There is a lot of hype around new digital channels, but little evidence is published to back this up. So I will. Here is the evidence from one global campaign in 2010 to demonstrate how different digital channels compared.
I hear the questions every week: "Should we start with Facebook or email?" "Should we use Twitter and Mobile?" "Is email obsolete? My first response is always that it depends on the objectives, the strategy and the audience since starting with the tools is putting the "cart before the horse".
A common strategy is to recruit and mobilise large number of people to put public pressure on a person, government or company. In this context, they often want to get people to participate in an online action like signing a petition or sending an email to a target.
So given I had access to a large pool of data for a large global multi-channel campaign I was involved with over the summer of 2010, I decided to try and provide the evidence for the value of each channel.
The Case: 1GOAL Campaign
Over the summer of 2010, I was hired by the 1GOAL campaign to head-up their e-campaigning (starting from building a website). This was a global campaign focusing on ensuring governments committed to achieving universal primary education by 2015 as they had committed 10 years ago in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
It was a campaign organised around the FIFA World Cup and had tremendous potential. This potential was because it was endorsed by FIFA, has over 200 world-class footballers as supporters, had other high profile supporters like Shakira, Desmund Tutu and Queen Rania of Jordan as well as having an amazing line-up of support from mobile network providers, broadcasters, large digital sites (Facebook, Twitter, Meetup, MSN), etc.
Post originale: http://www.frogloop.com/care2blog/2010/11/17/hype-vs-reality-what-digital-channels-are-the-most-effective.html
No comments:
Post a Comment