Social Media as a Fractal

I have been thinking about this social media phenomena, as it matures and crosses the chasm from the early-adopter / tech geek crowd to mainstream. The idea that I am wrestling with is that the primary behaviors being exhibited thus far are just the top layer of a much more deep and complex evolution currently underway.

I have written before about Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff's social technolgraphics ladder. Many others are trying to define frameworks to explain what we are seeing. However, my theory is that these frameworks are too simple to explain what is happening, especially as such behaviors expand into the mainstream. And, in order to meet the needs of the ever-expanding social media user base requires a more complex model. And yet, such complex models already exist - in nature.

My thesis is that, as these tools proliferate and organization forms on its own, social media mimics more existing biological structures (i.e. fractals) than such simple structures as a ladder or even a pyramid. Just with biology, such self-organizing structures allow the sum to be better / smarter / stronger than the parts. This framework association is not limited to a particular part or behavior of social media. It reflects the entire social media landscape currently emerging.

This premise is supported by the success thus far of recent API's, such as Facebook and (dare I say) Twitter. Build the core infrastructure of your idea, and then offer integration points for others to permeate from your original idea, making the sum much more valuable than the part.

Wikipedia's strength also supports this idea. The sum of thousands of wonks / writers / editers / and even readers has self-organized in a manner that the sum of all the artciles created is much more valuable than the individual writings.

Obama is another loose example, as he attempts to cede control to his supporters, allowing them to self-organize.

So, as entrepreneurs, investors, corporate decision-makers, political strategists etc., evaluate opportunities within this space, ask this one fundamental question: "Does it enable the sum to be more valuable than the parts."

I am not the first to discuss this (for others, go here or here), nor do I claim to have a strong understanding of bio-structures. I just sense a connection here...

Upon the Shoulders of Giants

Nick Carr asks in the most recent Atlantic, "Is Google making us stupid?" (not yet available on the web). Carr writes:

The Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition...The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It's becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.

It is a brave new world as the singularity nears. Matt Asay over at CNET thinks this is not a good thing. My take? Bring it on. Using the same tenants of Anderson's "Free" argument, offloading aspects of our brain processes to technology allows us to focus on other activities, still uniquely accomplished by the human brain. Just as when something becomes free, such a newfound freedom opens up a whole host of yet unforeseen opportunities. We won't know what it means until it happens, as our ability to predict and comprehend beyond is limited.

Thus, upon the shoulders of giants we again will stand...

Anderson's "FREE" & Social Media

Chris Anderson is right. Again. The Long Tail author is publishing another seminal tome on the theory that costs are dramatically reduced given the efficiencies of the websphere, promulgating a whole new economy of "free". From Wired in February:

Once a marketing gimmick, free has emerged as a full-fledged economy. Offering free music proved successful for Radiohead, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, and a swarm of other bands on MySpace that grasped the audience-building merits of zero. The fastest-growing parts of the gaming industry are ad-supported casual games online and free-to-try massively multiplayer online games. Virtually everything Google does is free to consumers, from Gmail to Picasa to GOOG-411.

Another example: Social Media integration. A year ago this month, Facebook launched its API platform, allowing third-party developers to create applications that can easily be integrated into existing tools and features of the Facebook community. This opportunity has spawned over 26 thousand applications, generating over 1 billion downloads by Facebook users. It is free to use. However, the API is a "walled garden", providing no interoperability with other social media networks, creating a cost to the developer (e.g. their time).

This idea of providing an API to enable interoperability between your website / web service and others is taking off. Even the New York Times is jumping on the band wagon - they are working on an API to allow developers to import NYT content into new and yet-to-be-thought-of applications for disseminating content.

Earlier this year Google launched its Open Social product, with MySpace, LinkedIn and most others (except Facebook) on board. Their intent is to provide the infrastructure to allow developers to code their applications once, and then provide the tools and resources necessary to support the interoperability among the various social networks, websites, etc., current and future.

Facebook had attempted to license (i.e. charge) other social networks to take advantage of their platform. Bebo bit, licensing the platform last December. However, given Google's move, Facebook has been forced to go a step further, "open sourcing" their platform for anyone to use. Thus, like Google's Open Social, use of Facebook's API platform is now free for other social networks to integrate. The only cost is their time.

