Progressive Roundtable: A Convening to Build Marketing & Communications Infrastructure (Commonweal...

7/31/2019 Progressive Roundtable: A Convening to Build Marketing & Communications Infrastructure (Commonweal Institute

1/59

Progressive RoundtableSM

:

A Convening to Build

Marketing & Communications Infrastructure

March 2-5, 2006

Millbrae, California

Report

Sponsored by

Commonweal Institute

And generously supported by the

A. H. Zeppa Family Foundation

With seed funding from the

California Teachers Association

325 Sharon Park Drive, Suite 332, Menlo Park, CA 94025

telephone 650-854-9796, fax 650-854-8132

www.commonwealinstitute.org

Report released November 25, 2007


2/59

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

Context 4

The Convening 5

Priority Areas 6

Letters of Interest 7

Advancements in Progressive Infrastructure 7

Other Benefits to Participants 14

Progressive Roundtable Metrics 15

Learnings 17

Recommendations 21

Conclusion 22

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of Participants 23

Appendix 2: Conference Agenda 25

Appendix 3: Priority Areas, Related LOIs, Observations & Status 31

Appendix 4: List of Funders 47

Appendix 5: Proposal Process 48

Appendix 6: Letters of Interest Form 51

Appendix 7: Comments on Funders and Funding 54


3/59

3


Final Report

Executive Summary

Project Rationale: In todays information age, cultural values must be repeated,

developed, and maintained in the public conversation, or they will disappear first frompeoples lips, then from their minds. People can change the way they look at the world

become more progressive but not without help. Progressives must organize into a

movement that promotes the benefits of progressive values, in order to create asustainable progressive majority in this country. The Commonweal Institutes first

Progressive Roundtable proved a successful model for organizing crucial players in

this emerging movement.

Project Summary: In March, 2006, the Commonweal Institute (CI) convened 58

prominent progressive non-profit leaders, funders, academics, and experts from across

the country to address priority needs for building the marketing and communications

components of the progressive movements infrastructure.

Priority Areas Identified: In order to help progressives communicate and market theirideas and values more effectively to the American public, the Progressive Roundtable

identified six urgent infrastructure needs:

(1)A progressive media lab(2)A research and coordination center(3)A national strategic working group(4)Investment in human capacity(5)Progressive convener(s)

(6)Building connected capacity

Infrastructure Development: Both alone and in collaboration, Progressive Roundtable

participants proposed 17 programs to address the above priorities for the progressive

marketing and communications infrastructure. The Commonweal Institute collected

Letters of Interest for these projects and sent them to 18 funding entities that hadexpressed interest in receiving them. Although none of these funders gave financial

support to any of the 17 programs proposed, eight of the proposals are being carriedout to some degree, thanks to other sources of support.

Results: By convening the Progressive Roundtable, the Commonweal Institute was the

catalyst for significant developments in progressives marketing andcommunications infrastructure. The results reported here map the beginnings of thatinfrastructure, while the gaps present significant opportunities for the Commonweal

Institute and others to make important contributions to the progressive movement. The

results also suggest an important lesson: progressive funders need to work more openlyand collaboratively with each other and with progressive organizations and activists to

build systems capable of winning hearts and changing minds in todays marketplace ofideas.


4/59

4

Context

The American conservative movement has moved public conversation steadily rightwardover the last 30 years, with far-reaching consequences for the countrys political

governance. The conservative movement has succeeded through the actions of a well-

funded and well-coordinated organizational infrastructure that follows a long-term,disciplined communications strategy. The conservative infrastructure providesconservative politicians with both ideas and specific language for use in public statements

and campaigns. It also presents these words and the associated conservative messages to

the public through multiple media, making it appear as if the politicians are simplyexpressing widely accepted ideas. Thanks to their institutional infrastructure and its

affiliated media, conservative ideology has become the dominant force in public

discourse, and thus in American politics.

