When I help people create campaigns on The Point, the first question I ask is, “what’s blocking a solution?” In other words, who or what is stopping the problem from going away? The answer to this question is critical to determining the best approach. I divide blocks into two categories.
At times, it’s in someone’s best interest for a problem to persist. Companies often consider it in their best interest to skimp on employee benefits, for example. It’s in the best interest of my upstairs neighbor to practice the piano at 11pm.
Campaigns on The Point are modeled specifically to break blocks like this, by manufacturing the tipping point that makes it in the block’s best interest to get out of the way. In the above example, consumers might organize a boycott against a company that only begins once enough people join (the tipping point) such that the loss of them as customers will cost more than offering benefits to their employees. Or they might offer a carrot instead of a stick, by creating a campaign pledging business to a company that provides exceptional benefits.
Certain problems are solved by getting people educated. To reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, for example, we need to be aware of their existence and understand how to prevent them.
While the Web has a proven potential to quickly and cheaply spread information, often those most affected by these problems aren’t online. And I don’t know about you, but when I’m online, I’d way rather be reading about video games than STDs.
So I suggest finding a way to turn an “us” block into “them.” Identify an organization that can help increase awareness, and target a campaign at whatever is blocking them from doing so.
While these block categories aren’t a strict dichotomy, thinking about your problem this way helps determine the best tools for solving your problem. And more importantly, it moves us beyond blunt “catch-all” tools like petitions or letter writing campaigns, the potency of which are often at the mercy of PR.
Identify your block, and you’ll find many ways to leverage the power of individuals above and beyond raising a stink.
At both Make Something Happen and The Point, we talk a lot about the Carrot Model. For this reason, we couldn’t help sharing this bit from Maureen Dowd’s op-ed in today’s New York Times:
[Sen Obama's] meeting with Angela Merkel taught him a whole new expression.
“When we were talking about Iran,” he told me, “it turns out that carrots and sticks in German is sweetbread and whips, which I thought was a little more evocative.”
-Filed in The Point

At Netroots Nation 2008, Dr. Lawrence Lessig spoke as a keynote and presented Change Congress, his new initiative to use connective tools to help steer the government body into a new direction. I asked Lessig why, after 10 years of tackling copyright and intellectual property issues, he had decided to move on Congress. He responded, “We had hit a level of success, the issues were no longer hard, and I felt like I was getting lazy so I said ‘I’m going to throw everything I am doing away and do something different.’”
Even more amazing, he explained, “And I in fact said, ‘I am going to do that every ten years. Every ten years I am going to throw away all of my intellectual capital and work on something new.’” And so here he is, trying to corral Internet grassroots activists on the left and right to act against what many consider to be a failed government body. Here, he discusses using the carrot model to change the government, how true change has to be “purple” and how he plans to attract the attention of the not-so-obvious audience.
Make Something Happen: Outside of a crowd like those at Netroots Nation, which is predisposed to being supportive of your work, how do you plan on bringing the attention of the public to Change Congress?
Lawrence Lessig: We’ve got a big push now to grow a list of people who want to participate in as many different ways as we can. Part of what the Trippi organization is doing is helping us think about how to parse, simplify, or extend the message so that it can reach a wider range of people than those who are otherwise coming to events like [Netroots Nation].
I spent an enormous part of my life speaking and not all of the speeches are ones that I give for 2000 person audiences, so I speak in every venue I possibly can to get people to think about that. Everything I produce, I make available for other people to use as well.
I think that’s as much as we can do right now. As this thing gets going and other people who are running campaigns begin to incorporate this message into what they’re doing, I think that will be another kind of leverage point that will be very important to us as well.
MSH: Is public dissatisfaction with Congress correlative to the public’s feeling of disengagement with the process?
