“10 tactics for turning information into action” from Tactical Tech is such a rare example. 10 tactics is first and foremost a one hour long movie, but it’s also (watch out, here comes a buzzword) a toolkit. But in this case the name “toolkit” is actually justified. The DVD arrives with a set of cards that summarize the examples from the movie, give links to further resources and try to point you in the right direction in case you’d like to try this particular tactic yourself. The cards are also included on the DVD as PDFs.

10 tactics focuses on human rights, but a lot of the techniques can be applied in other contexts as well.

So, why don’t you get a few colleagues from your office and few more from friendly organizations close to you together and host a screening? It’s good fun, the examples are well researched and presented and it gives you a chance to look beyond what you are familiar with. And best of all, all materials are free (so far)! Check it out: http://www.informationactivism.org/

10 tactics for turning information into action (Trailer) from Tactical Technology Collective on Vimeo.

No related posts.

In case you are wondering what this has to do with non-profits: I know many NGOs who produce feature-length advocacy films to state their case against e.g. climate change, human trafficking, dragnet-fishing etc. And I am certain that many of them could be greatly enhanced by an approach like “Us Now”.

1. Make a film project, not a movie

The biggest difference is in what you see as the outcome. Many people consider their work to be done once the final cut has been made and the film has been screened, burned on DVD, uploaded … whatever. Most of the time, the audience is simply seen as a mass of people towards whom you then project a certain message – a classic one-to-many approach.

But if you see your product as a film-project, then this implies that the work is not done after your final cut; it implies that this is something that can be built on.

2. Think “resource” not  ”movie”

If you are looking at the film as a project and not as a 60 minute audio-visual presentation, then the next logical step is that everything that you have collected to produce the film is a resource. In the case of “Us Now” they made the original, uncut interviews available on the site and through YouTube. The BBC is currently working on a similar project called “Digital Revolution” where the rushes are already being made available while the film is still in production.

Both the BBC and “Us Now” offer interview transcripts which helps them with search engines (remember, search engines cannot read videos but love text).

Ideally you would assign meta data to both the text files and the videos so that users can find related interviews from different projects. If you have the resources to go one extra mile, you could even create an interactive transcript for each interview, like they do for the “TED talks“.

The point is, that you are suddenly offering people a resource that they can use in their own work. Think about how many videos were produced about climate change. Now imagine, you could use what other NGOs have already produced on the same topic. If enough non-profits would act like that, then everybody would win. But it obviously requires a change in attitude. Not only do we have to become comfortable with having others use material that we have paid for, we also have to become comfortable with using other peoples materials. I don’t know how comfortable the WWF would be to reuse bits of an interview performed by Greenpeace.

Interestingly, some of the big players are already working together on non-branded joint advocacy videos for big events like the climate change conference COP15.

3. Open a dialogue

This should be a no-brainer to everyone working with social media. You should give people a chance to discuss your topic with you. Obviously, by uploading the video to YouTube as a whole, as well as in parts, you can invite people to post video responses. However, you should find a way to display these on your site as well and not only have them sit on YouTube. Keep in mind though that such a dialogue requires resources. “Us Now” for example obviously doesn’t have those resources which is why this part of their site falls short of expectation. It’ll be interesting to see what the BBC has in store once they have completed their project.

4. Go Creative Commons

In order to achieve maximum distribution, give your film a creative commons license! “Us Now” can be downloaded in any format you can think of – including as a torrent! I don’t know whether that was the intention from the beginning, or whether it just happened, but it shows that once you set you content free, there is no limit to how and where your message might be distributed to.

From advocacy to authority

If you create your next advocacy film according to what is outlined above, you will see that you are suddenly no longer in the business of producing advocacy films, but you are in the business of establishing your organization as an online authority for the topics that your non-profit or NGO is fighting for. And isn’t that one of the reasons you were asked to produce that original advocacy video to begin with?

What do you think? Please share your thoughts below.

No related posts.

