The Informed Activist

In a recent blog post, Alexandra Rampy comes to the proud realization that she is an activist and that the key ingredient to being an activist is to “act.”

I agree wholeheartedly, but I also think that we need to apply Seth Godin’s advice in his blog post on the dangers of asking for something before we know what we actually want and before we have a sense of how our prospect will react to our request.

I recently had a conversation with a colleague about how exciting it is to work with senior high school and undergraduate university students on social issues. As a rule, these audiences are excitable, energetic, and full of idealism and (often) excellent ideas. Their excitement is infectious. Then, once they get supercharged on an issue, they have the time and enthusiasm to really do something: to really ACT.

…and act quickly, as they rarely have jobs/children/mortgages to temper their daily routines.

This haste and passion can quickly generate a room full of headless chickens.

To be clear…that isn’t good.

“Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks that it is his own.”--Sydney J. Harris.

In fact, wanton action is not only "amusingly arrogant," but is often counter productive to the social cause. Too many of the new recruits will re-invent the wheel and then feel frustrated as they watch it spin without traction.

When I first started my own company, I wanted to go out and conquer the world (and my fears!) with great social change brought about by skill and informed investment. However, the first step I took was to take it slow. I read widely about social marketing, re-affirming my knowledge and offering me new insights. I looked for competitors and collaborators, and then researched each of them before calling them. I went to job interviews, in part to practice my ability to pitch myself, and my services. I reflected on what I wanted to keep as my focus in the business, and in my life.

My personal reflection leads me to propose that before becoming a social activist, there are several important preparatory steps to take:

1. Research the history of your cause. Here is where the Internet makes a month of research possible in a few days (or weeks, once you find out how interesting social change can be!). Know at least a little about major milestones, current challenges, and a little bit about “the competing views” so that you can prepare your thoughts, arguments, and position. This also will identify opportunities for you to fill voids in the actions currently underway.

2. Know the lexicon. Labels, language and jargon are regrettably part of every field, cause or movement. In order to understand the issues, speak to your audience, or to colleagues, you will need a firm grasp about the words being used to describe theories, actions, and ideas.

3. Forget the lexicon. Once you know the jargon, try NOT to use it. This advice sounds argumentative, but your key public audiences will likely not have a glossary of terms to which they can refer when they hear about your action.

4. Research the experts. Learn about the leaders and key players in the field, if any, and know their interests. Contact them directly, if you feel that you have something to share with them, or if you feel they can help propel your ideas forward.

5. Start in a minor role. Don’t assume that you’ll be the champion of the movement right away. Chances are that there are many capable minds who have considered this cause their own for years. As a minor player, you can have a voice, and you can learn from the mentors in the field. It also makes the new activist credible.

6. THEN ACT.

Of course, many great activists have expedited this process, often out of necessity. For some, their gender or their ethnicity, or their social status or place in history allowed them to have implicit knowledge—or even personal experience—about the cause, the language and the relevant supporters, peers, or adversaries.

However, I contend that all successful activists will have considered, either implicitly or explicitly, the necessary preparation before they became truly useful to their chosen cause.

In the example of working with youth, then, the challenge is to bridle their enthusiasm with knowledge without extinguishing their flame; this is the only way for the new wave of activist to successfully guide their roles in social change.

Word of Mouth

Seth Godin Prediction: 90% of your sales will come from word of mouth or digital promotion by 2011. How do you change what you're doing today to be ready for that?

How does a charitable cause develop word of mouth promotion?
Web 2.0? Using the dizzying array of new tools?
Face to face? Facing the uncertainty of contract staff?
Door to Door? Regressing to the use of paid armies?
Events? Embracing sponsorship and crossing our fingers?
Perks? Invitations to the hockey game? Seriously?
Speaking tours? Overcoming time and travel constraints?
Viral campaigns? Using our donors to sell?
Something new? What can we do?

In the last decade, I’ve witnessed a series of trends in charities, all of which make the above list of “opportunities” less plausible:

1. The retraction of voluntary armies because of costs. Maintaining volunteers is not free. It requires dedicated staff time, the ability to support volunteers, and a vision of how to use volunteers to effectively to promote ideas and campaigns.

2. The decreased ability to afford travel in Canada. Travel budgets for charities are small. In a country the size of Canada, that means that it is very difficult to afford to pay for a staff member (or volunteer) to have a face to face relationship with anyone outside of the head office region.

3. Closure of regional offices to cut back expenses? Rent, computers, staffing, overheads. These are the inescapable facts of running an office in a region, and these costs increase with inflation and are a typical target in annual short term accounting which is required in most charities.

