And while I agree that often 50 super activists are the most powerful tool in your arsenal, it is frequently necessary to have broader air cover partnered with it to increase awareness, comfort, and pressure on policymakers.

I like this article, but I approach online advocacy from the standpoint that metrics count, but it's a longer process through which the metrics are counted.

Back in the day when I used to do this stuff, I based every single campaign on the final objective (GOTV?, winning on an appropriation in the house, blocking a legislative initiative?) and then worked backwards.

Again, it all depends upon budget, but as you touch on, not one size fits all in online advocacy campaigns. I view is as an evolution, moving a potential supporter from unawareness to fervent activism. And throughout the process, there are many steps along the way.

For example, first, you need to introduce your prospective activists to the issue. And where marketing meets online is that, still, most statistics say that you have to touch someone between five an seven times to get their attention. So you have to get creative -email is not the cure-all.

Once you have their attention, then you can really begin to educate them. Presumably, education will lead to converting them to see yours (or your client's) point of view.

At each step in the process, people will peel off; as you move through the process from unawareness to activism, you can and should track the actions of your supporters — and find ways to reward them along the way.

At the next step presumably someone will go from being convinced on the issue to being convinced that he/ she need to become active, either recruiting others or taking some sort of action that you have built into your online platform. And I am really wish-washy on emails to Capitol Hill simply because there is so much noise and congressional staffers have said for years that because of the preponderance of astroturf, email is marginally effective (unless done very well, like offering a carousel of 20 different letters with the same theme, or, in what lowers your count considerably, having people compose their own letters).

Now on to the super-activists. Your statistical analyses have presumably enabled you to draw a line between “asks: and “dones.” (your database should give your stats that will tell you this). Those who have been most active on your issue can be carefully culled from the stats that show their effectiveness (people recruited , LTEs placed, etc). Then you can reach out to them and perhaps even make them in-person representatives for your issue, be it for the media or more a face-to-face meeting with an influencer.

I realize that this comment is so long that Leo Tolstoy is rolling over in his grave, but where stats come in is in pulling people through the activism process — and rewarding them along the way (best example that I can think of was the RNC's GOPoints system in which, depending upon what you did, you got anything from a bumper sticker to a golf umbrella, all branded).

I agree with your premise that “it is about finding those individuals likely to have the greatest pre-existing sympathy for your issue who can be easily convince to take action,” but I would layer in some additional demographics and view it as more of an elegantly Machiavellian process than looking for the quick hit on those who can be easily convinced.

All of this is presented with the HUGE caveat that time and money are factors, but I would rather build a base of 10,000 emails that turn into 50 super-activists.

My two (thousand) cents.

Mark