Why Social Media Really Works in Civil Actions

Issues for protest or causing some form of unrest aside, the real reason social media tools have been a key technology in driving significant societal changes comes down to one reason we propose – lowered individual risk and group comfort. One person protesting in front of city hall is unlikely to cause a change. You need a lot of people. Our research into Keystone XL and the use of social media by civil society groups showed how now even groups can connect with other groups to take action on issues.

Herd Mentality
The truth is that we as humans prefer to act in groups. We have to. One person alone cannot build an office tower. When we see others gathering, we are more likely to join in when we share that groups values, ideas, opinions or vision.

Social Media Shows Commitment
Look at a Facebook group page on an issue of society, a celebrity or brand. If one group has thousands of followers we assume that group is generally more popular. A group page with just a few members isn’t as compelling. We’ll go for the group with more people – in general. An individual will go where there’s the perception of others with similar views. As social media tools thrive on high volumes of users, require little to know technical skills and are available through mobile devices as well, a person can quickly see when something is becoming popular. When we see others are committed, we’re more likely to commit.

Digital Mob Mentality
When an issue takes off, like #Occupy, Egyptian revolution or the London riots of 2011, people go into what we term Digital Mob Mentality. They are fast to comment and quick to share with their peer networks. This becomes a feeding frenzy of information. Coordination is quick, communication is essentially at zero cost and there is no friction. To those that suggest “slacktivism” takes place, yes, to some degree. But as the above events and many others show, the slacktivists are far less than those who can and do actively participate in the issue.

Hyper-Momentum & Networks
Because of the significant increases in the use of mobile data devices (SmartPhones and Tablets) and the easy access to social media technologies over increasingly higher bandwidth networks, an issue gains what we call hyper-momentum. The story spreads fast and furious. Far faster than ever before in human history. No one has to wait for mail to arrive or has to be at home to take the phone call. And every one of us has social networks of friends, family, co-workers etc. And we trust news and actions of friends very quickly. More so than official government communications. In several research projects we’ve done for governments around the use of social media in both natural and man-made disasters, we see a greater reliance on information passed through social networks or the social graph than that coming from government (including policing and fire services.)

In Summary
When we see other people taking part in something we are curious. Whenever we see a crowd, we are curious as to what has drawn other peoples attention. These behaviours are simply translated to online services through social media. The more we see others with a similar view are committed to an action, the more likely we are to participate. It’s as simple as that. And we have plenty of evidence.

Social Media As a Soft Power Tool in Global Affairs

Based on much of our research, social media is not just a tool for promoting democracy (although that is hotly debated) but we see it as becoming a “soft power” tool on global issues. Perhaps one that even citizens can use to garner influence and attention from other nation states. For those not familiar with hard and soft power, in a very simple way it is this; “hard power” is the use of military forces in a direct way (i.e. bombing Libya recently to aid democratic forces) whereas “soft power” are tools like sanctions (economic) that can impact a country (e.g. sanctions against Syria’s dictatorship.)

Social Media and The Art of Political Perceptions in Soft Power
Perhaps one of the best examples of using social media tools in the ongoing game of “soft power” is the US State Department. Closely followed by the UK government. On the dictatorial side is Iran with it’s army of counter revolutionary bloggers and the likes of Hugo Chavez using Twitter (given all the coffee Chavez drinks Twitter would seem to suit him.)

These tools become just another part of the arsenal of persuasion and perception development/management as part of a governments communications strategy. But they are not insignificant as some might think. In ways small and large, these messages enter the Cyburbian stream of concsiousness, they are shared, edited, discussed, debated and added to. They can also add context to a situation that may not find coverage in traditional news media.

Defining Positioning
Using social media services, governments can define their positions more clearly using text, images and video. This then becomes a relied upon source by academia, think-tanks and other governments. We’re not indicating the “truth” of a statement or definition of a position, just that this is how they can be used. How they are used.

Civil Society Has a Big Voice
The other side of this is that civil society groups (from Greenpeace to PETA to Medicins Sans Frontiers) now have a global voice. They can and do use these tools to shape views, opinions and perceptions. Influential citizens can join the conversation as well and become thought leaders both for an against issues in any language or culture. This new ability for civil society to participate in the global dialogue and have influence is a new dynamic in applying to soft power.

There is a whole new dynamic to global communications and their impact on the use of soft power tools. One that will offer some fascinating areas of study for many years to come.

Activists and the Challenges Faced by Corporations

We’ve written before on how activists are using social media tools to target corporations and/or governments. Here we look at some of the subsequent challenges corporations face in dealing with these groups. Not dealing with them can result in board governance issues, a failure to attract star talent, legislative changes to industry that increase operating costs and cut profits, demotivated staff (thus lower productivity) and a PR nightmare. Yet large businesses and many governments have a hard time responding. So what are their challenges.