Facebook's obvious expectation is that other social networks will take the time to integrate, therefore offering Facebook's growing developer community more value for time spent developing within the their API platform.

The efficiencies of the internet continue to shrink even non-monetary costs (in this case, a developer's time). Interesting times...

Groundswell: The Engagement Ladder

Within politics, the idea of an engagement ladder has been around for decades. You begin to engage a potential supporter through a small, low-hurdle action, such as a short, ID survey (who do you support, etc.) or nowadays an email sign-up. The idea is that you then harvest those that filter through this initial hurdle with a larger ask, such as posting a yard sign. Eventually, you grow the supporter's engagement to volunteering their time and, ultimately, giving money.

Notice any parallels from this figure from Groundswell?
The social web allows the political engagement ladder to elongate in both directions. The gamut of actions from which you can choose to employ to grow your pool of supporters becomes vastly larger. The low-hurdle asks no longer have to be as active as a phone survey or even an email sign-up - now you can ask them to download a virtual gift within a social network (see Hillary Gifts).

Once engaged, the actions available can be much more broad than in the offline world. Campaigns are already allowing supporters to make phone calls from home. May more opportunities exist to activate and engage the supporter through social media (well beyond my ideas or existing examples).

How can the ladder be expanded?

Social Media Middleware

In reading Fred Wilson's recent post about liquidity, a thought came to mind, less from the financial perspective and more from the consumer's. Is there an opportunity for a social media middleware?

He is right that the internet is "decomposing into a vast array of micro-services". I am finding my attention further fragmented as I explore the latest tool - LinkedIn to Facebook, and now to Twitter.

Value is derived when these services are consolidated / integrated respective of how the users could / should / are using them - certainly an unlikely scenario exploited by an M&A play such as Yahoo / Microsoft, or any of the other potentials. I and many others have discovered tools to allow me to compound my activity from one source to another - Twitterfeed pushes my blog posts to Twitter, and Twitter's Facebook application pushes my tweets to my Facebook status. His point that M&A cannot work in this context is evident.

My thought is that opportunity exists to develop a middleware separate from all of these various sources, with the user in mind. This middleware will allow the user to access the various resources as they need to, all from a central platform - i.e. an RSS reader for the social web.

Such a service will not provide the liquidity Wilson advocates, as an M&A or IPO event may. However, if this nut can be cracked, such a service will allow these micro-services to evolve and continue delivering on the value proposition that first grabbed the attention of the early adopter. Surely that can be monetized?

Crowdsourcing: Radiohead's Latest Experiment

Crowdsourcing is an idea that has been gaining momentum as a key component of the evolving social web. (I previously wrote about it here.) Various attempts have been made within the political world, but none that execute on both sides of the coin.

Side #1 - User-generated Content: The most notable example of this is the YouTube debates last Fall. Users from around the country were encouraged to upload their questions for the candidates to YouTube. This was an interesting endeavor that has been mimiced in various ways since, such as Clinton's AskHillary project, among others. But, when it came to selecting questions, users were left out in the cold, which leads us to side #2...

Side #2 - Rank by Community: Users of the community review submissions and vote on them, Digg-style. The more votes a particular entry gets, the higher it appears in the rankings - i.e., the crowd decides what is emphasized.

A great example of both sides of the coin is Radiohead's latest Nude Re /Mix experiment. The band has made 4 different tracks available via iTunes - a voice track, guitar, strings and drums. Fans are encouraged to download the tracks via iTunes, and create their own mix of the song, and upload their versions to radioheadremix.com. On the site, fans are also encouraged to vote on their favorite mix.

Thanks to Matt Dickman for the original thought. More from Matt:

This is a fantastic idea as a way to allow fans to get involved with the Radiohead brand, create something that is their own and join in a community of other, like minded fans. More companies, bands, products, teams, etc. need to look at this model as a way to create deeper engagement. Providing raw assets that can be used to create original, personal by-products could be powerful.

This is an interesting opportunity for Radiohead fans to participate in the music process, rather than just listen. Kinda has a democratic (note the small "d") ring to it, doesn't it...

The Age of Conversation and the Integration of Data

This site got me thinking about the power of data as we enter the age of the conversation. Each of us now has a much larger megaphone than we ever did before, when it comes to shining a light on what interests us. Blogs are free, posting to YouTube is free. Certainly some are louder than others, but anyone can join the discussion.

