“The simpler the better”. This is perphaps one of the most widely shared mottos of our age and – as society becomes more and more complex due to a huge amount of information available on and offline -, it is one that has repeatadely been proven true. When it comes to communication, then, it can be considered a constant source of inspiration.

Many bright ideas, buzzing around the communication arena, are actually based on fairly simple insights, which most of the time offer a solution for very concrete needs. This is the case of Colalife [http://www.colalife.org]; put in a nutshell it’s “a campaign to get Coca-Cola to open up its distribution channels in developing countries to save lives, especially young ones, by including much needed ’social products’ such as oral rehydration salts and high-dose vitamin A tablets”.

The campaign was launched only last year by Simon Berry and it’s based on the assumption that since Coca-Cola is almost omnipresent in many countries wordwide – especially developing countries – and that those also happen to be the ones with the highest child mortality rates due to preventable causes such as dehydration, it should be possible to make one work for the others.

I have to admit that at first I had serious doubts about the feasibility of the project, but, as I came across Simon’s ‘aidpod’ concept, I soon started to feel passionate about the idea. After all, if it is possible to use crates to carry up to 24 bottles of Coca-Cola, there should be enough room also for delivering a few mili litres of oral rehydration salts. And in fact there is. The problem is how can we take advantage from it without making Coca-Cola feel somehow burdened with it? Here is where social design steps in, bringing about some good inspiration. The final result is a packaging solution, which is designed to literally fill the gap created by the bottles in the crate and fit perfectly to the international distribution channels, so that, at the same time, Coca-Cola doesn’t feel any extra weight and gets some pride from implementing an unexpectedly donated CSR innovative idea.

Besides being inspirational, the Colalife campaign is a good example of how the adoption of online social networks can be an effective way to raise awareness about a social cause and build a community around it. In little more than a year, the number of the campaign supporters has been constantly increasing, thanks to the success of the Colalife Facebook group and to a few appearences on BBC Radio 4.

This helped Colalife build a compelling case, contribuiting to open discussions with Coca-Cola and outreach to international NGOs for moving the project forwad, which is where the project stands now.

Posted by Luca Padovani

One funny thing about a tool is the way it can save or doom you, depending on the user/usage. Even weapons of mass destruction, it can be argued, can have a positive impact if  deterring nations from engaging into conflict. On the other hand, weapons of mass construction, like schools, can be used to indoctrinate children on strict social conformity.

Probably the most critical tools for social change these days are information and communication technologies (ICTs). The internet might be the first topic to spring into your mind, but for millions living in developing countries the web is not an option (not even a PC, for starters). Radio appears far more pervasive, but it lacks interactivity, individual ownership and mobility – features available in mobile phones.

By the end of 2008, there were an estimated 4 billion mobile phones globally (Wireless Intelligence 2008 ).  New telephone connections in low- and lower-middle-income countries have outnumbered those in upper-middle- and high-income countries since 1998 – and new mobile customers in the coming years will emerge in developing countries (GSMA 2008).

It’s the “bright” side of underdevelopment: sometimes you are given the opportunity to catch up by skipping some stages. Many Africans never saw a computer, but use mobile phones to access and diffuse critical info.

photo by Future Atlas (CC)

Probably the most widespread application in this field, FrontlineSMS is a simple-to-use, free, open source, entry-level text messaging software targeted mostly at NGOs in the developing world interested in using SMS in their work and  who are unable to use the majority of current systems due to a lack of internet connectivity. It turns a laptop and a mobile phone into a central communications hub. Once installed, the program enables users to send and receive text messages with groups of people through mobile phones. The usages are as diverse as the NGO’s mission (browse map here ).

More focused applications are also growing, notably in the health sector:

Text to Change (TTC) uses a bulk short message service (SMS) platform for health education  to conduct projects designed to communicate knowledge about HIV and AIDS and encourage subscribers to volunteer for HIV testing.  Mobile phone subscribers receive interactive text messages in the form of multiple choice questions on their mobile phones.

SIMpill utilizes ordinary bottles and attaching it a SIM card and transmitter device. Every time the bottle is opened, an SMS is sent to a central server. If the bottle is not opened within a particular time frame, the SIMPill server sends a reminder message to the patient, a family member or caregiver. If patients don’t take their medication, health workers are alerted and can call the patient or visit at home.

C4Change BLOG

It’s one of those communication holy truths, but seldom used. Everybody knows that the most powerful way to get a point across is by presenting a human example. Your own personal example is perfect, another person’s is ok.
If you manage to tell a story using the hero’s own voice, you´ve found a golden nugget.