There is now widespread recognition among progressives that almost all of their

programs, institutions, and activities are under attack by the Right, and that they have

been unable, thus far, to mount an effective response. This has led to a growingawareness that progressives must build a social movement for the twenty-first century,

with the power to fund, generate, package, and disseminate ideas that lead society

forward. The indisputable success of the conservative infrastructure model serves as acontinuing reminder that attention to marketing and communications, as well as

organizational development, with coordination and appropriate funding, can yield

enormous dividends. A strategic marketing approach by progressives will greatlyenhance the value and reach of new policy ideas, new progressive media channels, and

growing involvement of sectors such as Latinos, Southerners, and youth in the

progressive movement.

Given the conservative movements three-decade head start, progressives must buildtraditional infrastructure components in order to achieve parity. If they want to achieve

dominance in the marketplace of ideas, however, they must also tap their strategiccompetitive advantages. Progressive advantages can be found in the creative sector,

nonprofit organizations, academia, new media and the blogosphere, technology, and

grassroots movements. A robust, highly effective progressive infrastructure will leveragethese advantages.

The Commonweal Institute was among the first to articulate the need for progressiveinfrastructure, and many organizations around the country have begun addressing various

aspects of this tremendous task. To complement those efforts, the Progressive

Roundtable

SM

began building a neglected aspect of this infrastructure: progressivesmarketing and communications capacity. It focused on marketing to specific audiencesand coordinating progressive messaging. A number of communications and marketing

efforts are underway among progressives, but they lack the infrastructure needed to

enable effective coordination. Through the Progressive Roundtable, the CommonwealInstitute and its many partners explored what it would take to develop an infrastructure

capable of translating progressive ideas into persuasive messages in large-scale marketingcampaigns.


5/59

5

The Convening

The 2006 Progressive Roundtable launched the development of a coordinated progressivemarketing and communications infrastructure. The overarching goal of the 2006

Roundtable was to develop a clear understanding of what is needed to get this

infrastructure up and running, and to elicit a shared commitment to make it happen. Iffully realized and coordinated, the new marketing and communications programsoutlined at the Progressive Roundtable would make a major contribution to the future of

the progressive movement. Intended accomplishments of the convening were:

1. Identification of functional gaps in current marketing, communications, andcoordination capacity

2. Plans for advancing specific issues through newly created programs and networks3. Commitments from participants to work together, write proposals, and seek funding

for the projects and institutions needed to fill the identified functional infrastructure

gaps and carry out the specific issue projects

4. Clearly identified targets for solicitation

5. Mechanisms to maintain working group cohesion and ensure ongoing coordination6. Plans for post-convening steps to promote broader participation.

Fifty-eight participants [for a complete list, see Appendix 1] came from around thecountry to share their expertise in a variety of fields, including communications,

marketing and market research, framing and language development, public relations,

political strategy, public policy, media production, social action, academia, andprogressive philanthropy. Under the guidance of facilitator Mary Berryman-Agard, they

worked intensively in small teams and in large group sessions. Using case studies as a

starting point, participants identified the top priorities for developing a progressivemarketing and communications infrastructure [for the complete agenda, see Appendix 2].

First, participants laid out 10-year and 3-year progressive goals for four issue areas:

global interdependence, energy/global warming, public education, and the role ofgovernment. These issue areas were chosen as examples of the types of major issues that

progressives are involved with, issues that would benefit from marketing and

communications. For each goal, they identified target audiences that would need to bereached and values to be communicated. They discussed key features of the

communications that would be required for each of these audiences (market segments),

such as key messages, messengers, communications channels, and nature of thepromotional appeals. They then turned their attention to identifying the marketing,

communications, strategy, and coordination capacities necessary to achieve these goals.

During the second phase of the convening, participants used the aggregated input fromthe issue-focused case studies to identify overarching marketing, communications,

strategy, and coordination needs for the progressive movement. They divided into new

teams organized by marketing and communications functions. Each team prioritized theneeds in its function area, then roughed out how these needs might be met. The group

then met as a whole to discuss the needs identified and to establish overall priorities.