4. Lack of knowledge or even a fear of the speed of change in the online landscape? Facebook, according to the Washington Post, is a bad fundraising vehicle, but blogs may be required for fundraising communications and cultivation. Charities are in the business of helping address social needs, not mastering social media.

5. Minimizing staff costs? Charities are trying to shrink the HR budget. People are costly, anyone in business knows this. If charities can keep only core staff, then they can generate a better return on charitable investments…in the accounting office, at least.

6. Outsourcing donor relations work. Toll free lines, charitable processing, receipting are now typically being done by for-profit call centers and streamlined, high tech administration conglomerates. Again, this choice looks good on a spreadsheet, but how do you develop a one-to-one relationship with a donor through a third party administer?

So in a world where charities are paring down costs, word of mouth promotion is a costly proposition. How does one build and sustain relationships one-to-one, if that is the prediction of the future?

Charitable causes have been spoiled by relatively successful non-profit marketing through mass media, direct mail, and DRTV in the last decades. I’m sure some charities would challenge me on that assertion, but costs of acquiring and renewing donors in direct mail may seem expensive, but is a fraction of the costs of word of mouth acquisition without volunteer labour.

Many in the fundraising world will argue against Seth Godin, as direct mail revenues are not falling so precipitously as his prediction might suggest. Nonetheless, when I look at the behavior of anyone under 40 today with respect to their consumer choices, their philanthropic ventures or even how they carry themselves, they are influenced by peer pressure or very personalized marketing. Even advertising messages are trying to mimick a one-to-one relationship through personal testimonials, personality advertising, and very rarely through the mail, or even through email.

I believe Seth Godin's prediction, although I don’t agree on his timeframe. I honestly believe that charities need to work with their supporters to build more supporters. Viral campaigns work. There are various models out there: telephone pre-call, reminder call, followed by mailing a package of paper solicitations for donors to pass along to friends and family. Another is the “pass this email along.” Yet another is to develop “widgets” (little graphic identifiers with a hyperlink to a cause) for people to put on their webpage, Facebook profile, myspace page, or blog. All of these ideas are worth testing for charities.

And they should be tested today, not in five years, after direct mail acquisition and retention costs go through the roof.

Resources on film as a social marketing tool

As promised, here is an annotated list of websites that offer great resources on the use of film for social change:

www.voicesofhope.tv is the website of a film production company that is dedicated to “leaving a legacy within our lifetime.” It features information on documentary film making, actual clips, instruction on advocacy, and resources for social marketing campaigns.

www.dogooder.tv is like YouTube for causes. All the films are worth watching. There just isn’t the “noise” of junk on YouTube. www.linktv.org is another site where independent documentaries are broadcast online, along with the independent film channel at www.ifc.com and Wide Angle at www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle.

www.itvs.org is the Independent Television Service, which funds and produces films for public broadcasting. This site offers funding opportunities for independent film makers, offers some films for viewing online, and links to many independent broadcasters. Of note is the series they produced for PBS called Independent Lens www.pbs.org/independentlens

www.centerforsocialmedia.org is the excellent website of the American University Center for Social Media in Washington, DC. “Helping people make media that matters” is featured on the home page, and the site has many resources on web tools, legal issues, media planning and relevant events and conferences. The site assumes that media includes all forms of media, not only film.

www.workingfilms.org “Working Films advances social, economic, environmental and racial justice by linking independent non-fiction media to activism.” The good folks at working films are the lubricant between documentary film makers and partnerships with civil society organizations with the express goal of improving social justice.

www.activevoice.net This is a site that puts “a human face on public policy” through film. They also include discussion guides and suggestions on how to maximize the reach of film for social change. Of particular interest is the joint project with the Ford Foundation called “Beyond the Choir” which investigates the challenge of getting films viewed by a greater audience than the converted.

www.witness.org This is the website for Witness, an NGO that specifically works to document footage for use in documentaries and other media, in order to affect change in policy and opinion on international human rights issues.

www.takepart.com This is a site inviting socially minded individuals to act for the benefit of the social good in one of many causes. It is one of many social activist sites that features the use of video. Note also that there is an active blog on this site.

Here is a resource and reading list created by Roberta Osler Sachs in support of her course on “Producing Films for Social Change” at Tufts University.

www.projectthinkdifferent.org “Our mission is to create a renaissance in the media arts that increases civic engagement by empowering people to think differently and think BIG about their role as citizens and agents of change.” Based out of Boston.

www.spunout.ie is a youth oriented social action website based out of Ireland. It uses film to support various international causes from child labour to famine.