Lessig: I think there’s a number of things that plays into it. Some people are skeptical that [9%, the number of constituents happy with Congress's performance] is a meaningful number. The important thing to do is to see how it has changed over time. So if you don’t think it’s 9% and you think that it’s 15%, the one thing it’s not is 40%. Just after World War II, it was above 70% so part of it is that people have become disengaged. Part of it is that they just don’t have faith that there is any integrity in the system — that Congress is just particularly bad at drawing lines and fighting this particular president on certain issues, that they’re so quick to think that it’s worse to be seen as an obstructionists. But I think it’s better to be seen as an obstructionist of bad policy than I think it is to support this policy of the present administration. But even the best leadership is not going to restore the type of faith in this institution that we need — that’s fundamental to reform.
MSH: Are there any examples or success stories where you have seen people use connective technologies to spread awareness or illicit reaction? Stories where you realized that your mission is now possible?
Lessig: I think that some of the things Sunshine does with lobbyist [issues]. Bloggers like Matt Stoller, who put up the voting record and asked people to fill out information about the particular things [with regard to voting records]. Models like Wikipedia — What’s interesting about this is that they invite people to participate in their pajamas, meaning it is in a context where it is very easy to be connected and doesn’t require a huge demand, but then gives you a feeling like you’re making a contribution to something that is public and important as the inspiration. We’re seeing more and more of that.
But there’s been no organization that has really achieved the percentage of efficiency that I think is possible. We still have a lot of learn and to build from.
MSH: You noted in your presentation that Change Congress will have a panel of bloggers intended to be critical of the organization. Why do you find doing that important?
Lessig: It’s the ethic of the net. When you look at what happens on the net, [participants that] adopt an ethic of openness, [can help protect] from criticism. When you contrast that with a corporate ethic and a corporate website, where everything is closed and just great, I realize which side of the divide we’ve got to be on. So that wasn’t conceptually hard.
What’s hard is organizing it in a way so that it’s not self-destructive because it’s so easy for critics to take over space and to drive other contributors out. Figuring out how to architect that to the best advantage is not easy to do.
MSH: What concerns and criticisms about the model are you hearing back from this community?
Lessig: There is a concern about the substance of particular things, and this is likely because we haven’t made the message clear enough. My response to that is that we haven’t endorsed as much as we have made available. We might expand those and it might turn out that some are not relevant. If nobody cares about earmarks in the end, then maybe earmarks disappear. Making clear that what we’re doing is trying to facilitate a language with which we can understand, criticize, and change Congress. Not having a set of Ten Commandments is a hard thing to get people to be able to do.
MSH: How is Change Congress using the carrot model with regard to leveraging political activity?
Lessig: It will make it very easy for people to focus on the flavor of a forum that they care about, and then go out and support particular people who match that. Right now we’ve got a list of [supported] candidates, or you can go to an ActBlue,or a Slate Card page eventually, where you can support all of the candidates. What I want it to be is basically you make your representation that takes you to your ActBlue page and then you can make a choice to support all of them or pick which ones you’re going to support individually so that it’s just a simple 1, 2, 3 and then you support it so that candidates begin to say, “Wow. Where is this money coming from? Oh. I see there are people in my district who think this is important and they do something about it.”
MSH: Do you think that Congress knows what’s coming?
Lessig: No. And that’s our chance. They have a vague sense, but they don’t have a chance to focus on it because they’re still focused on getting funded in the old system. So I think we have eight years to build the alternative before it penetrates enough before they figure out how to co-opt this as well.
MSH: Does anyone in there get it?
Lessig: There are particular people who I am inspired by. Tennessee Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper is one; (Massachusetts Democratic Congressman) Ed Markie understands a lot of these issues. I wouldn’t say that my list of candidates is actually comprehensive enough.
MSH: You have said that you think that this change is purple (supportable by both the left and the right). You really believe that both sides are going to be able to work on this issue?
Lessig: I think that’s the only way we succeed. When RightOnline had that conference and wrote me and said, “You know, we’re having our conference at the exact same time [as NN08],” I wrote back and said, Why didn’t you invite me to talk?” They responded that they can’t invite everybody so I just said “OK.” [laughs]
We’ve got to learn how to speak about these issues in a way that includes the widest range. This is a matter of the constitution. We have to pledge support for reform of the constitution that makes it so the system functions.