6/59

6

Following this, participants discussed organizational strategies for addressing the toppriority needs, and assessed potential funding mechanisms.

By the end of the Progressive Roundtable convening, the working group had identified

gaps in marketing and communication infrastructure, specified new capacities needed to

fill these gaps, and prioritized them. [Notes from the full sessions can be found on theProgressive RoundtableSM

web site: http://www.progressiveroundtable.org .]

Priority Areas

The Progressive Roundtable developed a set of priorities for building progressive

marketing and communications infrastructure based on the direct work and experienceof people working in those fields. These priorities were the result of hands-on effort and

deliberation, not an abstract exercise or the work of outside consultants.

Participants identified twelve needed infrastructure capacities, which were thenprioritized and narrowed to the six capacities most urgently needed. The top six priority

needs identified by participants were, in descending order:

1. A progressive media lab to integrate messaging with new technology2. A research and coordination center for marketing and communications efforts,

both coordinating efforts across the progressive movement and linking national

work with grassroots organizations and activists3. A national strategic working group that conducts a one-time gap analysis,

develops a strategic plan including funding considerations, and coordinates issue

selections and legislative strategy4. Investment in human capacity through programs such as new leadership

development fellowships, an executive exchange program, and an incubator fortransitioning leaders

5. Progressive convener(s) to bring together progressive groups on a regular,sustained basis to promote coordination on long-term strategy and specific issues

6. A network-based strategy to build connected capacity of individuals,organizations, issues and campaigns; mapping of progressive organizations andnetworks would be an initial step.

In addition to these six top priorities, six other infrastructure capacity needs wereidentified by participants, as follow in ranked order: (7) progressive brand development

and management; (8) progressive Google (Poogle) which would include information

management, virtual coordination, and a whos who in the progressive movement; (9)progressive My Space or a social networking site that would use GIS mapping software

to track and link progressive activists and organizations locally, statewide and nationally;

(10) broadening audiences; (11) long-term research and development center; and (12)translating policy ideas for various audiences.

All twelve priorities are described in greater detail in Appendix 3.


7/59

7

Letters of Interest

In an effort to advance projects that would address these priority areas, the CommonwealInstitute developed a Letters of Interest (LOI) process. Using a process agreed upon by a

group of progressive funders, the Commonweal Institute developed a proposal / LOI

format based upon the format used by two of the most prominent progressive fundinggroups. Following the convening, the Commonweal Institute invited ProgressiveRoundtable participants, as well as several groups that did not participate, to submit LOIs

in any of the six priority areas. A total of 17 LOIs were submitted to the Commonweal

Institute, which were sent directly to 18 funders or representatives of foundations orfunder groups whom had expressed interest in receiving these proposals. (Please see

Appendix 4 for a list of funders to whom the LOIs were sent.) Proposers were provided

with the list of funders, including contact information, to whom their LOIs had beensubmitted and the LOIs sent to funders contained contact information for the proposers.

Both funders and proposers were encouraged to have further contact with each other

directly, and proposers were also encouraged to seek other sources of funding that might

be appropriate. Both an explanation of the proposal process and the LOI form can befound in the appendices. (Please see Appendix 5 for the proposal process, Appendix 6 for

the LOI form, and Appendix 3 for information about the LOIs submitted for each priority

area.)

While LOIs were not invited in response to the other six infrastructure needs, which had

not been designated as priorities, Progressive Roundtable participants were encouraged todevelop these ideas independently. We also encouraged other interested parties to

develop these independently and funders to consider supporting them.

Advancements in Progressive Infrastructure

In February and March 2007, as a one-year follow-up to the Progressive Roundtable, the

Commonweal Institute conducted more than two dozen telephone interviews with

participants and funders. These interviews included specific questions about the LOI-proposed projects as well as more general queries about any new or expanded efforts in

the priority areas identified during the convening.

