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.
Because of young people’s potential buying and voting power, their opinions loom large. They can topple a company if they decide en masse to take their business elsewhere. They can affect a presidential election if the vast majority of them cast their ballots for the same candidate.
Legislators commonly tell their advocates that they “support” their organization generally, that they “would like to learn more” about their issue, and that they can get behind one aspect of their legislative proposal but not another part of it, which leaves them in a liminal commitment zone. How do they manage parity influence?
Take a closer look at what you’re measuring (and why).
Present-day politicians and corporate executives often see negative articles in the media, read false allegations on Facebook and Twitter, and quickly decide these attacks require a response. Then, in their efforts to set the record straight or shut down the opposition, they draw more attention to the charges.
Our biennial Grassroots Influence Pulse (GRIP) research was established to obtain a benchmark of current trends in grassroots influence tactics, the time and money being directed to various grassroots techniques, and most important, the trends in how members of Congress are responding (or not) to grassroots influence strategies.
Having a strong, consistent brand for your grassroots program is essential when motivating people to take action on behalf of your issue.