David Vs. Goliath: An oft-told fable in business circles. David won because he was smaller and nimble and able to adapt quicker. As it is with activist groups. Even larger, multi-national ones have localized “cells” that have a fair bit of freedom and can quickly cause a local or regional set of troubles to a large firm. Sheer size of the larger companies means it is harder to turn the boat around.

Management Process: Certainly part of the “size” issue. Large companies need scaled processes to run effectively. Systems for manufacturing, production, marketing and delivery. Governance for shareholders and investor relations. That all means people. Lots of people. And people have different views framed by their profession or function. At the top levels, awareness of trends and issues in the trenches is not always what it could be. With so many steps to a key tactical or strategic decision, it adds to the slowness to respond.

An Ever Changing Corporate Memory: Turnover is a factor in long-term, protracted battles with activist groups such as in the extractive resources sector. People leave and move about in large corporations. Skills and historical knowledge that can help deal with these protracted issues can be lost. Activist groups are very adept at passing knowledge on tactics used. This is in large part due to the use of social medias by activist groups. This provides them with “memory” as members come and go.

The Legal Opinion: The larger the organization the greater the legal exposure. Lawyers always prefer the “less said the better” approach. A legal review takes time and costs a lot of money. By the time a response may be created it can be entirely inneffective and too watered down to have any impact. Activist groups are well aware of this factor.

The People on the Front Line: Most often, corporations will only assign their PR folks and some lawyers to deal with the issues of activists. This is certainly part of the team needed, but not the whole. Government relations, marketing and members of the C-suite should also be involved. They can add additional minds and the marketing team might add some creative juice for response measures. These teams then need to be empowered to act and act swiftly.

The biggest challenge for corporations dealing with activists leveraging social media is their sheer size and inability to move effectively and swiftly. If a company can find a way to enable a faster response and empower a team to engage, the chances of countering false negative messaging is improved dramatically. And don’t forget the security issues, but that’s another blog post.

Dialog or Conflict: Social Media and the Next Century

No one argues much today that the invention of the printing press was a wonderful thing for humanity. We could suddenly share ideas which turned into better human rights, forms of democracy and a more civil society. Eventually. Then along came the telephone and radio. A new revolution. What followed was one of the bloodiest centuries globally. Today, conflict is declining all over the world…although somedays that may seem a bit unreal.

Use of the Internet and other “Liberation Technologies” such as social media, mobile phones and such, have aided the tranisition of ideas and opinions into political action. Both positive and negative. The Orange Revolution of the Ukraine used SMS messaging via mobiles to organize. Two years later Belarus shut down the mobile networks to prevent such a revolution. The intense protests of the Iranian elections in 2009, although democracy seems to have failed so far.

The online newspaper Malaysiakini has arguably lead to increased democracy and improved human rights in Malaysia. Certainly it has tread where no other traditional newspaper can in Malaysia. China recently battled with Google and in ways, subtly continues to do so. Reports out of Pakistan indicate that Taliban leadership has “gone quiet” in Social Media channels and are resorting to human transfer of messages; although a recent Twitter battle between the State Department & a Taliban spokesperson suggests otherwise.

Personally, I rather hope that these “Liberation Technologies” such as social media tools and the devices that enable their operation, lead to greater democracy worldwide. In fragile nations however, we are increasingly seeing a fragmentation between Elites and the lower classes. Yet both are using social media services. Then we bring in the diaspora and their interconnections between the “home country” and their new “host country” and influence over foreign policies of the host country.

These interactions mean more information reaching the hands of the citizens, being shaped by citizens and communicated into the larger populace, even where Internet access is limited. That foments ideas and then change. Such change in fragile nations is rarely conducted (successful or not) without conflict. Anecdotal y, I suspect we may see less chance of global conflict than before, but an increase in more localized or regional conflict in fragile nations. It is not only Elites that are accessing these Liberation Technologies, but the common citizen. And some governments are becoming clever at using these tools to counter those who want democracy.

International relations have always been complex. With social technologies, they are going to become ever more complex. The relationship between governments, civil society, industry and global organizations is changing. Social technologies and the Internet is about human ideas, it is where ideas get developed and evolve. Now ideas and ideologies can evolve faster. Groups can form, disband and fracture faster and easier than ever before. Our research suggests the views and predictions of thinkers like George Friedman have not accounted for these Liberation Technologies – that may be their Black Swan to what does end up happening.

There is no easy answer and no clear path to the future or to what will or won’t happen. The only sure thing; social medias will result in fundamental shifts in international relations. Lets hope that dialogue reins and the values of democracy prosper.