We learned that, in the past year, Progressive Roundtable participants and others havebegun developing significant elements of the progressive marketing and communications

infrastructure (PMCI). Eight of the proposed projects are being carried out to some

extent, addressing major needs in the progressive movements values assessment,human networks, use of technology, and message distribution.


8/59

8

Following are capsule summaries of the status of the projects proposed in the LOIs andother advancements in each of the six priority areas, as reported in the interviews.

Further details are available in Appendix 3.

Priority Area 1: Progressive Media Lab to integrate messaging with new technology

While no respondent reported the development of a full-blown, coordinated media lab,participants have identified alternative sources of funding and have partially implemented

four of the six LOIs in this priority area:

Progressive Communications Network Incubation Center (PCNIC), submitted byProgressNow, ProgressNowAction, and Advancing Wisconsin. PCNIC proposed to

expand Colorados ProgressNow modela state-wide, multi-level communications

and advocacy network for the state's entire progressive movementinto multipleother states. Scaled back from its original scope, communications networks are

being formed in Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Washington.

Messaging for the Progressive Faith Community, submitted by Faith Voices for theCommon Good and The New Press. This proposal would have created an echochamber effect around new progressive ideas by developing a line of books on

progressive religion, as well as developing new forms and uses of social softwaretechnologies to engage progressive audiences more deeply in values-related

conversations. Scaled back, a portion of the project is being carried out to address

some of the communication needs of the faith community, with at least four

progressive religion books in progress and more in the pipeline. Netcentric Campaigns, submitted by Green Media Toolshed. This proposal was to

develop the Netcentric MEDIA Campaign Hub for coordinating distributed mediacampaign activities among many collaborating groups in any progressive issue area,

and providing training and support services for users. A portion of the LOI,

development of software to capture the distributed work of volunteers (e.g., hundredsof volunteers across the country collaborating to build and maintain a large database

of media contacts), is reportedly going well and the developers are seeking major

partners as potential licensees of the software; issue areas with which they arecurrently dealing are peace and security, healthcare, and womens issues.

Public News Service Expansion, submitted by Public News Service and Media in thePublic Interest. Public News Service (PNS) proposed expanding its network of 15state-based progressive AP-style news services to add local progressive coverage for

five additional key states (FL, PA, MI, VI and TN); increase the number of nonprofit

sources and the range of issues that PNS reports on; creating a new Congressional

Progressive Caucus beat to localize and translate national stories; and (3) add newcapabilities to its internet distribution, thus widening its audience. With funding from

its existing sources, PNS is slowly expanding the number of states in which it works,

but has not been able to raise funds to add the CPC beat.

Blogtank/Blogpac, submitted by a group of prominent progressive bloggers, wasintended to inject the values of speed, effectiveness, and accountability into the

progressive movement by increasing the size, the legitimacy, and the reach of theprogressive blogosphere. The goals of this proposal are being carried out by two


9/59

9

separate organizations. The Center for Independent Media, a 501c3 nonprofit,provides investigative journalism skills training and mentoring to bloggers and online

journalists, many of whose stories are subsequently picked up by television, radio,

and newspapers. CIM is expanding on a state-by-state basis, with operating programsin Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota, and plans for a national program based

in Washington, DC. Blogpac supports the development of progressive infrastructureand builds the movement by giving grants to two sets of emerging leaders: (1)activists on the internet who have a demonstrated record of success in creating

progressive change outside of a traditional party or campaign structure, and (2) local

bloggers who build community spaces for activists in their state.

The following LOI has not been carried out, due to lack of funding:

Progressive Media Lab (PML), submitted by a multi-organization collaboration.PML would have been a cross-functional effort to link organizations and experts inthe development and delivery of innovative technologies for grassroots and net-roots

organizing, communications development, blogosphere enhancement, and content

creation.

In addition to these proposals, a number of new developments have occurred during the

past year with regard to more effective use of existing and new media. Among thosementioned by respondents were Opportunity Agenda, Media Consortium, Color of

Change, LinkTV, the Womens Media Center, Mobile Voter, and efforts by Brave New

Films and Balcony Films.