[Lessig discusses Change Congress at Personal Democracy Forum 2008
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=_obGaWfkDgs[/youtube]
-Filed in People

Liveblogging from Netroots Nation
Sunday:
12:42 PM -
It looks like other folks are writing about NN08 as well. Here’s a taste:
10:57AM - A friendly-looking, somewhat heavy kid in his late teens, rifle case slung over his back just approached me, asking if I knew if “the gun show were here [at the Austin Convention Center." He said, "I wonder if its down on this level. I asked around but it seems that folks with the orange name-tags [Netroots Nation attendees] don’t know much about it.
10:46 AM – Everyone that hasn’t already left is on their way out of the convention center. On my way in, I passed Jay Rosen, who looked as epically knowledge-filled as always. Here he is on a (very) short video from TheUptake defining citizen journalism:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcYSmRZuep4[/youtube]
10:37 AM – My conversation yesterday with Prof. Lessig was great and I look forward to posting something more substantial about it tomorrow. He discussed how Change Congress plans on employing the carrot model, presentations, and more. I asked him if he thought that Congresspeople on the whole have a sense what’s coming in the context of the ability of constituents to leverage power in a whole new way. He did not, he said, and for him that is part of the reason why the time to act is now
Saturday:
04:44 PM - Lots of milling around going on right now. People are getting end-of-the-conference antsy. I had a great conversation with Colin from ePolitics. His site is a fabulous resource for anyone who is looking for a how-to tool re: the field of political organization on the Internet.
02:06 PM – Blogging Creating Political Community Around Film (with Wendy Cohen of Screening Liberally and Participant Media, Tracy Fleischman of Live From Main Street, Jacob Soboroff of Why Tuesday?, and Jim Gilliam of Brave New Films).
12:37 PM – Blogging Lessig’s keynote:
12:07 PM – I am preparing to blog about Larry Lessig’s keynote. We’ll be talking with Lessig later today, and I’ll feature notes based on our conversation later this afternoon. I’ll definitely be posting a larger, more substantial post about our conversation about Change Congress and Internet collective action very soon.
08:02 AM – Blogging Ask The Speaker Pelosi:
07:40 AM - Showering the parties and late-night pizza off of me and heading over to see the Speaker Pelosi event. There has been word of a “very big” surprise guest. Thoughts? I’m not even going to speculate.
Friday:
03:02 PM – Blogging Milblogging: How the Troops’ Writing Affects Our View of the War (with Alex Horton, and Richard Smith and Brandon Friedman of VoteVets.org and moderated by Kevin Maurer, a 5-year embedded AP journalist):
01:45 PM – Blogging John Hlinko discussing how to connect to blogging/campaign audiences
01:35 PM – I was struck by something an audience member at the “Working from the Inside Out” said to me. A grassroots activist/organizer in Florida for the Democratic Party and DFA, she talked about the amount of elected representatives she runs into that don’t know about many of the issues, or even how to navigate around on the web. “We need to get to them as soon as they get elected,” she stressed to me, “but a lot of people don’t know how to get in there.”
She went onto make a suggestion that I recognized, as I, too, have been a party organizer. Those who are interested in getting close to a campaign or candidate simply need to volunteer for the campaign, as it gets them close to many future staffers. In my experience, many of the people I worked campaigns with went onto work as staff members. “I know a Republican representative,” she said, “and he’s even said to me, ‘It’s hard to say ‘no’ to someone I have seen licking envelopes at my kitchen table.”
Great point.
12:30 PM - A great note on the lunch with Kos and Harold Ford from Todd Beeton from MyDD:
He then spoke about how ridiculous the traditional media is, especially when he is asked about Obama’s so-called move to the center. It’s clear from what ends up getting written, that what he says goes in one ear and out the other because his response doesn’t fit into their “move to the center” narrative. As Markos says regarding Barack Obama’s FISA vote:
“We weren’t mad at Obama for moving to the center, we were mad at him for NOT moving to the center. There was no popular movement in favor of this bill. If you ask most Americans I think they’d tell us that they do not support the government spying on Americans.”