Then comes data. There have been projects for years that have attempted to take advantage of the power of many. The idea of distributive computing has purveyed computer science courses for decades, and the SETI@Home project has engaged many a tech geek.

I have spoken a few times about the idea that privacy is truly a myth. There is more data out there on each of us than we could ever imagine. And yet, our visibility into this data is murky to non-existent, for the most part. Couple that dataset with the power of distributive computing and you get this:

And this:

And this:


The clash of the ubiquitous megaphone and public data begins! The power of many is able to comb through datasets like never before. Individuals are able to be places most are not, and then share what is relevant with the world. We are just seeing the beginning of a groundbreaking age of new insights, information, and discussion of our political landscape and beyond.

The political world is consistently being altered by this integration of data and the tools of the conversation. And the data brought to light thus far is minuscule compared to what is available. What does this mean to the marketing / public relations / branding world in the coming months and years? How will the idea of privacy and data ownership evolve? Should be fascinating to watch...

Viral v. Retention

I just came across Andrew Chen's blog - interesting stuff. I am pondering this post where he digs in to the lifecycle of a Facebook application. The prevailing idea is that many successful apps fall just as fast as they rise. The essential idea is that that viral elements feed the rise, but retention elements are needed to stave off decline. Applications that are deep on retention elements miss the rise all together. It is a rare app that provides a healthy balance.

The process of evolving an app from viral to retention follows a similar path found in traditional grassroots politicking. The goal is to first identify the supporter with very low-hurdle asks - sign a petition, pledge your support, provide an email address. Once snared, you then bring the user along the ladder of engagement, from these low-hurdle asks to such things as displaying a yard sign, volunteering, and ultimately donating.

Social media offers the opportunity to drive supporter engagement in a very similar manner, albeit with a plethora of new tools and opportunities. First, on the viral front, the initial hurdle for identification can be much lower (i.e. add an application, join a group). And the bar for engagement actions are much lower as well - make a call from your home, send an email, etc.

We have made our first successful stab on the viral front, with Hillary Gifts. Stay tuned as we support the Clinton campaign's move up the engagement ladder...

Paradigm Shift

Patrick Ruffini offers a similar message that you have heard here, that there is a fundamental shift in the manner with which political campaigning is conducted.

All of this — the massive resource advantage Obama now enjoys — is the result of a decision to trust in a fundamentally more deeper and more resilient medium for building support for his campaign: a word of mouth network that can only be corralled online. Hillary Clinton trusted the establishment and is on the brink of losing. The GOP candidates who leaned on the party’s Wise Old Men lost.

We saw the first concrete results of adaptation in 2004 with Dean's prowess in online fundraising. Adapting to, rather than fighting the new paradigm of political campaigning with the social web has enabled Obama to out-raise everyone. More importantly, he has taken the opportunity a step further, out-mobilizing everyone through the use of technology to boot.

The political web is now reaching the vast majority of the primary electorate with dozens of touchpoints throughout the cycle — few of them controlled by the campaigns themselves — and is reaching all the people who will do anything beyond vote in a general election.

The impact goes beyond just politics. A new channel for communication is maturing, with a power to persuade unlike any other. And, the right message radiates with an ease never before seen. The social web exponentially changes the balance between effort in and effort out. The message has even more paramount than ever.

The ramifications of the success of political web strategy this cycle will be felt for years to come outside this space. There are certainly areas where politics follows distantly behind traditional marketing. Even some of the techniques finally being employed with much success this cycle have been around for years. However, there are few events as public and as closely watched as the US presidential election. Just as the message radiates, so too will the methods...

The Media as We Knew It Is Dead!

Every day, the chorus of the blogsphere grows. The media as we knew it is dead. Long live the conversation!

With the rise of the media machine in the mid twentieth century, certain techniques, methods, etc., were developed to manage the news. When information was doled out, what manner, and by whom became carefully choreographed. On the presidential stage, Kennedy brought it to television, and Reagan perfected it.

As we evolved to a 24-hour news cycle, the rule book was re-written, major edicts deleted and whole new sections created. President Clinton lived much of his term under the scrutiny of this new and seemingly unmanageable beast. His actions certainly helped fuel the fire, but the fire was burning just the same.