The growing impact of alternative media platforms is changing the research and

development aspect of communications, with emphasis on cultural impact of media.Concern was expressed that emphasis on new media may distract attention from the

opportunities to use traditional media more effectively for progressive purposes.

Coordination is evolving among different media platforms blogosphere, news, PSAs

and other free (earned) media, etc. A serious unmet need, however, is coordinating

content generation and targeting of content through the most effective media channels toappropriate audiences. A related need is to link communications to the grassroots and

mobilization components of political and social action campaigns.

Priority Area 2: Research and Coordination Center for marketing and

communications efforts, both coordinating efforts across the progressive movement and

linking national work with grassroots organizations and activists

While some new research efforts are going on, no respondent reported having heard

about development of a research center of the type recommended by the Progressive

Roundtable participants, one that would coordinate marketing and communicationsresearch and ensure wide access to the results.

None of the individual projects described in the three LOIs in this priority area is beingcarried out as proposed.


10/59

10

Annual Social Values Survey, submitted by American Environics. This proposal wasto conduct a new type of annual social values survey tailored for tracking progressive

social change in America; create and introduce cross-cutting strategic initiatives into

contested political space; and bring together, in an annual meeting, the worldsleading values researchers to discuss new social change trends, the emergence of new

values, and the withering away of old values. Instead, the organization is conductingits standard social values survey, which has been conducted every four years for thepast 30 years, and is doing this in a more circumscribed, issue-specific fashion than

had been proposed, due to lack of funding for a cross-issue survey, and without the

additional proposed activities to track social values changes and influence them

through strategic initiatives. Progressive Resource Center (PRC), submitted by the Commonweal Institute. The

proposed PRC would (1) map, aggregate, and archive existing and new market and

polling research from a variety of sources to create an online clearinghouse; (2) offermarketing resources and toolkits on the PRC web site; (3) build the capacity of

independent voices to promote cross-cutting progressive values through spokesperson

training incorporating the research findings; (4) train strategists and communicationsprofessionals in the use of market research data in the PRC database; and (5) conduct

original market research in areas where research is not being undertaken.

Progressive Index Research, submitted by American LIVES. This proposal was toconduct a national research study to discover what messages and issues hold the most

power and the greatest chance of unifying the progressive movement, using three

separate measures: (1) market segmentation using psychographics; (2) a Progressive

Index, or a guide to political attitudes and awareness; and (3) a Political Activity andInvolvement Index to reveal who is, and who is not, politically active and for what

reasons.

A number of organizations include research components in their work, with some new

projects having been started during the past year. Among the specific research projectsmentioned were the work coordinated by Demos on the role of government, progressive

framing research and policy-related research by the Center for American Progress, and

research by Spitfire Strategies on when individuals take action.

Still unmet is the need for mechanisms that would facilitate wide access to research

results and coordinate expensive research efforts in ways that would make more efficientuse of opportunities to collect data that are vitally important to the progressive

movement.

Priority Area 3: National Strategic Working Group that conducts a one-time gapanalysis, develops a strategic plan including funding considerations, and coordinates

issue selections and legislative strategy

No respondent reported having heard about the development of a national strategic

working group of the type recommended by the Progressive Roundtable participants, one

that would be multi-issue and would include representatives of various types oforganizational entities (i.e., 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), for-profits, etc.). The respondents


11/59

11

responses indicated the difficulty that progressives are having in coming together as acohesive movement, when their traditional pattern has been marked by deep divisions:

Washington versus the states, separate issue silos, and political entities versus nonprofits.

