Mark Frederickson commented on my recent post about Michael Stein's interview with Michael Gilbert:
I think I have to weigh in on the Gilbert side of this debate, and for one simple reason: message. Email allows for better control of what you are saying and to whom. I believe the thought of allowing anyone the opportunity to add, change or diffuse an organization's message is scary (to me at least).
I come from an electoral background, where message manipulation is the primary focus of the campaign. I've seen campaigns burned by allowing anyone to use their websites as a soap box. In a similar vein, remember MoveOn.org's "Bush = Hitler" ad fiasco?
(I apologize in advance for linking to a Washington Times article - I would have found something better but I'm in a hurry ;-).
With email, an organization does not need to worry any (even well meaning) person hijacking the message.
My $0.02
Thanks for the comment, Mark. As I noted in my post, I agree with Gilbert's underlying philosophy, but I also think that the combined proliferation of (on the one hand) self-publishing tools and (on the other) spam are working to move dialogue out of the Inbox and onto more public online spaces.
And for related reasons, I disagree with the idea that nonprofits should be focused on delivering a honed message (and on preventing anyone from altering that message.) I'm sure you didn't intend it to sound this way, but that idea strikes me as patronizing, suggesting that "we" (i.e. the organization) have the right answer, and our job is to deliver a compelling message that will convince "them" (i.e. activists, donors, etc.) that we're right and motivate them to act accordingly.
Instead, I think that nonprofits should be focused on engaging their constituents in an active dialogue that's about listening and learning as much as anything else. The idea that the people at the center--the organizational professionals--have all the answers just isn't true. No matter what issues you're involved with, there are vast networks of people out there with a great deal of expertise and plenty of creative ideas.
These people are your audience, and they want to get involved. But they don't want to be told what to think. They want to tell you what they think. They're willing to listen, to be educated, and to be recruited to your cause as well, but treating them like passive recipients of your message is a sure way to turn them off and drive them away.
In recent years there's been a steady progression toward greater interactivity and responsiveness on the part of all institutions (except where they exercise monopoly control). Nonprofits, schools, political campaigns, and businesses in every industry are increasingly engaged in conversations with their markets (see Cluetrain).
Email is great for broadcasting messages, broadcasting will continue to be important for most institutions, and email isn't going away any anytime soon. But blogs and other public, visible, searchable and archivable web tools provide a much better platform for ongoing dialogues between an institution and its constituents. Continuing to prioritize email over these other tools is a mistake and a missed opportunity for any institution.