So why is this nugget so rare in most advocacy campaigns? If you’re advocating for marginalized issues/groups, voicing their arguments and dramas should be fairly easy. After all, most civil society organizations should be close to their constituencies – and therefore able to sample powerful stories.

In reality, bringing such stories to light proves to be a tough cookie. Some obstacles:  access to mainstream media outlets is selective and newsmaking quite expensive, particularly whenaddressing facts ocurring in other countries (like developing countries); publicizing marginalized people’s identities might be harmful for them; marginalized people often lack the means – technical, cultural – to express their views to a wider audience and – last but not least – storytelling talent is scarce.

Some tips to overcome this:

•    Fundraise to cover travel and accommodation expenses for journalists keen on covering your story;
•    When there’s  personal risk for the storyteller and/or other people close to her/him, protection is a must – but the story must be told;
•    Empower the storytellers through communication capacity buiding.

This last one is of paramount importance. If people master some key skills to express themselves articulately and effectively to diverse audiences, they achieve an important part of getting their stories across. Such mastery should be expressive – rhetorical  techniques, body language – and technological – ICT usage, notably those more cost-effective (internet, mobile phones, radio). Two notable examples at this end are Witness and PANOS.

Finally, a note for the tone. Narrative talent should be increasingly invested in uplifting stories. Think and talk positive.  A hero is someone that overcomes great perils – preferably not dying in the process. Overcoming imminent death and failure against terrible odds is “the” turn on for audiences worldwide. So give them the drama, the suspense, but wrap up with a happy ending.

President Obama’s call on Americans to put more effort into service has been triggering all sorts of responses.  All for Good is presented as such and built mostly around Google –  who voluntarily provides its lead developers and hosts the website – but aggregates a vast array of organizations willing to share volunteer activities across the USA.

Another open source application is Social Actions, providing a database of actions people can take on any issue, from volunteer opportunities to micro credit loans. Both All for Good and Social Actions are web-based change hubs targeted at the browsing supporter.

“The overarching goal of our work is to make the web more action-oriented, or in other words, to make it easier for people to make a difference”. Social Action aggregates selected action sources such as Change.org, Idealist or Kiva – themselves already change hubs – and allows the potential supporter to select the most suitable ones with a dedicated search engine. All for Good works in a similar way.

Both projects call on users to engage freely, from posting action opportunities to developing applications for the website. Although similar, they do not compete (in fact, Idealist is partner on both).

From their inception, these are strongly collaborative platforms – showing how ICTs can be a powerful enabler of social change. They are completely user oriented, encouraging her/him to design his own path and level of engagement. This freedom will coin their success.

What makes advocacy campaigning cutting edge and capable of delivering huge impact? Putting it simply, the network effect. And if the network is structured around a strong coalition of organizations, well that’s even better.

Coalitions provide the critical mass needed for achieving social change. The organizations forming a coalition should possess two critical ingredients for success: trusting supporters and good reputation.  This is crucial to generate continuous support and ultimately to focus the campaign’s overall goals and expected policy changes. Success stories like the Make Poverty History  or Jubilee campaigns wouldn’t unravel without the likes of Oxfam, Christian Aid or the Evangelical Alliance.

But coalitions aren’t risk exempt. Beware of: strongest members trying to dominate the common agenda; competition among members and unequal commitment. There is only one way to prevent this, by enabling a trust environment within the coalition. Such atmosphere is built with 4 main components:
1.    Leadership (based on dialogue and consensus);
2.    Flexible structure;
3.    Division of labor;
4.     Communication (lots of it).

This is of paramount importance in our networked society, where face to face relationships in one’s social network are increasingly scarce.  Social media works because there is a trust factor in place. We engage because we trust.

So if coalitions strive on a trust environment, the same goes for their individual supporters, especially those technologically savvy.  The web 2.0 user tends to be harder to fool since he’s got connections (lots). There’s a strong chance he’s got different information sources – and therefore be able to spot a lie and widespread his distrust.

The priority for campaigning in our society 2.0 is to be truthful. Only then will your Twitter, advertising, lobby and other  techniques fall into place – knowing that the trend is for the supporter to find you rather than for  you to find the supporter. Make sure you are out there, responsive and transparent. The browsing supporter will spot you because he believes you’re his thing.

Neda Agha-Soltan got out from her house in Teheran to participate in the demonstrations against the rigged iranian elections but was stopped by a bullet to the heart. She became the latest international martyr for democracy advocates. Avaaz, who campaigns for several causes worldwide using the internet, wants one million people to sign a e-petition putting pressure on Iranian authorities.  New technologies played an important role in the iranian situation from the start, showing sousveillance at work.