The one LOI submitted in response to this priority was not been carried out, due in part to

a lack of funding, but also revision of the project concept: Progressive Synergy Network, submitted by two individuals who proposed to

develop a model governance structure for cross-issue coordination, based on some of

the progressive movements most successful collaborative efforts: the Partnership

Project, the Forest Stewardship Council, and America Votes. This governance

structure would provide a foundation for effective interaction between electorally-oriented progressive groups, creating a space for the strategic integration of resources

and more effective messaging in order to win elections. The individuals involved

have continued to research and refine their ideas and have written them up in a YaleUniversity Masters thesis.

Nevertheless, some positive signs are present. Strategic planning involving a number oforganizations is occurring in several issue areas at the national level (e.g., environment,

healthcare, media reform) and across issues within some states (e.g., Progressive States

Network and the ProgressNow communications network). Some respondents perceivethat some large funding entities may be starting to engage in long-term strategic planning,

but it is not clear whether this is limited to single issues.

The evolving progressive movement still lacks a national, cross-issue strategic planninggroup that includes representatives of various types of organizational entities (i.e.,

501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), for-profits, etc.) and can integrate the perspectives of the states withthose inside the DC Beltway.

Priority Area 4: Investment in Human Capacity through programs such as newleadership development fellowships, an executive exchange program, and an incubator

for transitioning leaders

As envisioned by the Progressive Roundtable participants, investment in progressive

human resource development would include identifying talent, mentoring and training

young activists, retaining established leaders, offering executive and mid-levelmanagement exchange programs, supporting roving management consulting, and

providing fellowships and resources to leaders.

Neither of the two LOIs submitted in response to this priority received funding, andneither has been carried out as planned:

Progressive Think Tank Leadership Development, submitted by the RockwoodLeadership Program. This is a proposal to focus on skill-building for key progressiveleaders, as a means of organizing national and regional think tank leaders and

facilitating collaboration in visioning, messaging and programming across the

boundaries of organization, issue focus, and geography.


12/59

12

The Iowa Project, submitted by the Center for Civic Participation and ChambersLopez & Gaitan. This proposed project was to conduct grassroots outreach and

training in civic participation among rural Latinos in Iowa. The concept has been

picked up by another nonprofit entity and has evolved into an ongoing project inwhich the Center for Civic Participation is involved to a limited extent.

Progressive human capacity development efforts that have been going on for some timeinclude leadership training of nonprofit executives, youth training, politician and political

campaign training, or issue-specific training. A small number of new or evolving human

capacity development efforts were reported during the past year. An interesting one from

the standpoint of developing progressive communications infrastructure is a MediaConsortium fellowship program for multimedia training at the University of California,

Berkeley.

One investment in human capacity, which was the topic of considerable discussion

during the Roundtable, is support for skilled progressive workers transitioning out of jobs

or looking for adequate support between campaigns. The conservative movementaggressively invests in its human resources, and thus excels not only at initial recruitment

and training, but also in retention. A robust movement requires that we nurture and retain

committed progressives with equal vigor.

Priority Area 5: Progressive Convener(s) to bring together progressive groups on a

regular, sustained basis to promote coordination on long-term strategy and specific issues

Although most of the recent progressive convening activities reported by the respondents

focus on single issue areas or on political action, several infrastructure-orientedconvenings have occurred or are presently being planned, including both of the LOI-

proposed projects:

Progressive Communicators Network, submitted by Spirit in Action. TheProgressive Communicators Network is continuing its proven approach of national

and regional work on: (1) supporting networking between communicators; (2)

building skills of communicators, with a focus on framing and messaging; and (3)fostering cooperation and collaboration and supporting the projects that spring from

these collaborations. However, the rate of expansion of its work is less than would

have been possible had funding been available for additional staff positions andprogram resources.

Progressive Roundtable, submitted by the Commonweal Institute. Based on thestrongly positive reaction to the initial event in 2006, CI is creating an ongoing series

of results-oriented convenings. A local event in California is planned for late 2007 onthe topic of infrastructure funding, and a larger event in the Midwest in 2008 on

promoting progressive values through single-issue organizations and online

interventions.

