Tag Archives: collective action

Quote of the Week: Why the Web Was Won

Have you ever been in a meeting and someone tells you: We aren’t in the behavior change business, we just want to raise awareness? You are not alone. Put take heart, there are those who know better. Especially in the times of the Web, behavior change–and micro-choices that lead to a great action–are even more possible.

In a post titled Designing for Networks, Mike Arauz captures the potential of the Web–beyond its ability to be a distribution channel, beyond its ability to influence and beyond its use in achieving awareness:

If you only use the Internet in order to raise awareness, and perhaps to influence perception, then you are missing out on what the Web was made for: to enable large networks of people to come together for effective purposes through sharing, cooperating, and organizing collective action.

It might have been okay to work towards just “awareness” in the past, but with today’s technology, we can achieve more. I believe that the Web increases our ability to measure, evaluate and influence behavior change. The thing is: Behavior change is no longer on the same playing field. Just like journalism is evolving and the media, the way we influence behavior change and achieve behavior change has evolved. We, as practitioners, must evolve with it. I recently came across another quote that embodies this belief from one of the TurningPoint Collaborative’s PDFs, The Basics of Social Marketing:

The process of heightening awareness, shifting attitudes, and strengthening knowledge is valuable if, and only if, it leads to action.

Why do we want someone to know to exercise, eat right, and get their vaccines? Because we want them to act on that knowledge to prevent disease. Why do we want teens to know that drinking impairs their ability to drive? Because we don’t want them to drink and drive and hurt themselves or others.

Your Challenge

This week, think about why the Web was won. Sure–it can house knowledge and be a database of information–but it is more and can be more for you, your organization and your cause. Think about your bottom line–What is it you want to accomplish? Solve? Create? End? Start? Because at some level it involves behavior, especially if you are working in a Web environment. Do you want people to click on a certain link, read a certain story, donate to your causes—these are all online behaviors.

PS: Do you like these challenges? Are these helpful? I want to help you in being effective. And, I know I like prompts–do you?

Debate Continues: Does anonymity hurt social media success?

As mentioned in my previous post, I read an interesting article by Dan Tynan titled: For Change, Use a Wiki. This particular article grabbed my attention not because of its discussion about wikis, but because of two other main points Tynan makes:

  1. Collaborative web sites are becoming tools for social change…driving collective work into collective action.
  2. The other reason this article grabbed my attention was because it brought up the issue of anonymity when dealing with collective action and social change by asking the question:

Does anonymity injure a social media initiative’s success?

Tynan not only talks about wikis potential good for social change, but also warns that this collective action can too easily mean collective anonymity.

With collective anonymity, it is harder to identify who is doing what and why. It is like an added shield of protection in someways in that with anonymity, accountability is lacking. This is especially dangerous when it comes to collective think.

Now, you’re probably thinking, “Miss SocialButterfly, you are anonymous.” I am already ahead of you. I am open to disclosing who I am. If someone contacts me or asks me, and there is professional relationship-building occurring, then I will openly share who I am, what I am doing and why. Plus, I am an individual.

Thus, onto this question at hand. The article continues acknowledging that there will always be ill-intentioned individuals and groups out in existence and is optimistic that the good, the changebloggers and agents for good, will outnumber the bad.

Tynan gave two credentials for how to separate the pack for well-intentioned and ill-intentioned motives. The good will not be anonymous because A) They care about their online reputations and B) Want to collaborate for social change.

In conclusion, Tynan quotes quotes Andrew Hopping, Community Liaison for NASA’s CoLab wiki who shared:

“As with any technology, there are benevolent uses and malevolent ones. In any community I’m part of there’s little patience for people who want to stay anonymous. Our goal is to create a vibrant, transparent, and effective federal agency. To cause any form of social change, it starts with and ends with people you trust. Anonymity doesn’t lend itself to that at all.”

Where do you stand? Can social change be accomplished despite anonymity?