This term was created by Steve Mann as opposed to surveillance – this one being done by authority /power holders. So this means ordinary citizens fighting back, Small Brother versus Big Brother. Portable forms of technology, especially mobile phones, are what makes this possible.

In the aftermath of Iranian elections, the micro-blogging service  Twitter was used by Iranian citizens to provide an account of the authorities’ crackdown on demonstrators such as Neda. The government responded by blocking the service and by pinpointing the Iranian twitters (checking the time zone and the persons who spread the information).

But blocking Twitter didn’t do the trick:  many other websites allow users to read others’ tweets and post their own – thus making it much harder to block all sites spreading the “infamous” tweets. Iranian authorities also had a hard time locating Iranian twitters once lots of non-iranians twitters changed their time zone to Tehran’s and location to “Iran” (some Facebook Groups were uses to spread this idea).

This type of confrontation was quite visible right after the terrorist bombings of Atocha train station in Madrid (March 11^th 2004): the Spanish government tried to put the blame on ETA – a violent group fighting for independence of a Spanish region – but many citizens spotted an attempt to manipulate voters in the upcoming  elections. The outraged SMS multiplied and costed the right wing Government the elections.

There is a big gap facing the kind of results sousveillance mechanisms can produce in a democratic and in an autocratic context. But the iranian episode shows there’s room for growing impact. Iran and China regimes thought they could trade material wealth for social conformity. The truth is that eventually people having money in one pocket want freedom in the other. Cellular phones and PCs linked to the internet are ideal tools to do it – and no government control can master that entirely.

Small versus Big Brother: who will win? Well, the authorities have a lot going for them, namely easier access – and sometimes control – to mainstream media. Also huge financial resources. On the other side, active citizens use the elasticity of new media and the social capital of networked communities.

Communication is a central ingredient for development: in fair and inclusive political processes; in effective and transparent governance policies; in supporting committed citizens and strong civil society towards a sustainable economic growth.

We require an integrated perspective of the role that communication plays in human development: starting from the perspective of those in need and considering all communication media. A communication for all – and by all.

Advocacy communication can be defined as all forms of communication raising awareness of society, media and decision-makers on relevant public issues in order to produce positive social change. Overall, it’s a communication for social change.

Advocacy communication is effective when used strategically as structured campaigning. An advocacy campaign is a coordinated effort to produce a specific social change. We’re not talking about a single initiative; we’re referring to a mix of activities, communication and information materials and events – all aligned in a time-bound plan.

Who’s doing advocacy communication? Civil society organizations (CSO) are, due to their mission and role, key elements in any communication for social change effort. They are the ones usually more vocal, the ones more willing make the voices of the marginalized heard. On the other hand, they face the temptation to use advocacy efforts to simultaneously boost their own fundraising activities, thus undermining their reputation and the cause/group championed by the advocacy efforts.

This is one of the reasons why effective advocacy campaigns are implemented mostly by networks and/or coalitions (a network consists of individuals and organizations willing to help each other or to collaborate towards a common goal; a coalition is a network connecting individuals or organizations and enabling them to work closely in a coordinated fashion to reach common goals, each member keeping an autonomous scope of action). Collective efforts disencourage individual attempts to instrumentalize  an advocacy campaign and submit it to a single person or organization’s agenda.

Additional to this moral reason for working together in advocacy campaigns, there’s a technical one: it’s more efficient, providing extra synergies and thus maximizing impact. That’s why CSO’s are increasingly partnering with each other and also with players from the public and private sectors.

In fact, communicating for social change is becoming a collaborative field for all sectors, public and private, not for profit and business oriented. Public communication is being leveraged by private players; social marketing (also known as cause related marketing) is no longer a tool tailored just for business; and advocacy campaigning is no longer done just by CSOs.

This collaborative attitude is fostered by our network society, structured over an increasingly omnipresent infrastructure: the internet. Significantly, the term “social network” is becoming synonymous of internet-based social network. Although the Web 2.0 is probably the most powerful tool for advocacy communication, it remains just that: a tool. The actual change must be performed by people. And people will not engage just because they’ve signed in to Facebook or Twitter: they must share values to trust each other; only then will people be consistently and jointly activated.

Gregory Payne

A strategic component of any campaign, and a necessary characteristic of any change agent, is advocacy – raising awareness about a salient topic within a target audience.  As we experience more of what C W Mills presciently described almost 70 years ago in his classic work, The Power Elite, as the era of public communication, civil society advocates, with the ever expanding technological toolchest, are focusing more on grass roots strategies.