And now we come to 2008, the cycle that will belong to the user-generated media. Most of the mainstream publications have added comments, discussion boards and other tools of the user-generated media. But even they must bow to the power of the blogsphere. The major media outlets still have a role, albeit a diminished one.

The first presidential election since Time's now infamous naming of YOU as the person of the year will require a whole new set of methods and strategies, with which to manage. Social media is certainly a new tool at the marketing manager's disposal. Others are certain to come about. Should be fun!

Focused actions

Jeremiah Owyang has yet another great post on how to effectively take advantage of social media from a marketing perspective. As I look at his thoughts through a political lense, I believe he / we should go further with business objectives bullet. From his post:

Meets a business objective: First and foremost, any marketing campaign or activity should match with a business objective, regardless of the tools being used.

As I mentioned in the comments, I think this idea can be taken further, to ensure the success (especially within the political world). I believe that, for a social media campaign to be effective, it must also drive a focused, specific action of the community. For some campaigns, that may be as vague as “engagement”; for others it may be “visit our store” or “donate”. The more focused the action, the easier it is to measure and (I argue) the more likely it is to be accomplished.

Just more of my 2 cents...

Technology vs. Machines 2008

Is it me or is our electoral process getting tighter and tighter as technology continues to imbue the process? First, we had 2000 - the first online presidential election, and that went down to Florida. Next, we had 2004, with the Dean phenomena and a result that went down to Ohio. And now we have Clinton v. Obama.

Obama's candidacy is nothing if not unique. Have we had a candidate with less federal or executive experience be the nominee of a major party? Even Kennedy had 6 years in the House, and 8 in the Senate before 1960. Yet, Obama continues to succeed, much in part to his innovative use of technology.

I don't necessarily see this as a counterpoint to his candidacy. I am a big believer that direct experience is NOT necessarily a predictor of future success. It comes down to how successful is the candidate in the environments they have been in before. Context can be learned.

What I do see is that technology is enabling a new kind of politics, one where the traditional political machine is no longer as powerful. Issues, ideas and vision are rising to the top, past the traditional trajectory the hierarchical machine spews out.

In the 2000 and 2004 elections, the machine won. The Republican army was amazing if not exquisite in their execution. Despite some of the worst approval ratings in modern times, the Bush machine was able to secure re-election.

Are we at the tipping point, where technology propels the non-traditional past the machine? We shall see...

Mitt's Video Post-Mortem: No Wonder...

Michael Kolowich, one of the folks involved in Mitt Romney's video operation offers this dissection of what happened on the web video front. What struck me is how his language continues to be about quick returns on investment, versus seeding the conversation as required by the social web:

If part of the idea is not just to inform but also to inspire people to act (give money, sign up, give us their email, etc.) then YouTube was weak at the “call to action” part.

Politics has never been an A = B environment - you never get your return on investment at first blush. There are tools at the politico's disposal that do drive specific action, but there are just as many that are about laying groundwork. I argue YouTube is a channel for laying groundwork towards the masses.

Providing rich video content on YouTube enables the campaign to reach a large, mass audience. Given the cacophony of content available (opposition clips, foibles, etc.), it is critical that the campaign be loud and proud within this channel, to ensure their message is heard.

He continues:

The most remarkable statistic of all is that more people watched the Romney campaign’s clips on Mitt TV than on our YouTube channel.

Sorry, Michael, but the reason your channel was more popular was not because your video was better, more tailored, etc. It's because you spoke to your zealots rather than the masses. In politics, the zealots get you close, but in the end it is all about reaching the masses. The fact that your YouTube channel was less popular was more a symptom of a more pressing problem - that your campaign's message was not inspiring the masses.

Was your Mitt TV content also published on YouTube? Assuming all content is cross-published, YouTube views should exceed your internal video site. You should be reaching folks that don't necessarily engage in your campaign, but at least hear your message. Focusing on such "seed" channels is just as necessary as focusing on those channels that drive action, in the age of the social web...

Example: Driving the Zealots

From The Nation:

The speech has now drawn over 268,000 views, after about 36 hours online. By contrast, a shorter, spicier clip of Clinton and Obama's debate clash currently has under 50,000 views, (after half a day). About 43 percent of viewers have come from links on Obama's social networking page, MyBO, which encourages supporters to share videos and information with their friends...

These are impressive numbers, especially given the closed, proprietary nature of MyBO. This is a great example of directing your army of zealots to take action and drive the conversation. Imagine what could be done with an integrated approach within an existing social network...

