Don’t hire an Internet person 15 June, 2007
Posted by Zack in Online organizing, progressive strategy.trackback
Every day I have the same conversation with at least one non-profit or campaign. They call and say, “Do you have an Internet person we can hire?” (Today I had four of these calls, and therefore this post.)
“No, don’t hire an Internet guy,” I say. “You need to make your senior leaders, campaigners & organizers responsible for the Internet just as they’re responsible for everything else. The Internet is the biggest, greatest opportunity you have—so why would you outsource it to some Internet person you’ll just stick in a closet anyways?”
But it usually feels like I’m wasting my breath. They call back a few weeks later and say, “We’ve taken your advice and decided to hire an Internet person…do you have any recommendations?”
So I think that all of us “Internet people” need to put our foot down. Let’s remove “Internet” from our titles and resumes. The longer we leave “Internet” on our name tags, the longer we’re enabling all this bad behavior—and devaluing our own contribution to the movement at the same time.
I know people who are the future of the progressive movement. Most of them have “Internet” stuck on them. But they are not Internet strategists, they are strategists. They are not Internet communicators, they are communicators. They are not Internet organizers, they are organizers.
Don’t take that “Director of Internet Communications” job. Take the “Director of Communications” job.
Everybody knows it’s time for a changing of the guard. To stop thinking of yourself as an Internet person is one way to help make it happen.
i heartily agree. i’ve decided that my next job (whenever and whatever that is) will not be a technology job. training the people at the top solves a lot of the most critical needs. do you want to guest post this on the EchoDitto blog?
Zack, you’re exactly right. I’ve been saying for a while that this would be the last election cycle when there would be such a thing as “internet communications” on electoral campaigns — that by 2010 or 2012 it would be simply “communications” again (or “organizing” etc.). I’ve been met by perplexed looks when I’ve said this, unfortunately, which bolsters your point that organizations themselves — and those of us who work in the new media and organizing landscape — need to speed the change along.
Might this trend also fit into the broader tendency of the Democratic establishment to slice political jobs and outreach into groups based on identity politics? Dean upset many by dissolving the “constituency” outreach jobs at the DNC, (admittedly for multiple reasons), and many party leaders and campaigns tacitly assume you win the labor vote via labor outreach, and the ‘ethnic group x’ vote with ‘ethnic’ outreach, and Internet support with Internet outreach.
The political arena doesn’t understand what the internet/social media/digital marketing offers yet. Not by any stretch of the imagination. And the current ‘big guns’ don’t seem to be in a rush to learn. They don’t show up at seminars, conferences, etc – unless to speak. They send very junior people who struggle to get listened to when they get back to the office.
But wait a minute Nicco…it’s not about ‘technology’…it’s about strategy.
Yes, the internet is tied into technology. So’s producing a television commercial. Cameras, mikes, lighting, edit suites.
What campaigns need to do it hire internet strategists who understand the culture of the internet, the political arena, the and a lot more. And the head of that team needs to have a spot at the table. With their ass in as big of a seat as eveyone else. As opposed to be stuck in some closet with a tiny budget that they need to be approved by the TV guy.
And,yeah, the top people need to be fully on board as well.
From a political campaign perspective I would say that the nature of online political communication too involved to expect campaign staff in classic roles to take on and execute effectively. Typically campaigns are already short staffed and overworked in their entrenched roles. Barring an end to this as the nature of the beast, I think the best policy is to have an “Internet Guy,” but to give this person the kind of access, clout, and staff they need to execute their mission, similar to any other director level position.
Fantastic post. It seems to me though, that this division is encoded in a campaign’s DNA. Their data is even divided up this way, with one DB for the net, one for direct mail, one for phones, and so on, with each group head and outside consultant guarding their turf and list…
Until more campaigns move to a unified DB and start actually implementing convergence and cross-pollination, and see the payoff, we’ll be stuck with the old-school knowledge hording mentality (the more you know that no one else does, the more valuable and secure you are).
Back in the boom, I worked at a consultancy that rewarded knowledge sharing and cross-integration instead of mercenary types holding back expertise for their own preservation. It raised everyone’s game and opened up new opportunities.