A number of existing organizations have had some success as conveners and could serve

as models for extending and expanding this aspect of progressive infrastructure. Theneed, therefore, is for substantial external funding to be channeled toward taking the best


13/59

13

models and making umbrella conveners permanent and central features of thecoordination process.

Priority Area 6: Building Connected Capacity of individuals, organizations, issuesand campaigns, beginning with the mapping of progressive organizations and networks

At the 2006 Progressive Roundtable, participants identified three central levels ofconnectivity in network building: group-to-group; staff-to-staff; and people-to-people.

All of these forms of connectivity are needed to build up internal capacity in the

progressive movement and strengthen the social networks that form the human basis of

any successful political movement.

Modest progress has been made on one of the projects described in the three LOIs in this

priority area: Progressive Clergy Mobilization, submitted by FaithfulAmerica.org and Faith Voices

for the Common Good. This proposal sought support to create a joint information-

delivery and technology infrastructure to reach mainstream religious people withprogressive messaging through innovative social software; the joint infrastructure

would provide clergy leadership training and a dynamic and a centralized interactive

discourse service strengthening the moral public voice of the progressive movement.Interest in the online Synanim communication platform for the faith community,

which is at the heart of this project, is increasing slowly due to limited resources.

The other two LOIs have not been carried out, due to lack of funding and other reasons: Mapping and Strengthening of Progressive Networks, submitted by the

Commonweal Institute. The Commonweal Institute proposed to increasesubstantially the connected capacity of the progressive movement by mapping and

analyzing the social and organizational networks that presently exist among

progressive infrastructure organizations and individuals, then intervening in specificways to strengthen those networks through targeted networking events, creation of a

public engagement networking site, and education and promotion to encourage

network involvement. A pilot project mapping the social networks of ProgressiveRoundtable participants before and after the convening has confirmed the value of

this type of event for expanding network connectivity, but it became evident that

other methods would be needed to acquire the necessary data for mapping; furtherProgressive Roundtable events may include network mapping and strengthening as

specific objectives.

Mapping and Database of Progressive Organizations and Networks, submitted bytwo individuals. This LOI proposes to map progressive organizations and networks,and to use this data to create a web-based database listing communication vehicles,

organizations, and networks willing and able to coordinate message distribution. This

project was not pursued due to lack of funding and because the proposers thought itmight overlap with the Commonweal Institute proposal described above.

Networks are expanding and strengthening in several areas, according to the respondents,and much of this activity appears to be of recent origin. Notable advances are being


14/59

14

made in civic participation and election-focused networks (e.g., through Center for CivicParticipation and MoveOn), state-level networks (e.g., ProgressNow and similar

networks), and among individuals and groups in communications-related fields (e.g.,

Netcentric Communications and Progressive Communicators Network), includingbloggers and online communities (e.g., a SPIN Project and Opportunity Agenda project).

Mapping of progressive marketing and communications infrastructure is a serious unmetneed; appropriate maps would facilitate the development of new ties to strengthen

networks, giving them greater reach and making them more effective and able to respond

rapidly to opportunities or threats.

Additional Project Related to Progressive Roundtable

An additional infrastructure need that was identified during the Progressive Roundtable,but did not make it into the top six priorities, was development and management of the

progressive brand a coherent identity for the progressive movement. The Center for

American Progress and the Glaser Progress Foundation are currently working on aprogressive brand project, which followed upon discussions that took place between

senior staff of those two organizations during the Progressive Roundtable convening.

[See Appendix 3 for greater detail regarding each of the priority areas, the related LOIs,

and comments from Progressive Roundtable participants on and information about new

developments that have occurred during the past year.]

Other Benefits to Participants

In addition to specific questions around funding and progress on the projects that hadbeen the subjects of the LOIs, we also asked the telephone interview respondents a series

of questions around the benefits and value of the Progressive Roundtable. Respondentshad a number of positive comments about the convening, which fell into three main

categories: exposure to new/good ideas; the process of working with other progressives;

and developing new relationships. These responses form the basis of a strong argumentfor the need for more focused working groups, such as the Progressive Roundtable, as a

means of strengthening progressive networks.

