Frankly, I would have written the matter off as a tempest in a teapot, but this situation is grist for a good debate among Agitator readers.
Here’s the situation. There’s a niche group of companies that use online petitions to generate acquisition leads for nonprofits. The email addresses of the petition signers are then sold to the nonprofit that sponsors the petition and are used to convert signers to donors or members. Care2 with 20 million members who’ve signed up to receive petitions is the grand daddy of the lead generators, with Change.org and Moveon.org and Greatergood.com having entered the market in competition with Care2.
For several years Care2 and Change.org have duked it out for first place, each relying heavily on their claimed pedigree of commitment to progressive causes and values.
But earlier this week Ryan Grim reported in the Huffington Post that Change.org “founded on progressive values, has decided to change its advertising policy to allow for corporate advertising, Republican Party solicitations, astroturf campaigns, anti-abortion or anti-union ads and other controversial sponsorships…”
Parts of the progressive community are outraged and up in arms — feeling betrayed by Change.org’s switch to a company willing to now represent all points of view on the ideological spectrum. As Jeff Bryant of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future put it, “Change.org built its reputation on arming Davids to take on the Goliaths of the world. Now it seems that the company thinks David and Goliath should be on the same team.”
Change.org itself acknowledges the new policy of ideological agnosticism and says, “If Google will allow it, we would allow it.”
Of course the fact that Change.org apparently had no plans to tell current clients of its change in direction and its current customers learned about it only through leaked internal documents hasn’t help dampen the drama. Nor have headlines like Huff Post’s helped either — Change.org Changing: Site to Allow Corporate, Anti-Abortion, GOP Campaigns, Say Internal Documents.
And so, like jilted lovers, some Change.org “clients” (the company now calls them “advertisers”) are outraged that this for-profit firm is now expanding its market to include ideological opponents “using profits made from progressives”…”using skills developed in progressive campaigns” …and “increasing their revenues by removing the limitation of “progressive” clients only.
All of which brings me to the ever-present and larger questions this situation presents for our sector, and for which I suspect Agitator readers have a diverse range of answers:
- Should platforms/services like these be exclusive only to one ideology or point of view, or should they be universally available to all ideologies?
- Should a mailing list broker limit itself to just ‘conservative’, ‘progressive’, or ‘extreme middle’ clients? What about printers and CRMs?
- The same for agencies and consultants?
- Do companies that provide services to nonprofits have a duty to inform customers and clients of their other clients?
- Does the ideological value system of a company or consultant providing fundraising services even matter?
Whadda you think?
Roger
P.S. In my view, Goethe answered these questions best: “He who has a task to perform must know how to take sides, or he is quite unworthy of it.”
This article was posted in: accountability, Don't Miss these Posts, email marketing, nonprofits, online activism, online advocacy, online fundraising, transparency.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Well, the key is in the name. Change.org. Change to what? I can understand they they don’t sign up for just one agenda, but want to be a platform for any group trying to change the world according to their views.
But the thing is; there’s no such thing as neutral when it comes to advocacy. I have difficulties seeing change.org being a shared tool between pro-choice and pro-life – it would just be too confusing for the users.
Another thing is, that change.orgs current users have signed up for a reason; the site represents certain agendas, they agree with. If the people at change.org are not very, very smart about segmentation and community management, their subscribers are gonna drop off when solicited by campaigns and companies they are in direct disagreement with – or suddenly sharing their advocacy community with people holding the exact views, they’re fighting against.
The problem with this approach is also, that it exposes change.org of being a business making money on advocacy, instead of an advocacy platform with a business plan.
In the long run, a blow to the reputation of change.org could affect other ngo’s doing integrated campaigning, advocacy and fundraising, making people even warier of giving us their contact info and letting us engage them further in our causes.
The change in their approach and especially the unethical handling of (non)informing users is also very troubling.
Claiming “ideological agnosticism” seems a little too convenient. Why not just come out and say it; We’re trying to expand our market, because we are mainly a business, not an advocacy platform with any actual agendas for the change, were enabling.
Roger, your post made me recall something the legendary Jerry Huntsinger wrote. It’s still on his website today. For convenience, I quote him here:
[Begin Jerry's quote]
“Frankly, I don’t have to believe what you believe. Your concerns do not have to be my personal concerns. But I have to understand what you believe and understand your concerns. I have to step into your shoes.
Some writers are idealists and can only write for organizations that are mostly in line with their personal persuasions. I admire their integrity.
But that doesn’t work for me. I’m always tremendously challenged by the need to interpret what you believe in a way that convinces someone else to believe it – whether it’s a social issue or a humanitarian issue.
I become you. And that in no way diminishes who I am.”