10:37 AM – Blogging Working from the Inside Out: Success Stories in Netroots Organizing: (with Timothy Karr and Craig Aaron of Free Press, Adam Green of MoveOn.org, Liz Rose of the ACLU, Andre Banks of Color of Change, and Joan McCarter, a Daily Kos blogger):
10:00 AM – A set of notes and observations on Don Siegelman, who spoke at Netroots Nation.
09:15 AM – Blogging From Dean to Obama: Four Years in the Internet Revolution (other observations can be found here):
8:30 AM - Heading over to “From Dean to Obama: Four Years in the Internet Revolution“
Thursday:
8:58 PM – Howard [!]:
08:02 PM – The lead up to Howard:
05:25 PM - Time for a drink or two with my conference-hopper buddy Alex from Eventful and then on to see Howard speak.
05:25 PM - This is a really great photograph of a conference-goer checking out a hand-written list of all of the US soldiers that have died since the start of the conflict in Iraq. It is just one of very many photographs coming from this dude’s Photobucket feed.
05:03 PM – I spoke briefly with the ever-impressive Michael Silberman of Echo Ditto. He talked briefly about the work he’s doing at present for the 1Sky Education Fund. It is a fascinating organization, well-worth checking out, that is focused on climate change and organizing using the “Internet and old-fashioned neighbor-to-neighbor outreach.”
04:25 PM – A hilarious piece of Kevin Bondelli’s blog post today:
A funny thing just happened. A couple of guys were walking by in the hotel that weren’t associated with Netroots Nation, and one says to the other: “there are a lot of people in this hotel using laptops, huh.” I bet this lobby looks really strange to people that don’t realize that there is a blogger conference going on.
04:16 PM – Netroots Nation is huge. The Austin Convention Center is huge. These people’s ambitions are huge. I saw in the comment section of someone’s blog a joking statement about bumping into all of the wide-eyed newbies. I, indeed, am one of those wide-eyed newbies.
03:02 PM – At a session with Blogs United about best practices, etc.
03:00 PM – Another great piece about Netroots Nation. This one is featured in The Center for Media and Democracy.
01:30 PM – At a Democracy for America training on crafting campaign messaging:
01:40 PM - Great article in the Dallas Morning News about Netroots Nation.
01:34 PM - Haven’t eaten in nearly 12 hours, thus I am thankful that Wired For Change was somehow responsible for getting a bag of chips into the free crap bag that you’re given at conferences. I’m also grateful to whoever thought to put a fortune cookie in there, though it was smashed to hell before it got to me. There’s also a condom from Center for Constitutional Rights. I wonder how many folks at this internet and politics event are going to put that to use.
01:00 PM - There was a rally today featuring Howard Dean, who will also later this evening deliver the keynote address. Some reports say that the numbers there were at around 100 people but I got the sense that it was much more than that. He fired up all of the congregating liberals like it was 2003 again. Heeeeya! [A special thanks to Robert Harding from The Albany Project for the photo]
12:43 PM – I am excited for the Dean speech this evening. There’s still a lot of buzzing about Pelosi and how she’ll address the I-word issue. Further, we’re excited that we’ll be talking with Larry Lessig about Change Congress on Saturday. Stay tuned.
12:36 PM – I want a taco.
11:11 AM – It looks like I spoke way too soon. The hotel is standing firmly in my way. The bureaucracy gods are keeping me down.
10:19 AM – After a nearly Homeric trek from Boston, Massachusetts to Austin, Texas, I am finally in town and nearing a place where I might be able to actually get over to the Austin Convention Center — So long as a bank, a Jet Blue flight delay, or a disgruntled hotel employee doesn’t stand in my way, I should be there shortly.
