Should we all run to Bluesky?
Instead of non-profits grappling with moral conondrums about whether or not to stay on X, we should be thinking a bit more practically.
There has been a lot of chat about The Guardian’s statement on leaving X, and whether progressive organisations should follow suit.
Make no mistake, platforms run this way are a fundamental threat to progressive policy and practice. The content that people are most likely to see is designed to antagonise and divide.
Because of this, it is starting to become impossible to reach people on social media, unless you have hefty financial backing or are posting disinformation rage bait.
This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism. The US presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse.
- Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X, The Guardian
This is the part I have mostly seen people focus on, but the latter half of the statement is what I think should really be informing the conversations organisations are having.
Social media can be an important tool for news organisations and help us to reach new audiences but, at this point, X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work. Our journalism is available and open to all on our website and we would prefer people to come to theguardian.com and support our work there.
- Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X, The Guardian
Was this a moral or practical choice?
I reckon they’ve done a cost-benefit analysis and decided it’s not worth posting there anymore because it doesn’t bring in growth.
They’re not getting growth because of all those values based reasons they talk about, sure, but this is part of a broader digital landscape. It is very hard to get users off a platform, which is by design.
The platforms are oversaturated with content, achieving reach and engagement is getting harder unless you funnel cash into the platform’s advertising programme, and you probably won’t have a direct line to your new audience at the end of it.
I predict we’ll see more companies stepping away from X for these financial reasons, The Guardian just used it as an opportunity to place themselves firmly as an antagonist to a shared villain in Elon Musk.
Making practical choices because of bad systems
This isn’t me dissing The Guardian, the reality is if you’re left of centre or have content standards it is highly likely that your routes to online discourse will shut down while right-wing disinformation thrives.
I want us all to start having practical conversations about our presence in different digital spaces before we’re left scrambling because our mission is a foil to the billionaires who own these platforms.
Maybe it makes sense to stay on X for now, because you still achieve impact through an engaged audience. If you’ve somehow managed this, there’s probably a moral argument for you to keep doing it to stop those users being left with only right-wing propaganda content.
Whatever conclusion you come to, my stance is it would be a mistake to approach this by having intellectual debates about the moral value of having an X account.
So, here is my humble offering to you: a guide on three steps to properly evaluate your digital presence and focus your resources on where you’ll see the most impact.
Step One: Have some honest conversations about vanity metrics and content for content’s sake
Metrics are often where the disconnect between digital and offline campaigning starts, because digital was not built into the overall campaign strategy from the beginning.
Digital teams in these situations have to default to vanity metrics because they have no other tangible goals to achieve.
That leads to reach and engagement metrics being used interchangeably with the pyramid of engagement, often for the purpose of reporting to funders and boards. Reach equals observing, following equals…following, and likes/shares equals endorsing.
Looking at the state of play right now, most digital platforms won’t really allow us to bring people any further than this - so, we have to ask, what are these metrics actually giving us, if this doesn’t lead to further action and impact?
Even if we’re not getting those vanity metrics, it’s often still the case that a lot of time and talent is spent on consistently putting content out on all platforms and the justification is phrases like “we have to be part of the conversation.”
I’m sorry, but it’s giving screaming into the void. And you need to have an open conversation about that, because this is not about the quality of people’s work, it’s about whether the work is serving your overall mission.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Step Two: Revisit your strategy
So, let’s go back to the mission - and if the digital folks weren’t involved when this was developed, now is the time to right that wrong.
I am not suggesting you rip up the strategy and start from scratch. This is about clarifying what your goals are so that it flows through to all activities, with a particular focus on digital activity.
I recommend focusing on one particular piece: who can implement the change you are advocating for, and who or what has the most influence on them?
Those influencing factors are where you want to focus your digital activity. What digital spaces will they pay attention to, and what would make them advocate for the same change as you?
Here’s a practical example if you haven’t done this type of thinking for digital spaces before:
Your aim is to get a business to change an unfair practice.
A CEO can change a bad business practice, and shareholders have the most influence on them. The shareholders are motivated by profits, and know the impact that stigma and reputational damage can have on a brand’s financial success.
One way to affect their reputation is through Trustpilot, because they can’t remove reviews and reviews have an impact on consumer choices. You need genuine customers, because false reviews would not be effective.
You won’t be able to recruit through Trustpilot, and you need people who are genuine customers of this company who are also aligned with your mission.
The fastest route could be to look at which digital platform gives you the highest action-taker rate, and then use that to poll your supporters on whether they are a customer of the target business.
For those that click “yes,” you could direct them to an action page with instructions or a pledge page to get involved with an upcoming top secret action.
Step Three: Look at your performance on the digital platforms you want to use as part of your strategy
The key to this is we want to approach this from a cost-benefit analysis perspective rather than using reach and engagement metrics. If economics chat puts you to sleep, don’t worry, it’s more chill than it sounds.
Decide what time period you’ll look at - don’t do your entire time on the platform unless it’s under two years, because otherwise your results may be skewed by changing algorithms and the like.
Decide how you’ll measure “cost.” It could be money, staff time, you could even use “issue” if you work on multiple themes and want to see if you’re evenly weighted.
Put strict parameters on what constitutes a “benefit.” This won’t be a useful exercise if you measure things that are vague or potential outcomes.*
Write down all your costs and benefits, and discuss whether the benefits are worth the costs.
*This might be particularly pertinent when thinking about X right now: the fact that journalists look for stories on Twitter is not a benefit. A specific example of a journalist writing a story as a result of your output is a benefit.
This gives you a good lens to prioritise the digital activities you came up with when you looked at your strategy, or maybe look at different methods to achieve the same impact.
Let’s take X again as an example. Maybe you did establish some media relationships through the platform, but that was the only real benefit, and there was a disproportionate cost involved.
So, you decide it would be better to try and establish direct relationships with a few journalists instead, especially because then your relationship won’t be dependant on a specific platform.
The great thing about having an open and non-judgemental conversation about all this is you’re likely to find benefits you might have missed if you were zeroed in on those pesky metrics.
For example - a press colleague did a brilliant job at building those direct relationships, and I remember them sharing that a journalist had dropped them a message to say they loved a social video.
Small benefit, but useful for keeping relationships warm, but importantly that was not the sole benefit from that content - it also got people talking and contributed to reputational damage for the target company.
Feeling inspired and want to discuss all this with a pal? You know what to do…
Digital campaigning and digital comms in general are shifting
This isn’t just an X problem, this is a symptom of a rapidly changing digital landscape that has far-reaching impacts on our society and culture offline.
Adapting is going to require mindset shifts, but I believe most of us can apply our skillset to these new challenges. But to do that, we need to get funders, boards, and colleagues on our side so they’ll be willing to change up what their metrics of success look like.
The next few issues of the Substack are intended to help you get your head around this shift and have helpful conversations about what your digital campaigning strategy should look like in light of the shift.
Hit the subscribe button to get future issues like those in your inbox. If your email inbox fills you with dread, you can find the RSS feed here instead.
Next time: what led to the era of AI slop, and how can digital campaigning work in the era of over-saturation?