e.g. – Avaaz.org / MoveOn.org / 38Degrees.org.uk</li></li></ul><li>common pitfalls of online campaigns<br />the ‘If you build it, they will come’ philosophy<br />using tools as an ‘add-on’, not as part of a broader strategy<br />not understanding supporters’ or targets’ relationship with technology<br />disconnect from other campaign activities<br />
tips for new ‘e-campaigners’<br />build a strong database<br />brief, focussed communication<br />make it personal<br />strategise for different levels of engagement<br />coordinate online and ‘offline’ activism<br />
what’s out there for e-campaigners?<br />join the eCampaigners’ Forum email group<br />start a campaign on Louder.org.uk<br />get some help from Duane @ FairSay.com<br />read Advocacy Online’s client’ case studies<br />
The major shift characterised by ‘new media’ (versus ‘old media’ – print, TV, radio, etc.) – sometimes described as ‘web 2.0’ – is in the interactive and two-way nature of the experience. As this shift has taken place, users have quickly come to expect an opportunity for dialogue, rather than a straight presentation of information. Increasingly, organisations in all sectors have left-behind the old website, which served primarily as an ‘e-brochure’ for their work, in exchange for something closer to ‘an online focus group’, allowing them to receive, as well as share and create information. Advocates of new media have pointed to the ‘democratising’ aspects this shift has brought to communications, allowing anyone to disseminate their ideas on a scale previously available only to commercial media providers. Others have argued it has initiated an over-saturation of information available. These arguments have been increasingly trumped by recent changes in searching, filtering, rating and self-policing of web content.