Here is a list of some of the most notable documentary films of history. A great place to start research on film titles.

www.johnpilger.com This site is the home of a Australian (now London based) documentary film maker and journalist. Although this site promotes his work (for sale), his commentary and experience on the use of documentaries to foment change is interesting. (if a bit socialist in tone)

Taking documentary films to the people

Last week, I was a guest of the Britdoc Foundation at The Good Pitch at HOTDOCs in Toronto, an event designed to allow documentary film makers, key decision makers in the charitable sector, media, funders and interested observers to meet in order to maximize the effectiveness of documentary films as a medium for social change.

As I’ve mentioned before documentary films offer thought provoking, incisive perspectives on some of societies global challenges (and oddities!), but too often these films “sing to the choir.” Their audiences are self selecting: this is a case of the educated simply reaffirming their knowledge and beliefs.

The challenge, then, is to broaden the scope of the audience.

Sounds like a social marketing challenge.

In search of an answer, I discussed the issue with Roberta Osler Sachs, a former journalist and producer at Dateline, NBC in the US. She lectures widely on the role of documentaries and media as tools for social change. The complimentary perspectives of a seasoned journalist and a charity alumnus generated the initial criteria necessary for what we dubbed “the modern documentary.”

First, we had to clarify the difference between advocacy films and documentaries. Advocacy films are normally sanctioned by an interest group and offer a compelling, yet fundamentally biased (or singular), perspective on an issue. A true documentary is an unbiased collection of facts that lead the film maker to “document” their findings without a pre-ordained point of view.

To summarize: in documentaries the message is distilled from the research and footage, and in advocacy films the footage and research confirm the message.

However, we humans are dreadfully flawed. Even the most altruistic among us will invariably have a perspective on an issue, and reinforce whatever perspective we believe to be the truth.

And therein lies the massive grey area in which, I argue, most documentaries exist.

Documentaries are not unbiased, and they direct a viewer’s understanding of an issue. Assuming this implicit bias to be true, then presumably the film maker would like to see something change as a result of their “findings.”

Roberta and I agreed that the landscape in which modern documentaries are being developed is changing, and changing rapidly. We felt there are several factors:

1. Peoples’ attention spans are shorter. A nine-hour epic documentary like Shoah (1985) would likely be a futile artistic endeavor in today’s world.

2. There is a sense of “tragedy overload” and that creates a changing landscape where many viewers want to avoid reality rather than learn more about the failings of humanity.

3. Nobody accepts one point of view. We have become a world of skeptics, who presume that there is an agenda behind every action. We know that the world is neither black nor white, but a million shades of grey and messages that don’t acknowledge both sides of a story may be quickly dismissed.

4. There is a rise in “citizen journalism.” Who needs a production team, a director, or an editor when we have the internet? Anyone with a handheld camera and a computer can document their perspective on the human condition. This is where the world of social media increases both the development and distribution of the sublime to the ridiculous. With this change, there is a demise in the use of some traditional media (especially newspapers!) and less reliance on funding sources, and arguably less focus on quality, and more on quantity.

5. Associated with shorter attention spans is the increased “noise” on issues. In order to compete with this information apocalypse, there is a literal and metaphorical miniaturizing of worthwhile messages; does truncating the content also marginalize the message?

To address this new world, the documentary needs to at least acknowledge these trends. Documentaries are the result of the vision, passion, conviction (and often bravery) of the film maker(s) and creative control must remain in their hands, but for the documentary to light a social spark, the audience needs to be consulted (or at least addressed).

Given our jaded analysis of the landscape, we propose a few features necessary for the success of the “modern documentary” in generating social change:

1. Give balanced options for action. The documentary must offer the audience a variety of activities as an outlet. The film experience can’t stop when the lights come up. The action doesn’t necessarily need to be a charitable toll free number for donations, but there must be a set of proposed actions for the newly informed. Not only does this propel the viewer to employ their newly discovered information, it also engages them, and makes the film more interesting as a holistic experience. The key to this is to present several, simple options: further reading, Third Sector partners, ways to contact decision-makers/government, directions to further discussions, or even alternative perspectives on the issue.

2. Segment the film. In marketing terms, audience segmentation refers to generating different messages or using different media to reach different audiences (by age, demographics, education, gender, etc). Documentary films, historically, are edited to be one length (with a possible trailer for marketing purposes), and shown on the big screen. The modern documentary ought to have several cuts featuring material for different audiences that are varying in length. For example, there may be a 5 minute children’s version, a 9 minute web version that can be downloaded to a portable media player for tweens and teens, a 23 minute (½ hour on commercial TV) version for the cable station audience, and the full 90 minute version for the big screen.