Mass communication is becoming anachronistic; we are in era where each of us is capable – through social networking, YouTube, Twitter, et al -  of being our own self contained broad/narrow cast entities.

This bottom up,  rather than top down communication approach, seeks to involve opinion leaders at the community level in spreading the message through various means and venues, thereby strengthening the topical appeal among the general public.

Grass roots advocacy is a central component of public diplomacy, an emerging field which focuses on individual efforts and ordinary citizens helping to bridge the gap between cultures, politics, religions and peoples. It has a separate function than traditional diplomacy, with all of the political trappings and constraints.  The objective in public diplomacy is to further understanding through communication.

To be effective in grass roots advocacy and grass roots public diplomacy, the change agent must be adept in public speaking and speechwriting.  Even with the great strides in communication technology, one must not lose sight of the fact that our most important asset as advocates is our credibility and trustworthiness, which were outlined in book 2 of Aristotle’s Rhetoric as Ethos.  The effective advocate must understand, appreciate and apply such interrelated parts of the communication mosaic.

Gerard Lemos

Like Alex I too have been meeting young activists lately. On Sunday morning, May 3, I spoke at the U8 meeting, for university students interested in international development, at the Cambridge International Development Summit about the role of research in international development.

In Caius, one of those famous, beautiful old Cambridge colleges with spring sunshine coming through the ancient windows, a hundred students from many countries debated evidence-based policy-making. They all noted how the World Bank, UNDP and others now claim that their anti-poverty programmes are all ‘evidence-based’ and not just based on the economic orthodoxies of OECD countries.

But we also discussed the limitations of evidence-based policy-making.

1. Historical and social context has a huge impact on whether good policies will work when transferred from one place to another.

2. There are always good examples of things that happen without any evidence base. We called these counter-currents.

3. A related point is that there is always a role for innovation, sometimes something new or completely different is needed.

4. All ‘solutions’ produce unintended negative consequences

5. There are no universal solutions; no one size fits all. Believing that can lead to disaster, including authoritarianism and tyranny.

We also discussed research as an advocacy tool and how sometimes small, qualitative or biographical studies can have more impact on winning over policy makers and influencing investment decisions than major longitudinal studies.

Having thought about the limitations of evidence-based policy-making, the discussion turned to ethics. Not just ethical approaches to research, but ethical approaches to policy. Can it ever be right to part children from their parents? Should conservative religious traditions be openly challenged? We concluded that without a profound commitment to ethics, evidence alone can be very dangerous indeed.

As always I admired the idealism and the esprit of the young people there, all the places they had been and the things they had done on their own initiative. But I was disappointed that young people had not been asked to place their thinking about methodologies in a more challenging, profound philosophical questioning.

Then we got on to whether influencing practice was more effective than influencing policy and the role that the web is now playing in building networks and communities of practice, beyond just amassing evidence, but then we ran out of time….

So these are subjects we will debate again in Lisbon. The main theme for my session will be turning advocacy into policy influence.

Alex Steed

Last year I spent several months driving across the United States in order to better get to know the so-called Millennial activists I had been hearing about an emerging generation – teens-to-20-somethings – that has been growing up in an increasingly connected world. I was intrigued by descriptions of how passionate, comprehensively informed, and politically-motivated they purportedly were.

At each conference I attended a handful of older researchers and/or academics had discussed this group of young people who, aided by the ability to communicate with each other (not to mention motivated by feelings of disenfranchised by the government), were stirring to movement on and offline. Last October I traveled to 30 different cities to meet them.

It was on (and in preparation for) the trip that I met and/or learned about climate change activists who were marrying old-school organizing methodologies with Internet organization, and modern back-to-the-land farmers who were using the net to connect with supporters and other farmers. It was via the net that I organized the whole ordeal, fund-raised for it, found housing and like (and differently) minded partners in crime and fellow supporters. I used the Internet to create an opportunity to study how others were interestingly using the Internet.

I have since been in touch and engaged with many various types of digital activist movements across the United States and the rest of the world. I am excited by the examples I have read about in seen in which new technologies play imperative roles in how we engage with each other, governments, absorption of societal truths. It is via engaging with this emerging ambient, intimate ever-engagement that we are starting to truly explore our potential for reaching beyond and smashing the confinement of our cliques, walls, and social norms. I am thrilled to have my finger on the pulse of some of these movements, and to participate in that process myself.