But frankly the only place that kind of change can come from is the net folks who, at least for now, embrace change and disruptive tech. I can’t imagine anyone from one of the waning media forms pushing to be rolled into a larger communications whole and give up what they perceive as their only capital to trade on. But if a net-raised Comm Director says you will use this DB and you will share your data, maybe things will change.
[...] Source:Techdirt A year ago, we noted the silliness of companies having a separate “Chief Digital Officer” by noting that thinking digitally isn’t a job function — it’s something that everyone at a company needs to take into account. Having a digital strategy isn’t something you compartmentalize. It’s something that has to be understood across the board. It appears that political campaigns don’t quite understand this yet. David Weinberger points to political consultant Zack Exley, who is complaining about campaigns asking him to help them hire an “internet person” for their campaigns. He points out that the internet shouldn’t be a separate part of the campaign — but that the entire campaign staff needs to understand and make use of the internet. So, for all the talk of how digitally aware campaigns are this election season, perhaps the real turning point will be when the internet doesn’t have its own separate strategy, but is simply a part of the overall strategy. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
[...] Thinking Digitally Isn’t A Separate Job Function For A Campaign Either A year ago, we noted the silliness of companies having a separate “Chief Digital Officer” by noting that thinking digitally isn’t a job function — it’s something that everyone at a company needs to take into account. Having a digital strategy isn’t something you compartmentalize. It’s something that has to be understood across the board. It appears that political campaigns don’t quite understand this yet. David Weinberger points to political consultant Zack Exley, who is complaining about campaigns asking him to help them hire an “internet person” for their campaigns. He points out that the internet shouldn’t be a separate part of the campaign — but that the entire campaign staff needs to understand and make use of the internet. So, for all the talk of how digitally aware campaigns are this election season, perhaps the real turning point will be when the internet doesn’t have its own separate strategy, but is simply a part of the overall strategy. [...]
[...] What Zack Exley has written here is truly wise, and bears repeating until every campaign manager and general consultant has heard it loud and clear. Don’t hire an Internet person! So I think that all of us “Internet people†need to put our foot down. Let’s remove “Internet†from our titles and resumes. The longer we leave “Internet†on our name tags, the longer we’re enabling all this bad behaviorâ€â€and devaluing our own contribution to the movement at the same time. [...]
Quick Hits — June 20, 2007 (Part One)
When Quick Hits Attack! So much is going on this week that I’m splitting Quick Hits into a Presidential Edition and everything else:
Where Have All The E-Mails Gone? It’s all fun and games until someone gets subpeoned.
Hackers in Homeland…
[...] A year ago, we noted the silliness of companies having a separate “Chief Digital Officer” by noting that thinking digitally isn’t a job function — it’s something that everyone at a company needs to take into account. Having a digital strategy isn’t something you compartmentalize. It’s something that has to be understood across the board. It appears that political campaigns don’t quite understand this yet. David Weinberger points to political consultant Zack Exley, who is complaining about campaigns asking him to help them hire an “internet person” for their campaigns. He points out that the internet shouldn’t be a separate part of the campaign — but that the entire campaign staff needs to understand and make use of the internet. So, for all the talk of how digitally aware campaigns are this election season, perhaps the real turning point will be when the internet doesn’t have its own separate strategy, but is simply a part of the overall strategy. [...]
It’s a corporate/campaign culture thing…
I agree with your point, but it’s really nothing new. Years ago I worked in bank marketing and it became painfully obvious that the president/ceo was the real chief marketing officer whether or not he realized it.
When the organization (or in this case, the campaign) is process oriented, the process of campaigning becomes paramount. It’s all about the science, pulling in the numbers, and insiders scratch their heads and wonder why they can’t seem to make a real connection with voters.
When a campaign is marketing oriented, the candidate-in-chief and the marketing strategist function like dance partners. They elevate the level of campaigning from a science to an art — and that’s what it takes to inspire regular, everyday supporters to get out on the dance floor with them or at very least to cheer them on.
Tactics, techniques and trends change, but basic marketing 101 (putting yourself in the other guy’s shoes) is still what’s lacking in a lot of very “tech savvy” campaigns on both sides of the aisle.
