Email ends in themselves

Decision makers, especially political ones, respond to public pressure. Sending a lot of emails to an MP has an effect, even if they moan about it. Visiting them in person has a much greater effect, but few have the confidence to arrange that meeting, oh and MPs moan about that too. Taking direct action to stop the decision maker making the wrong decision has an even greater effect, but tends to get you arrested, which means that even if you have that confidence, you can’t do it every week. There’s lots of other activism in between.

Next week folk will be debating mobilisation strategies, and perhaps supporter journeys, for the upcoming campaign, and my question is will that debate be focused on email activism as an end in itself. Is the purpose of the campaign to generate a huge amounts of emails to the target, and to use those email participants to recruit more people to email the target, and then to reiterate ad nauseum, and to repeat with different emails to different targets until the internet melts.

An entire industry has grown up around email advocacy, using the tools of the marketer and one wonders why. My prejudice is that it’s a reflection of the over professionalization of the campaigning caste. That somehow by adopting corporate tools, key performance indices, critical path analysis and endless tracking we will effect positive change.

The problem is that this leads us to only do the things that can be tracked. You can split test an emails subject line, to see what maximises the open rate. You can test how likely people are to respond on a Friday afternoon, vs. a Monday morning. You can plot the frequency of emails, to achieve a saturation effect, than is proportional to your unsubscribe rate, but what you can’t do, is to do so with passion, imagination and the insane ambition that we can achieve change.

My prejudice is that sending lots of emails, is simply an excuse to find people who care that can be inspired into doing something more than just sending emails. The thinking is not unique, there are lots of ladders of engagement out there, but we don’t seem to resource putting this into practice.

How does one value offline activism, or deeper online activism, against the clear numbers game of Avaaz and 38 degrees. What is the value of blockading the Department of Transport – the charges have just been dropped – or having 100 conversations with others in your local community?



Email actions lead ultimately to fundraising leads, but as a tool to effect change they become less effective with every one you send. As decision makers become overwhelmed with standard emails, how long before they say enough is too much. One has to assume that donors think the same.

And if we maximise our ROIs measured about the KPIs set by the same digital consultants the targets are using, then it simply becomes the money game that we will surely loose. We are after all vastly outnumbered by the corporates.

So as a tool email gives me the reach to find people to do offline activism, or new things yet