[End Jerry’s Quote, from http://jerryhuntsinger.com/
Now to me. I can’t do like Mr. Huntsinger. (Which, according to him, makes me an idealist… and for the record, most of us list our clients on our websites, Jerry included.)
But as a copywriter tasked with stepping inside someone’s skin and walking around for awhile, I find the writing is light years better if I bring empathy and heartfelt passion of my own to the project at hand.
That said, if I can learn from the marketing methods of a cause or from a resource or an appeal whose ideology I don’t necessarily share, I do it to make the stuff I do believe in, better. (I recall once quoting an article from the Wall Street Journal in my e-newsletter, and a few people unsubscribed. One said, “Everything about the WSJ makes me throw up in my mouth a little.” This I found sad: whether or not you agree, why not at least learn?)
Sorry for ramble, Roger. Hope this provides some of the grist you seek!
Lisa
P.S. Here’s another cup of oil to throw on the flames. Should nonprofit consultants do affiliate marketing? For example: if I refer you to a resource that gives me a kickback for those referrals, does that weaken the objectivity of my opinion… even if said resource is good?
Thanks Lisa.
And thanks for the reference to Jerry Huntsinger. He’s an old friend and partner and while I don’t share his philosophy of agnosticism I know first hand it works for him. Most importantly, Jerry has always been absolutely transparent about the clients and causes he works for.
As for ‘referal fees’ and ‘kickbacks’ that’s another line of discussion we should pursue. And we will.
Roger
Having been on both the for-proft and non-profit sides of our industry, I can tell you from my 20+ years in the business that if you own, manage or invest in a for-profit entity, it can be very challenging to run a successful, viable business. You are constantly trying to balance the needs of your non-profit clients with your own needs to pay your employees a competitive wage and benefits package and let’s face it, to make a profit. But it can be done and there are lots of shining examples of those businesses in our industry and many fine people running them.
The key to what is happening at change.org was pointed out by Raven Brooks of the Daily Kos, who wrote, “They are a for-profit company and they’ve reportedly been seeking VC money which comes with strings and the need to make even more money”. The “strings” in this case are that change.org has to betray it founding principles, its employees and its clients in order to create a new business model – one that has only one founding principle – and that is the ever holy “bottom line”. And you know what? That is their choice. But it is also the choice of their non-profit clients to take their business elsewhere. And I imagine that they are. I know mine is. So Roger, I’m with you and think your subject line says it all.
I think we must be careful of allowing our progressive selves to be drawn into identifying things as “ideological value systems” that are no such thing.
For instance, in the Civil Rights era, white Southerners claimed Jim Crow and the KKK as a part of their “ideological value system”. What if we all agreed that we needed to accept racist lynch mob Southerners as one “value system” among a diversity with ours?
Remember how progressive groups pressured universities to disinvest from South Africa until they ended apartheid? Should we have simply said instead “well, it’s ok because apartheid is their ideological value system”?
The difference here is not between different ideologies. It’s between one ideological point of view and a purely business one.
Taking someone’s money – even though they fund/support oppressive power initiatives – because “it’s good business” is the same as working for no change at all.
When you give up a paycheck for it, then you can claim the phrase “ideological value system” for your point of view.
Have to agree with the others. I’m troubled by the lack of disclosure, and I’m troubled that an organization that sold itself as progressive now seeks to chase after profit at the expense of what it claimed were ideals.
Had they been open about it, that would put it in a slightly different light for me. Nonprofits could make an informed decision. (And I hope those who support progressive causes would find a different business to work with – one who shares their cause.)
If they’re only selling a service – without regard to position – then they should be completely transparent about that.
Does this also mean that people who’ve signed Change.org petitions could now find their email addresses used for marketing causes they’re opposed to? That’s pretty troubling, too.
I’d also say the name needs to change. The “.org” no longer seems quite right, does it?
Mary, I’m going to sound incredibly naiive here. But before Roger raised the issue, it never dawned on me that Care2 or Change.org were making money off names and addresses of people who signed petitions. I felt a little stupid to tell you the truth. So I went to Care2 to see how it is they explain this. Waaaaay down at the bottom of their website in teeny tiny print is “privacy.” I clicked then, on that page, clicked on a question pertaining to how Care2 uses my information. I think this is where it’s spelled out (nebulously, I might add):
“For petitions and surveys you’ve signed or completed, we treat your name, city, state, country and comments as public information—for example, we may provide compilations of petitions, with your comments, to the President and legislators, other targets, or to the press.”
It sounds like list brokers and nonprofits are the “other targets” they mention.
Here’s the page for those who want to see: http://www.care2.com/help/general/privacy.html#how.
I, for one, am just sharing what I learned… since someone out there has to be as foolishly trusting as I am (or was).