Director of Network Operations
The problem underlying the title and undervalueing your advise runs deep. Most the people talking to you (especially nonprofits) think of the web/internet as a tactical support for the rest of the operations.
They want the “web” guy to support our restoration initiative, the web team to support fundraising, the web team to support field, the web to support membership. Web is a tactic the departments should use.
The reality is that dominating the web conversation is now a strategic pillar that can drive success in influencing the politics, fundraising, field and other key elements of the operation. (examples Ilovemountians, AlexsLemonade, Ron Paul, GreenmyApple, etc)
A good strategist and senior management operative will need to look at the over all mission, understand the constraints of other managers, understand the path of the campaign and organizational culture. The good strategist will compete in a larger organizational context for funding and the freedom form other departments to begin to implement a plan to dominate web discussion.
Without someone shift the organization at that level of management process an organization would rarely do even simple house parties or bake sales (lots of energy investment low return) and never any of the things we see the big campaigns doing now (why should they pick a song? – because if the online community is engaged on our site they are not engaged on our opponets’ site…etc))
The problem with hire an “internet guy” is that it is rarely ever perceived as a senior management position. They are not asking you for a staffer that could actually alter the message, strategy of the organization. They are looking for glorified tech support.
The problem is not the title but the positioning in the organization. Few groups can pay for the skills for a new senior management staff position so they get lots of technical wizs with a million ideas and no skills to get the organizational culture to shift.
Hire staff that can shift your culture. Call them whatever…
There is still a need for Director of Communicaitons. One is about message and message frame. We are talking about networks and engagement.
If our people go in looking to be Director of Communicaiotn they are going to get asked about frames, polling, focus group work, working with reporters, care and feeding of the press, cable ads, TV production, advance, etc. How many of the great web strategist could even hold themselves in a TV interview to stay on campaign message (rather than talk about tech? (no offense to the BS interviews you all have done). Our people are not Directors of Communications. Our people are very important but so is communication.
The key to positioning it correctly is to explain culture is shifting. The campaign or nonprofit is organizing in our culture. The culture shift is changing everything. Our culture is increasingly networked and online. The organization or campaign needs a senior management team that works to capture and channel modern networks of supporters to create the change we seek.
There is a need for a Director of Network Operations that works on staff, internal culture, seeking online networks, and empowering them or “hacking” them to create the advocacy outcomes we seek.
This is the way we should be positioning the folks that we know. These are the skill set NOI and others should build.
Good riff Zack
Network Operaitons They should on balance work
unlike any other medium, there isn’t really a good understanding of where the distinctions between the internet’s functions are drawn. you wouldn’t get a telephone technician to develop a telemarketing strategy, you wouldn’t get a tv commercial director to develop the whole campaign concept, yet with the internet there’s not the same understanding of the separation between where the technical or design-related ends and the strategy begins. i mean, in some places whole thing is still just called “the new media” dept. really.
since this isn’t the kind of phone that everyone understands how to pick up just yet, maybe a good place to start is by helping people confront the distinctions in this amorphous lump they refer to as the internet dept.
“an internet guy to handle what?”
[...] Zack rants, Marty riffs. Most the people talking to you (especially nonprofits) think of the web/internet as a tactica, support for the rest of the operations. They want the “web†guy to support our restoration initiative, the web team to support fundraising, the web team to support field, the web to support membership. Web is a tactic the departments should use.The reality is that dominating the web conversation is now a strategic pillar that can drive success in influencing the politics, fundraising, field and other key elements of the operation.A good strategist and senior management operative will need to look at the over all mission, understand the constraints of other managers, understand the path of the campaign and organizational culture. The good strategist will compete in a larger organizational context for funding and the freedom from other departments to begin to implement a plan to dominate web discussion. [...]
somit :-$$$ n weird
That’s a generational shift not to be underestimated, demanding some vision among sector leaders in the face of the older-skewing demographics of charitable donors.
[...] Because, and only because, Trippi was the campaign manager, and not an “Internet guy,” he had the power to pull the trigger and go ahead with his gamble. [...]
[...] more and more into politics at all levels, a change had better come — as Zack Exley put it, you won’t hire an internet person and put him or her in a box, you’ll hire communications staff who actually understand how to use the [...]