Archive for the ‘Issue Advocacy’ Category

Borneo Blogging

by Cheryl Contee | Thursday, November 9th, 2006


Baby_orangutan

Photo: IFAW

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) is currently on the scene at a natural disaster — forest fires in Borneo, Indonesia. People are impacted and so are orangutans. On their Animal Rescue Blog, which we helped them setup, you can get firsthand accounts and amazing Flickr photos. It is helping to increase awareness in the U.S. and in the media about what’s happening there.

It’s a great use of streaming photos and narrative in the blog format with an incredible sense of urgency.  The impact to start:

  • An Associated Press story that quotes Jennifer Miller, lead blogger.
  • A post mention and links to all stories to date from one of the most popular animal-focused blogs, An Animal-Friendly Life
  • On the Care2 News Network, a social networking news site similar to Digg, 2 front page stories chosen by several dozen votes from online readers. Care2 News reaches the heart of their target audience.

IFAW is using their blog to reach out. The blog is just one new way to tell people about their brave and sometimes dangerous work rescuing animals in need when no one else can help.  The Animal Rescue Blog is putting a new face on IFAW’s issue advocacy.

Why the Wikipedia Matters

by John Breyault | Tuesday, September 26th, 2006

Did you know that the first place that an every-growing number of Internet users go to get educated about a company is no longer the company’s website?  Instead, more and more users are heading for the Wikipedia entry first to get an overview of the organization.  To get an idea of the importance of the Wikipedia, here are some interesting statistics:

  • The Wikipedia is the 17th most trafficked site on the Internet, according to Alexa.com’s rankings; and is more popular than Amazon.com, Craigslist.org,  CNN.com, and Flickr.com.
  • The Wikipedia contains over 1.4 million English language articles and more than 3.8 million articles total in over 100 languages.
  • By comparison, the entire 32 volume Encyclopedia Britannica contains a paltry 65,000 articles.

The collaborative nature of the Wikipedia is what has made it so influential and far-ranging.  Anyone can start an article on any topic and can edit any existing article.  From a public relations point of view, this is both a blessing and a curse. 

On the plus side, this means that the Wikipedia is an easily accessible medium for decision makers to quickly get educated about practically any issue, company, or prominent individual.  It enables brand managers to affect the portrayal of their brand on this critical medium.  Inaccuracies and attacks on a brand can quickly be addressed and corrected.

Many of these qualities which make the Wikipedia such an incredible tool also make it problematic from a branding point of view.  Since anyone can add new and edit existing entries, people who seek to damage a brand can quickly and effectively do so via its Wikipedia entry.  Due to the Wikipedia’s collaborative, open nature, there is very little editorial oversight, thus requiring vigorous self-policing of the site.  In addition, inaccurate content that has been removed remains in the history tab for others to review later.  These are just a few of the reasons that many scholars doubt the ultimate reliability of the Wikipedia.

That said, the Wikipedia’s reach and influence are undeniable.  In an online environment where literally thousands of blogs, discussion boards, and websites are discussing brands, the Wikipedia is a critical juncture of brand-related content. 

From the Shameless Plug Department: Issue Dynamics offers a comprehensive suite of Wiki-related services.  For more information, contact Cheryl Contee.

Taking Sides on Taking Sides

by Blogger Relations | Tuesday, August 2nd, 2005

There’s trouble all around the world

Well, it looks that way to me

People don’t know what to do

They don’t know where they should be

But just one question still remains

To which we must respond

Two roads lead from where we are

Which side are you on?

Which Side, words and music by Arlo Guthrie

Over the last few months, there has been some debate over Internet political vendors and which side they are on. John at AmericaBlog went after Convio and Capital Advantage.

In the last couple of days, bloggers including Kate Kaye at Personal Democracy Forum and Dunc at Political Asylum have jumped on a Roll Call story going after RightClick Strategies.

Before I go any further,  I should disclose that over the years we have worked with Convio, Capital Advantage and RightClick (we sponsored a Blogger Relations conference with them a few weeks ago).

So which side am I on?

I think there is a big difference between consultants that sell strategy and software companies that sell technology. The challenge is when companies try to do both and that is where every company in this market will need to pick sides – not between left and right, but between being strategic consultants and technology vendors.

In 1993, when IDI started our Internet practice, the market was so small (both sellers and buyers) we had no choice, but to be both strategic consultants and a technology vendor. As the market for Internet political services has matured, most of the vendors have picked sides with companies like GetActive, Convio and Capital Advantage siding with technology and companies like IDI siding with strategic advice ( In February of this year, we sold our technology business to GetActive).

While the marketing materials of some of the pure technology companies makes it appear that they play a role in their clients strategy, the reality is that they are no more strategic then an arms dealer. While the the decision to buy certain weapons is strategic (along with when, where and how to use them) the weapons in and of themselves are not.

As strategic consultants we help our clients win, clearly if we were helping their political opponents it would be a disservice to our clients.  We also would be providing a disservice to our clients if we did not recommend the best technology to match their strategic goals regardless of that technologies other users.