Thanks, Lisa (again)
Roger,
What I wonder is how productive marketing right-wing ideologies can be to liberal constituencies? Frankly, it sounds like bad list work to me. And it was poor customer service not to notify your clients of a major policy change.
As for stating your side, as a copywriter and formerly as a client of these services, I think organizations can parse your perspective without you, the service provider, having to proclaim it. I have lots of clients who don’t care whether I’m left leaning or not. I feel it is like voting. I know my choices very well, but I think I’m entitled to my privacy. That said, there are organizations I definitely would not work for. I’m just not going to shout about it.
Thanks,
Fern
Wow! Do I feel like an idiot! I identify entirely with Lisa. It never crossed my mind that Change.org was a for-profit company. I normally research the organisations behind this type of thing before signing a petition the first time but in this case I didn’t.
Having known would have most probably not changed my decision to sign a petition but the issue here is transparency -or lack of- on two accounts: one, not being up front on the nature of their business and two, not informing us about their change in policy (which of course would have blown their cover).
I feel betrayed at not being allowed to have made a fully informed decision.
Melvyn
Lisa and Melvyn, you’re anything but naive. I think those of us working in this sector have an instinctive trust of that .org. And when the cause resonates, it’s easy to feel you’re doing a good thing.
And you might be! I just think, as Melvyn says, that we ought to be allowed to make a fully informed decision. If they can’t or won’t be transparent about what they do, and with whom… well, that says something to me.
Thanks to the Agitator for bringing this to light!
I’m with Goethe. Also consider that the prospect base, having been built for progressive causes, also is progressive. What success can the right anticipate from a base likely to oppose their conservative views? Bad business but very Romney-esque: “I will be whatever you want in this moment.” For me, I need to take sides.
Lisa,
Based on your second comment above, I suspect you have a misunderstanding about Care2′s procedures for recruiting voluntary signups to the lists of our clients. The cardinal rule of these donor lead acquisition campaigns tailored to nonprofits’ needs — something that Care2 pioneered 12 years ago and has continued refining with our clients’ feedback ever since — is that the Care2 member’s permission is required. We never want to sign up any Care2 member for anyone’s list without getting the member’s permission first. To do otherwise would be self-defeating and displeasing to our 21 million members, not to mention for our more than 1,000 nonprofit clients, who hire us to recruit for them “warm,” behaviorally targeted and VOLUNTARY donor prospects — not people who were “tricked” into signing up for their list.
When you sign a petition on Care2, your signature is delivered to the target of the petition, e.g. Congress or the White House. (That’s the kind of “target” referred to in our published policy that you read.) Your signature is also shown on the petition itself (just the name, city, and country). That is what we mean in our terms of service when we say that your signature is public, as are any comments you choose to make about why you signed the petition (or it might be a pledge, if the campaign is for a nonprofit client that does not engage in adversarial, petition-based advocacy).
However, to end up on anyone’s list, you first have to ask Care2 to please sign you up for that organization’s list. It’s a separate step from signing the pledge or petition. And there is a separate sign-up box for this purpose, usually with our client’s logo and a sentence or two describing what you can expect to receive if you do sign up.
Also, you’re totally welcome to sign a Care2-hosted petition or pledge — without signing up for anyone’s list. Many thousands of Care2 members do this every day.
We believe strongly in taking a permission-based marketing approach to all of the work we do for charities and nonprofits, and can’t imagine doing it any other way since it would be disrespectful to Care2 members, and a totally unsustainable business practice.
Happy to walk you through our recruitment process online, in real time, if you’d like to contact me.
Clint
Care2
clint@care2team.com
http://www.care2team.com
202-785-7308
Clint, thanks for the explanation. I’m without power here, post-Sandy, and on limited battery/generator life. When the juice is officially back on I’ll return to your comment. If I have any questions I’ll be sure to get in touch. I really appreciate it, again. All best, Lisa
Thanks for the explanation, Clint. I appreciate it, as well.
Mary
BTW, change.org is a B corporation (for profit but with a social good focus). More here:
http://www.change.org/about/business-model
I think this shift may weaken Change.org’s brand – and therefore its ability to attract clients…and the ability of those clients to attract petition signers.
For me (a progressive who has signed a petition here and there), I knew the Change.org brand and I trusted it. If I was busy, but the petition sounded right, I felt I didn’t need to do a ton of outside research before signing it. Upon reflection, I realize that was due to the power of the brand – not necessarily any known integrity of the petitions or the organizations posting them. That familiar progressive brand gave me a sense of trust.
I would be much more skeptical if I knew the same website that had just hosted a petition in support of abortion access had recently posted one about denying federal funds for abortion providers – or some other similar paradox.
Even if – logically – we all know that it’s only a platform for other, independent groups to use, I think the mixing of values weakens the power of any one petition.