The reason this video was made is a survey that British Red Cross commissioned of 16-25-year-olds in the UK. The result:

Even though  85 per cent know you cannot catch HIV from a kiss, 69 per cent of respondents said they wouldn’t kiss someone with HIV.

Or as British Red Cross puts it: “There is safety. And then there is stigma.”

What are your thoughts – both on the campaign and on the topic? Please leave a  comment!

No related posts.

The film is public domain and if you want, you can watch the complete documentary below. You can also buy it on DVD, watch it on YouTube or download it as a torrent! In fact, the film project’s website is almost as interesting as the film itself, which is why I will spend two blog posts writing about it. This post is mainly about the content, the next will look at what can be learned from the project itself.

Us Now from Banyak Films on Vimeo.

Interesting examples, many of them new

“Us Now” looks at a number of cases were people collaborate online to create something positive. This includes websites like Couchsurfing.com, a website for young moms, a web community of football fans that actually bought a real world club in England and now votes on game strategies online, it includes people-to-people lending and a few other examples.

They are all great examples and I loved watching them, particularly since many of them were new to me (by the way: contrary to what the title suggests, the film focuses on the UK). But I don’t think “Us Now” did a very good job at exploring the question whether these tools can be used to govern.

Where are the critical thinkers?

The website states: ”For the first time, [Us Now] brings together the fore-most thinkers in the field of collaborative governance to describe the future of government.” Well – what I am missing are the critics! Personally, I think we can do great things using the power that is inherent in online networks. But I don’t think we should embrace them uncritically and without thinking about the dangers.

Because, when you say that a mass of people normally knows the right course of action better than a selected group of individuals, then you might discover you are advocating giving power to the mob! I’m sure we don’t want verdicts to be handed down based on online votes. But why not, if the crowd knows best? That would be the logical next step.

Full steam ahead?

I am of course exaggerating slightly. But “Us Now” is so one-sided and focused on advocating for going full steam ahead, that I feel myself backing away and saying: “Wait? Have you thought this through?” I think it’s a pity the producers didn’t spend any time looking at the risk that these tools could be used to cause harm.

Here are three questions which could have been discussed:

• What are the risks that the weight of the cloud will suppress the interests of minorities?
• If we were to crowdsource part of the decision-making process in government, is there a risk of everything becoming even more populist?
• Could someone orchestrate a genocide with the help of social media tools? And if so, how could this be prevented?

I’m not saying that we should stop exploring social media as a means to inform government. I think it has great potential to do that! But before we start putting decision-making power into Facebook-apps, I think we should also discuss these questions. And even though I liked the film, I think it is a shame that no time was spent on that.

No related posts.

Scott Stratten has recently posted an excellent, short video (1:52 min) explaining why you can’t expect to open a social media account today and have a million people hanging on to every word you say tomorrow. Social media outreach means building relationships – and relationships are not built over night.

What does your organization to do build relationships online? Please tell me and leave a comment.

Related posts:

1. How the BBC is trying to avoid the gullibility trap

I really like this video. I love satire and I think this video does a great job of raising awareness for world hunger.

If you haven’t seen it, watch it before reading on. In case you don’t know Sarah Silverman, I should warn you: She is not exactly politically correct…

This is my favourite part:

“I know what you are thinking. If you don’t like it Silverman, TiVo past it. I did - you still see them. Especially ’cause I have a 48 inch plasma high-def tv. (…) [It's] like they are in my apartment, you know.”

The message is: you can switch the channel, but the problem remains.

Where’s the Ask?

But here is my problem with the video: While I like that she is  provoking  everyone by suggesting to sell the Vatican, she doesn’t tell me what I, Joe Blow, can do to help. Because I can’t sell the Vatican (and I doubt the pope watches YouTube).

So, tell me Sarah: Having spoken out against world hunger – what is it you want me to do? Why don’t you tell me? This is frustrating!

I think the end of the video would have been a great place to add something like “Until we get all that money from selling the Vatican, help by donating to <fill in the name of a non-profit of your choice>.” Lame? I don’t think so. I believe that a message like that would have been a great opportunity to raise money to feed people. Too bad, it didn’t happen.

No related posts.