We live in an era where media is extraordinarily fragmented. Agenda shaping happens not only on cable networks but now on social networks. Public opinion is, for better or worse, shaped by thousands of micro conversations.
Most social media users are reluctant to share their views on politics and public affairs, particularly when they think their opinions differ from those of their friends.
For advocacy organizations, it is critical to understand two misconceptions: first, handwritten letters do not wield more influence on a member than email letters; and second, “form” emails and letters are not necessarily inferior to personalized ones, particularly when message volume is taken into consideration.
A group of anonymous individuals from within the US House of Representatives have posted a series of so-called ‘disruptive’ edits to various Wikipedia pages.
As advocacy professionals, we spend a lot of time deliberating how to craft and position messages that will resonate with our target audiences. What we tend to think less about, however, is what happens to these messages once they have been received; more specifically, how people converse with one another about the issues they hear and learn about