when organizing an event on Facebook. It is not enough to have people SAY they will attend. Send out a reminder. Call people. We've all invited a billion people to a party online and only had two or three show up.
It's easy to flake out when you've only had to click "Yes, I'll attend." It is much harder to flake when you've had someone talk to you on the phone, work through your scheduling conflicts, remind you why they need you to be there, and thank you for coming in advance.
Nothing should replace the basic tenets of organizing... new media just makes it easier/better/faster/stronger.
RebelPrince | February 19, 2009 2:58 PM
Reply to this comment
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. New media simply makes it possible to reach more with less and to put many hands to work toward the same goal. Nothing is more powerful that contact from a friend or loved one on an issue. Nothing spreads the word faster.
You use the same basic ideas in new ways. You have to understand the medium to understand how to exploit it.
It still requires hard work, persistence, and a good message.
Jerame Davis | February 19, 2009 8:31 PM
Reply to this comment
As the publisher of four blogs, two of which are for the LGBT community, over the past several weeks I have started using both Tweeter and Facebook as a way to draw traffic.
While I do use Facebook to communicate with some relatives, I have joined some groups also which may be inclined to read the LGBT Blogs.
And just today I started a "network" for my humor blog.
Tweeter which I use strictly to promote a given posting on any of the blogs, has had an interesting affect.
My local newspaper and CNN follow my Tweets.
Just like posting a comment on a blog or like here on a website with articles, if you have your profile set up will a link, I have the one for my profile here which goes to the homepage which displays all the blogs,you will draw new readers and hopefully keep them.
Don't expect an avalance of traffic but I look at it this way if I get one that's one more than I had yesterday.
Lyndon Evans | February 23, 2009 11:35 PM
Reply to this comment