Despite puppy mills being legal and licensed in the U.S. by the Department of Agriculture, animal activists in L.A. are gearing up to take on pet stores they claim are in business with said mills. Rather than engaging in theatrics, the group will operate education tables outside of the stores they have indicted.
Last Chance for Animals and Best Friends Animal Society, two animal welfare groups working together on this issue, will set up education tables outside of pet stores where they will inform patrons of the origins of where the animals come from. They will feature photographs of the conditions in which the animals are purportedly bred and offer shoppers general information about puppy mills.
In contrast to the action we highlighted yesterday’s news report, this technique is especially interesting. Yesterday we highlighted a protest organized by the I.W.W. Starbucks Union—one that placed some focus on the theatrics of political theater. This back and forth between the effectiveness of tactics reminds me a bit of the debate inspired by the piece by Sally Kohn published in the Christian Science Monitor last week (that nearly the whole of the Millennial activist community chimed in on) about whether or not modern activism is effective because it doesn’t have the Situationist sheen of old activism.
Yesterday I stated that it would seem it makes more sense to bring a large group together and inform/impress with a presence rather than to bring together a small group of people and turn off spectators with confused imagery and political theater. Confusion is fine if irony and chaos is what a group is trying to convey, but if there is a message and it is distorted by an unwillingness to connect with onlookers, this is an unnecessary waste of resources. While political theater is not being denied recognition of its importance, applying it to every protest scenario might be ill-advised.
The animal groups appear to be striking an interesting middle ground by coming together to provide a small collective interested in educating the public rather than overwhelming the public or establishment with a presence. As it seems the group’s goal is to discourage support of puppy mills, and since they likely won’t be able to set up a stick-and-carrot model in which supporters agree to buy X so long as the store doesn’t provide Y (in this case, milled puppies), this appears to be a sensible way to engage with patrons.
In your experience, which is the better way to demonstrate? Is theater necessary for informing onlookers? Or is a more concentrated, person-to-person effort important? What, as an onlooker, do you find you’re more compelled to pay attention to when passing a demonstration?
Also in eAction news:
-Filed in News
Update: Part 2 is posted — a video preview of campaign creation (7/14/08)
This April, after six months in beta, we stopped and asked ourselves, “Knowing what we know now, if we started The Point today from scratch, what would it look like?” Later this month, we’re releasing a major upgrade that answers that question.
In brief, these changes make The Point simpler, more flexible, and easier to integrate as a tool for other online communities. We’ve also added a few new ideas, steps forward in our understanding of campaigns that yield powerful new applications.
This is the first in a series of posts that will showcase the changes in our upcoming release. Please let us know what you think!
The Point was designed to allow people with a shared problem to find each other, reach critical mass, and exercise their power – by boycott, strike, or some other collective action – to not merely ask for change, but force it. So instead of acting by yourself to stop a t-shirt company from using sweatshops, organize with other customers, and start a boycott only once enough join for the boycott to be a greater cost than legitimate labor.
Our users, however, observed another technique of persuasion: Instead of threatening to take business away, promise to bring it. Show that t-shirt company how many new customers they’d gain by changing policy. It’s a perfect compliment to The Point’s toolkit. Ultimatum campaigns are the “stick,” and this gives us the “carrot.”
We think of carrot campaigns as petitions evolved. By backing your demand with the promise of action, you’re not just asking for change, you’re showing how it can be in everyone’s best interest. Here are a few examples:
It’s easy to cook up a carrot campaign for nearly any situation. They’re no more structurally complex than petitions, but far more powerful. This is in contrast to ultimatum campaigns, which often demand up-front research to determine a tipping point that satisfies the cost-benefit analysis.
And notably, carrot campaigns are a nice way to induce change. This is particularly useful for dealing with small businesses, where you want to engage your target in something that feels more like a conversation than an argument.
Carrot campaigns are a logical extension of The Point’s big idea: Create the conditions for collective action to be worthwhile, and people will participate.
Coming up in part 2, we’ll preview the new interface for starting campaigns.

-Filed in The Point