Army of Zealots

More on the article by Mark Walsh of MediaPost:

Fervent online support doesn't necessarily translate into votes, however. The campaign site of Internet favorite Ron Paul drew by far the largest share of traffic among 15 presidential candidates, at 37.9%. The next closest was Huckabee, with 16.4% as of December, according to Hitwise data cited by Borrell. Paul hasn't come close to winning any primaries.

There is a different between the supporter and the zealot. Certain campaigns and certain messages connect with both, either or neither. Zealots are rabid fans. They latch on, believe every drip of rhetoric, and rarely let go. Supporters, however, vote. Unless the zealot army generates supporters, the campaign goes nowhere. Howard Dean had the zealots in 2004. Ron Paul has the zealots this cycle. Obama had them early on, and has done a decent job employing them to generate actual supporters.

There is another layer to the numbers presented above. We must not just look at traffic; we must also look at behavior of those that do engage in the conversation. How does a campaign employ the army of zealots to generate supporters? Are potential supporters turned off or engaged by the zealot conversation?

Blogs and Turn-ons

The headline is a stretch, but it's the catchy ones drive the traffic...

Michael Turk, Fred Thompson's Internet Director offers a great post-mortem on their operation. Sure, he's helping shape the legacy of his efforts, but his points about blogging as an opportunity to open up the conversation are spot on.

Nobody accused us of endorsing the random beliefs espoused by the occasional nut, and nobody on the campaign had to answer a single press call (that I am aware of) about the blog or anything said on it.

Rudy's blog doesn't allow comments. Romney's gets a few per post. Ron Paul just recently launched a blog (despite the fact that blog software is largely free). He currently gets between a handful and a few dozen comments. ...There are just as many Democrats who need to learn this lesson (cough, cough, Hillary, cough, cough).

They need to build online operations so they invite people to the discussion rather than turning them off of it. [get it? turn-ons? I know, a stretch...] Get candidates to write, in their own words, frequent posts. Understand that a ground game is critical, but it must be viewed in terms of ROI. A thoughtful, honest post from a candidate may be discussed and passed around by thousands of people online. It takes little time to write if it's sincere and not obsessive studied and focus grouped.

I don't think this indicates a lack of supporter enthusiasm as much as it indicates that the campaigns have created a blog with nothing to say on sites that are so scrubbed of interesting content they're almost sterile. Most of the posts are rehashed press releases, rehashed campaign e-mails, or occasionally a video so overscripted it becomes almost completely unwatchable.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I do have one more angle to add, however. The role of the campaign web strategist is not just to manage and maintain internal operations. S/he must also be a two-headed manager, an internal advocate for both internal and external online activity. Given the limited reach of campaign sites, the external focus is what needs attention among today's presidential online efforts...

Ron Paul Learns from Zombies

Ok, so maybe the idea didn't come from the Zombies application within Facebook, but given its reach thus far (over 5.4 million installations to date), Ron Paul's campaign may be on to something with their integration of similar ideas.

The application is very simple, yet over 100,000 users are engaged every day. You receive credit for every friend that you bite. You then infect them, and get credit for whomever they bite. Very simple, yet the numbers are crazy.

My thesis is that the numbers are so large due to the competitive element, namely the leader board. By merely presenting the information of how you stack up overall, among your friends and within your networks, users become engaged. Ron Paul is the first example I have seen to port this logic over to political web strategy.

Within his Grassroots Center, the campaign seeks to sign up precinct captains around the country. There also is an additional tool to recruit your friends. What I am excite to see is the leader board on the Grassroots homepage. We shall see if this proves effective in enhancing the recruitment of precinct captains, just as Zombies and other applications have taken off within the Facebook environment. TechPresident noted today that close to 10,000 captains have been recruited thus far.

Shelf Life and Value

I have written several posts about value from the campaign's perspective. Let's not forget it from the user's perspective either.

I like to play with new online tools and services. I am happy to try new things, but my time is also limited. There is a short shelf life for my interest. I have to not only see the potential value of the offering, but also enjoy a valuable experience throughout. When a site gets me to sign up, its an investment on my part - not only to sign up at that time, but to actually use the tool offered. I need a return on that investment.

So when a tool uses email to communicate with me, it too must provide me value, especially when it asks for more of my time.

