Oct
10
2015

Thunderclap Results (or lack thereof)

by Derek Blackadder

The following is a section of my regular column (Webwork) in the Canadian labour magazine Our Times. Eric thought it might be of interest and so…

ON HIS WAY TO THE EDUCATION International World Congress in Ottawa in July, Iranian teachers’ union leader Esmail Abdi was arrested by the Iranian police; detained without charge; likely tortured; and almost certainly thinking about the fate of his predecessor, Farzad Kamangar, who was executed after a trial lasting seven minutes.

Education International (EI), the global federation of unions in the education sector, together with the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), immediately unleashed a campaign to have Abdi freed. Included was an online action hosted on LabourStart and sponsored by EI. CTF also rolled out a Thunderclap action to further drive large numbers of people to LabourStart.

The sponsor of a Thunderclap gets as many people as possible to sign on to the clap. When signing on, people must give Thunderclap one-time-only access to their accounts. Then, at the sponsor-selected time, the same text (in this case a bilingual appeal to participate in the LabourStart action) booms out from dozens or hundreds or thousands of social media accounts.

The CTF Thunderclap campaign should have built faster than it did. The threshold for the action was pegged at 250 accounts. That’s accounts, not people, and I presume at least a few people registered two or more accounts like I did. Even so, we had to extend the deadline to meet our modest mark.

A trade unionist in prison for doing what you and I, and a whole lot of Canadians, do every day; the backing of the CTF, a reputable Canadian union with a ton of members and the sophistication to not only come up with a Thunderclap but also to make it work; and, as a bonus, the backing of a global union federation whose affiliates have tens of millions of members — why didn’t the Thunderclap catch fire?

Here’s why: Anything to do with Iran, including trade unionists in Iranian jails, makes people nervous. People try to avoid feeling nervous. So they don’t join an online action about Iran.

The plot thickens: People on the LabourStart mailing list joined, though, in big numbers. But not people targeted by the CTF’s appeal. LabourStart readers are used to international actions, and they’re used to getting something regularly, if not frequently, about Iran. Their sense of the place goes beyond media stories about nuclear programs and negotiations in Vienna.

CTF on the other hand, has an audience that knows it, and trusts it — an audience of no mean size. But not one that gets a lot of CTF appeals on the subject of Iran. That disconnect is enough, according to the teacher I spoke to. He signed on to the Thunderclap, but he’s certain none of his tweeting buds did, despite his (online-only) encouragement. CTF likely also faced the problem of its audience being off work, and therefore a bit disconnected, during the summer.

Which brings me to the second barrier the campaign faced: A lack of trust. Not in the CTF, not at all. But in Thunderclap.

Giving Thunderclap access to our accounts, especially now that we can log in everywhere using our Facebook account information, is a big hurdle to get over. A really big hurdle.

Now, to what really matters — the numbers at the back end. All the effort the CTF folks and their affiliates put into the Thunderclap generated access to Twitter and Facebook accounts connected to an audience numbering almost 345,000 people.

So, how many new solidarity emails did the Thunderclap generate in the end?

Sixty-six. That’s a response rate of approximately 0.019 per cent. A typical
LabourStart mailing sees response rates of eight to 20 per cent.

Here’s the dilemma: using Thunderclap can be an incredibly effective way to reach a huge audience. But using Thunderclap can also be a gamble: you trade the trust members already have in their own union for an unknown. You’re asking people to trust in something you don’t control — in something you yourself may not entirely trust.

Worse perhaps is that the further away from the core group the message traveled, the weaker audience interest became. I want to see Esmail Abdi out of jail. So I sign on to the Thunderclap.  But if most of my Facebook friends are members of my model airplane club, my account is effectively useless for a trade union rights campaign.

Conclusion? Email, once again. Specifically this: send an email to people with an interest in the issue, people who want to be on your mailing list, and who trust the organization sending the appeal enough to take a minute and act. Underpin any action with that action.

And if you think that’s not worth the effort, well then, you’ve picked up Our Times when you meant to grab Maclean’s. Move fast and you might be able to get your money back.

Written by derek in: Campaigns,Uncategorized | Tags:

4 Comments »

  • No! Comments open for once? Nice article, Derek. For us non-american-english mother-tongue people, there is a real problem with tweets: how to contain them in 120 characters ; French requiring in general, at least 30% more characters than English. Add to that, that you’re in a country where confessing to family/friends that you’re unionized brings shame, then publicly tweeting or fbing is a problem. So mailing via platforms like LabourStart becomes easy and perhaps, as you say, the best solution.
    But we need to do everything we can to get the best response rates to campaigns notably through attractive wording and inviting sharing.

    Comment | October 11, 2015
  • Good point re. the confidentiality/staying-under-cover issue.

    Agreed on your last point, though a magic wand would come in handy in that regard. 🙂

    On the first point, Eric has had to put in some time killing-off some spammers. Back to the magic wand request. 🙂

    Comment | October 15, 2015
  • Kirill

    “Twitter and Facebook accounts connected to an audience numbering almost 345,000 people.” That is the statistics which the companies will not ignore. Not sure it is effective in the campaign, targeting a government, but for corporations, which invest millions in making up their image in social media, such a figure would be very impressive. This of course does not undermine the general need to rely on solid network of unionists for the on-line messaging.

    Comment | October 13, 2015
  • I’ll take your word for it on the brand-damage effect. But even conceding that I think (a) e-mails are more effective not just in terms of the impact on the employer but also in terms of the education/organizing impact on the participants, which is also a goal in any campaign and (b) if the Thunderclap campaign was meant to drive people to the LabourStart campaign page and have them send messages then it has to be judged on the dismal result. And behind that dismal quantitative result is a dismal qualitative result: superficial engagement on the part of those 345,000 people. Likely no engagement at all. Which returns us to your first point, the one I conceded: would not the target corporation assess the extent to which those 345,000 actually felt the effect of the campaign? If so they have a much greater respect for the platforms than I do. 🙂

    Comment | October 15, 2015

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress | Aeros Theme | TheBuckmaker.com WordPress Themes