The|Intangibles

Astroturfing

I am ambivalent about the idea of corporate "front groups" or what is more pejoratively labeled 'astroturfing'. Misrepresentation of any sort is just too dangerous a communications or lobbying strategy when every citizen, employee or bureaucrat can be a whistleblower or journalist.

The issue was raised again last week when I came across a 'Front Groups Portal' wiki, a SourceWatch project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD. . . a biased and uni-dimensional advocacy group -- with a url called prwatch.org -- which nevertheless keeps corporate communicators on their toes.) The purpose of the wiki is to expose groups which claim “to represent one agenda while in reality (serving) some other interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned -- typically, a corporate or government sponsor.”

As an aside, you got to hand it to the CMD. Using a wiki for the purpose of "exposing" makes a lot of sense. When it comes to advocating a point of view, for some campaigners, NGOs and watchdogs facts are less important than the way they can be used to serve ideology. (Look at the situation Barrick Gold finds itself in today.) Unedited and unsupervised wikis can encourage the primacy of 'doxa' rather than rational analysis. Innuendo and rumor become fair game.

But What About Astroturfing?

First principle here . . . There is nothing wrong with creating a coalition of like-minded companies to present a coherent, well-defended and honest point of view about a social or political issue. Business creates wealth and therefore has a right to attempt to influence policy. Governments are fallible when it comes to writing regulation. Partisan politics can distort effective public policy. And few advocacy groups are willing to admit their science is sometimes shaky; their motivation driven by ideology; their "proofs" less than rigorously questioned internally.

Spirited exchanges of ideas are essential to effective economics and democracy. Like labor, business leaders have a right to organize responsible support for, or opposition to, a trend, decision or policy: the pivotal word, of course being responsible. And responsible organizations shouldn't tolerate misrepresentation. Here are five ideas to avoid astroturfing, to remain real not fake.

Five Ideas for Creating Defensible Industry Coalitions

1. Be transparent. Always. Without having to be asked or told you are not being so.
2. Be honest. Don't name a group 'concerned citizens' when it is really a group of 'angry industry executives'.
3. Treat opposing viewpoints with respect. Nothing undermines bias or radicalism like valuing the contribution of the activist even if convictions differ.
4. Take the rhetoric out of the coalition's communications. The contrast between an opponent's overstatement and a reasonable presentation of fact will be recognized by the people whose opinions matter.
5. Defend the value in a democracy of the freedom of association . . . even for business leaders.

Social Network Activism

On Friday, I wrote about a Black Dog Strategic's point of view on next generation social networks, and  declining participation in Facebook.

I don't find the decline at all surprising. Neither does it dissuade me from the belief that social networks are changing the nature of democratic action, of social intervention, of public policy formation, of grassroots activism, of organized advocacy.

Here are two criticisms of social networking that miss the point about its potential to cause harm or to extend influence, both of which should concern public relations and public affairs people. (For the full catalogue of complaints see Mr. Owyang's post from last week.)

Criticism One: Not all "friends" on MySpace or Facebook represent close personal relationships.

• We all know this is true, but it doesn't mean that other kinds of political or socially motivated relationships can't be formed on the platform. The ability of the platform to facilitate ad hoc, issue- driven associations will be a critical factor in issue management strategies in the future.
• The ties between "friends" on Facebook may be weak, and the infrastructure of the connections easily ruptured. But when something is sufficiently troubling for a community of interest, then there is a platform which facilitates connection and helps rally seamlessly and quickly a network of associations around common cause. That used to take a matter of days and weeks. Ask any activist. Now it takes a matter of minutes to begin a "campaign".

Criticism Two: According to Business Week "Besides the slowing user growth and declining time spent on these sites, users appear to be growing less responsive to ads, according to several advertisers and online placement firms."

• Social networks may provide opportunities for marketers and advertisers, although frankly this doesn't interest me. If we think the only measure of their success and sustainability is the extent to which they can be used to sell products, then we'll miss their potentially more durable value as a demos, a place for the exchange of opinions and ideas. Not much has been made of this dimension yet except -- amusingly -- by U.S. politicians and social activists. However, the potential is there; it would be silly to give up on them yet

Here are three campaigns that may have made a difference, caused an organization harm or at least caught our attention for a time . . . and as such may be models for new  forms of activism:

1. "Generation Facebook is using the Net not only to pledge online support for causes, but to take action in the real world." (Business Week, February 14, 2008)
2. “Stop the Great HSBC Graduate Rip-Off” (Trend Hunter, September 4, 2007)
3. "Stop animal testing in Nova Scotia" (Facebook Group)