3. Integrate with other media. Documentary films don’t draw audiences by themselves. There needs to be a buzz about a film that generates a viral effect. This buzz can be accelerated by some creative blogging, media engagement, film festivals, interactive web content, online challenges or contests, petitions, or even marketing swag for the film: T-shirts, downloadable screen savers, signed scripts, etc. The purpose of the swag is not to generate revenue, but to generate audience ownership of the film’s brand. (the film title or a symbolic image needs to become cool in a kind of “alternative way,” like Hush Puppies, or the Sex Pistols)

4. Avoid advertorials or obvious advocacy films. Intelligent audiences want to be skeptical and criticize your art. Don’t give them an easy target. Encourage them think about all sides of the issue.

5. Embrace citizen journalism. If the movie is about the strength of women in adversity (keep an eye out for Resilience which is currently in production), then encourage viewers to submit their own stories about strong women in their lives. Let the viewer add their voice to the film’s message through “develop your own film for our site” campaigns. This is just one suggestion on how to encourage your viewers to become integral to the issue in your film. If you make it matter to them, then they will want to make it matter to others.

As a last note, I watched a film at HOTDOCs call Sergio, based upon the book Chasing the Flame by Samantha Power, which documented the dramatic life and death of one of the most extraordinary international citizens, Sérgio Vieira de Mello.

In doing my part to practice what I preach, I encourage you to view this film because it speaks about all of our responsibilities in a global society, the roles of the international actors like the US and the UN, and about the need to take risks to bring about social change. You can also visit this site to learn about ways in which you can participate in honoring Sergio’s legacy and speak your mind about the issues raised in the film. Or you can make financial contributions to support ongoing efforts to build peace through the international community here.

The big screen "documentary"

W.
JFK
Titanic
Charlie Wilson’s War
Frost/Nixon

Here’s a way to make documentaries sell:

Fictionalize them and pawn them off as a historical drama.

The audience won’t know what actually happened. Be sure to throw in some famous quotations, actual settings, and factual news headlines and the line between your fiction and reality will soon blur. Your audience will feel the heady rush of drama and they will naturally link their experience with what really happened. (or vice versa)

Historical fiction is a well respected and very entertaining genre in books, but when it gets promoted on the big screen, it becomes somehow more real.

Aside: I suppose it is ironic that a current movie star playing a historical role makes the characters become MORE real to the audience.

Nonetheless, movies allow our perception of historical figures to be no longer based upon a passage that we embellish with our imagination. Characters on film are flesh and blood…and invariably more handsome or beautiful than reality.

Most of us would accept that James Bond didn’t exist, as these films are pure fiction. Sure, some might argue that Mr. Bond was based upon Ian Flemming’s knowledge of the British Secret Service but the character has been fictionalized by superhuman feats of daring, courage, and amour –and recently a grittiness—that couldn’t possibly be real.

The danger, then, is not the film that uses exaggeration obviously to build drama. The danger is the film that exaggerates quietly between facts. The use of creative license allows for a retelling and possible reshaping of history, as long as there is enough truth to make the story plausible.

So how does this rant feature on a social marketing blog, you ask?

I’ve written already about the power of documentaries to affect social change, and it lead me to critically consider the more popular movies that recount (pun intended) history. People’s actions are actually informed by fiction. This is a worrying trend, and one that even I, too, found myself falling victim.

I watched W., directed by the respected and talented Oliver Stone (read: presumed credible), and I was entertained and outraged (read: smugly satisfied). I found myself feeling mad at the jealousy, arrogance and ignorance of the namesake character.

The problem is, I was tilting at windmills.

The character I watched may, or may not, have actually represented George Dubya. Sure, Josh Grobin looked and sounded like the former president, and I don’t doubt that some of the scenes may have been reasonable facsimiles of history, as drinking at college—even alcoholism—although unfortunate, isn’t uncommon in our society. Did he fall in love with Laura? Presumably. Was it at a garden party? Quite possibly. Did she go all doe-eyed when they met? Maybe. Was she always so supportive? We’ll never know.

When social marketers use media of any sort to share ideas, retell history, or package facts in such a way to engage an audience, we need to be mindful of the “silver screen” effect; that is to say, that we need to be sure to separate fact from fiction in the name of entertainment.

Packaging information to make it effective must not blur its truth.