I wrote a quick blog post Tuesday on the MAP site (“Clicktivism Schmicktivism.  Move on, literally.”) in response to Micah White’s article in the Guardian on Clicktivism and the demise of Digital Activism. It similarly compared digital activism and marketing, but added a bit about strategy.  You can check it out to read more.

I wanted to make a quick comment on an issue that was sparked by an excerpt of  Esra’a's blog post on the same:

“When you are a housewife with 5 kids, a fulltime job, financial issues, and mismanaged stress, supporting Iran or Kyrgyzstan or China is not going to be your #1 priority. But you still care – so you RT a link. Or two. And then three. There is nothing wrong with that, it’s actually encouraged to get involved in every “little” way you can, and tweeting counts. This is the only way you can tap into audiences that would otherwise not be inspired to think and possibly act upon these global issues that affect us all.” – Esra’a Al Shafei, Is digital activism ruined?

I’ve gotten really tired of these labels such as “Slactivism” and now “Clicktivism,” because I think most of them miss the point. They’re usually referencing

1. What people are calling themselves (“You think you’re an activist just because you clicked?”) or
2. When people claim large numbers (“You think your 10 000 Twitter followers means anything?”)

Critics are too caught up in their own egos as digital activists and repeatedly fail to address what those numbers really mean. When you have 10 000 Twitter followers, if you convert just 1% of those into true, passionate and active supporters, that could be 100 possible volunteers or donors! So if that passionate but busy housewife who can only tweet something RTs to someone who might have and equal amount of passion but more time who can get up go, in my book, that’s fantastic, and couldn’t have been done with your “clicktivist.”

As I mentioned in my article on the MAP site, there are bad Digital Activism campaigns, just as there are bad marketing campaigns.  However, there are many instances in which numbers and clicks can be used very successfully and we shouldn’t criticize campaigns or people simply because they “just clicked.”

Since it’s Sunday night, I’ll stop here for now, but wanted to throw these thoughts out there.

What do you think?  Can there be value in these campaigns if done with the “right” strategy?  Are the critics of these campaigns right?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism | Micah White (guardian.co.uk)
• The Slacktivist Debate Continues (nten.org)
• Is Slacktivism Good? (georgevanantwerp.com)