I recently signed up with Spokeo, one of many sites out there attempting to bring the Facebook News Feed to the general web. Once you sign up, you upload your email contacts, Facebook friends and other networks. Spokeo then consolidates your friends' activity on those other sites in one place. Unfortunately, Spokeo's external integrations are somewhat limited. For example, for Facebook, the only activity that is extracted and placed within your Spokeo feed is the posting of Notes. But again, the idea is interesting and I look forward to its evolution.

Spokeo periodically sends out emails asking you to return to the site to see the new activity. I like the idea and, despite its limitations, I continue to check it out every day or two. However, I continue to get these emails. One of two things are happening. Either there is no logic behind the emails, and they are simply blasted periodically. Or, the couple days in between checks are sufficient to trip the process.

I am a sucker sometimes, so I typically do check the site out when I receive one of these notices, taking time. My problem is that, on at east a couple occasions, the quantity of new activity available for my review was sparse - 4 or 5 entries - hardly worth my time. How many of these will I receive before I ignore them? Worse yet, how many will bug me enough to cancel my account?

My point here is that delivering value to the user must be considered throughout all potential interactions and communications. Spend the time to incorporate the optimal logic for automatic communications, to ensure they add value, rather than detract.

More on Focus, and Porn!

Shameless traffic-driving headline, but I believe an interesting point is to be made nonetheless...

From the Huffington Post, via Jake McKee, Hugh McGuire's Article, "Porn Knows What It’s For — Do You?" provides a more vivid description of a theme I have hit a few times on this blog: focus on value and less on method. From the post:

It seems to me the porn business, one of the most profitable businesses in the Universe, gets this in a way no one else does. Because the porn biz understands exactly what it is for:

Pornographers don’t sell pornography; they provide orgasms.

Looking at it that way, they don’t seem to care much about how they do it — they’ll just find ways to give people the orgasms however people want them given. Dirty postcards, magazines, porno theatres, VHS and Betamax, phone sex, online photos, online videos, chat lines, webcams, cybersex and God knows what else. You don’t hear the porn business whining about Intellectual Property and illegal downloads, and consumers as thieves, because they don’t have time: they’re too busy trying to give the world what it seems to want, more orgasms.

So, stepping out of the peepshow and back to the respectable world, why are newspapers, for instance, having such a hard time? I think it’s because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what they do.

The value of a newspaper is not that it gives me information; the value of a newspaper is how it selects information - what it puts in and what it leaves out.

Political web strategy suffers from a similar ambiguity in its attempt to execute on its overall objective: to drive votes. It is not about the latest tool or the coolest thing in social media. It is not about a fancy website or a well-produced video. It is all about driving the value you seek, given your goals and objectives.

Value Equation of Online Political Campaigning

There is a ton of buzz about what campaigns are doing online. Obama, Paul and the others are all playing with various tools out there. However, much of the effort is directed at initiatives that are not aligned with the value equation behind political campaigns. There are a lot of ideas and products out there that offer more gimmick than value. Sure, the gimmicks get you ink (see here), but do they actually drive value for the campaign?

I define campaign value as the acquisition of either money or time from an individual. The more of either you have, the more you are able to deploy. In the parlance of Karen Hicks, Clinton's field adviser, it is all about the capacity.

To various extents, the technologies employed today attempt to drive some level of engagement. Sites such as Eventful and Meetup help drive prospective supporters to events that will hopefully engage the individual enough to support the candidate. Sites such as Twitter and Facebook enable campaigns to interact with their constituents. Tools such as campaign video or blogs attempt to offer content to the supporter in the hopes of keeping them on the site and interested in the candidate. Even virtual phone banking has roots with engagement, giving active supporters the opportunity to identify other potential people to engage. The more engaged an individual is, the more likely they are to donate time or money.

I do not deny that all of the above is important. Engagement is critical to generating the capacity to campaign. However, my thesis is that many of the above tools and more that have yet to be uncovered can take online campaigning one step further, from engagement to action.

It is all about focus. Engagement must be the focus in the early stages. However, focus on action must take precedence, as the primary season wears on.

I define action in this context is defined as specific activities that help promote the campaign objectives. Building capacity is just one, fundraising is another. What other actions that align with campaign objectives are there, that can be enhanced / improved / refined with online technology?