Thanks for another great write-up. It is interesting that you bring up the US 2024 ballot initiatives (Denver (x2), Sonoma, Berkeley). Of the 4, only Berkeley won. These campaigns have touted successes besides whether voters approved the initiative, and DxE has even acknowledged that the factory farm ban initiative in Sonoma was intentionally overly bold, with a willingness to not win the initiative yet still gain knowledge of opposition tactics and grow public awareness. I suppose this needs to be balanced, as you bring up, with member retention and movement sustainability.
Great piece. I've been thinking about this a lot recently and feel like the movement could benefit from much more strategic and intentional growth of supporters. Typically, it feels like groups design their campaign solely on what they want to achieve and then go and find or hope they have the supporters on the journey to get there, rather than building a campaign(s) around moving people into increasing stages of willingness to support (via smaller wins) to build a more powerful momentum. In a way, we're back to front. Start with where you need to get to and build the momentum towards it (probably over years), rather than set a final destination and just keep pushing (and losing people along the way).
I really love your article, James. Thank you for taking the time to reflect on these ideas. It aligns perfectly with what we've been trying to achieve @chilli (https://www.chilli.club/). We're focused on breaking down activism into intermediary missions, which simplifies the campaign process for supporters. This way, they can see the outcomes—whether we win or lose—without having to wait for years. This constant feedback loop seems crucial for keeping people engaged!
Thanks for another great write-up. It is interesting that you bring up the US 2024 ballot initiatives (Denver (x2), Sonoma, Berkeley). Of the 4, only Berkeley won. These campaigns have touted successes besides whether voters approved the initiative, and DxE has even acknowledged that the factory farm ban initiative in Sonoma was intentionally overly bold, with a willingness to not win the initiative yet still gain knowledge of opposition tactics and grow public awareness. I suppose this needs to be balanced, as you bring up, with member retention and movement sustainability.
Great piece. I've been thinking about this a lot recently and feel like the movement could benefit from much more strategic and intentional growth of supporters. Typically, it feels like groups design their campaign solely on what they want to achieve and then go and find or hope they have the supporters on the journey to get there, rather than building a campaign(s) around moving people into increasing stages of willingness to support (via smaller wins) to build a more powerful momentum. In a way, we're back to front. Start with where you need to get to and build the momentum towards it (probably over years), rather than set a final destination and just keep pushing (and losing people along the way).
I really love your article, James. Thank you for taking the time to reflect on these ideas. It aligns perfectly with what we've been trying to achieve @chilli (https://www.chilli.club/). We're focused on breaking down activism into intermediary missions, which simplifies the campaign process for supporters. This way, they can see the outcomes—whether we win or lose—without having to wait for years. This constant feedback loop seems crucial for keeping people engaged!