Exposure to New Ideas

I refer to the Progressive Roundtable in conversation and look back at items on the

Progressive Roundtable website for new ideas. What I valued most was all the thinking about the same things from different

perspectives. The experience contributed to my thoughts about my own career and

future directions; for example, about the lack of talk about diversity, need for

diversification, and expansion of the range of those to whom we are talking. The idea of networks became more embedded in peoples minds. It was heartening to know that others were thinking about the need for coordination,

too.


15/59

15

Strong Working Process

I appreciate what it accomplished in getting such a diverse group to work together;thats one of the hardest things for progressives.

I was impressed by the wide variety of people who attended and the great sense of

community I felt there. I met folks in person who I had only known by name and we still keep in touch. As

well, we are beginning to work collaboratively with some.

Its very important to get a network going. It underscores the difficulty ofcoordinating. The good news is that we are starting to do it, the bad news is that it

has taken so long.

New Relationships Formed

The biggest impact on me was the relationships I developed there with some reallygood folks.

It made a difference in my thinking helped change my ideas, because of meeting

the many people there. I bump into a lot of people in DC now whom I met at theProgressive Roundtable.

I met key individuals we talk all the time. The Progressive Roundtable was very helpful to me for networking. I connected

with, and have stayed in touch with, many new people.

I met a lot of interesting people, some of whom I have worked with subsequently. I got a sizeable consulting contract through one of the contacts I made at the

Progressive Roundtable.

We heard from a number of participants that the networking piece was one of the mostvaluable outcomes of the convening; several individuals recommended that future

Progressive Roundtables allot more time for such networking opportunities. The event

not only introduced new people to one another, but also gave them a unique opportunityto experience working together. These experiences have led to new, ongoing

collaborations. For example, Lark Corbeil of Public News Service is working with

Michael Huttner to expand the media reach of his organization, ProgressNow, inColorado. Also, Austin-based political strategist Rudy Malveaux and Lorena Chambers,

a DC-area publicity specialist in Hispanic communities, are currently planning a major

market research project in communities of color. New working relationships andnetworks like these promise to strengthen progressive infrastructure, and are therefore

among the Progressive Roundtables most significant results.

Progressive Roundtable Metrics

From the outset, the Commonweal Institute developed a series of process and outcome

metrics in order to measure what worked and what aspects / processes of the conveningand post-convening activities would need to be refined or changed for future Progressive

Roundtable convenings. The initial proposal for the Progressive Roundtable specified thefollowing metrics:


16/59

16

Process Metrics

1. At least 40 participants (in addition to Commonweal Institute staff and volunteers)participating in the convening.

2.

At leastthree

funders (individual, institutional, or funder network representatives)participating in the convening.

3. Favorable responses on questionnaires completed by participants at end of theconvening.

4. Within three months after the convening, representatives of at least 30 additionalorganizations (that were not represented at the convening itself) will have signed upfor access to discussion groups on the PMCI website.

5. Within six weeks after the convening, Commonweal Institute staff and/or thefacilitator will have at least two meetings with the funders who were present during

the convening or other funders

Outcome Metrics

1. Within four months after the convening, the plans that convening participants beganduring the event will have resulted in at least three proposals having been written forthe creation of new PMCI components (programs or new organizations).

2. Within four months after the convening, at least three additional proposals will havebeen written for programmatic activities related to marketing and/or communications

of the focal issues discussed during the convening.

3. Within six months after the convening, funding will have been arranged (viaproposals or other means) for at least three new PMCI components and/or

programmatic activities that resulted from the convening.

Performance on Process Metrics

Three of the five process metrics were met unequivocally. There were 46 participants in

the convening, in addition to Commonweal Institute staff and volunteers; the goal was40. Six of them were funders (individual, institutional, or funder network

representatives); the goal was three.

Within six weeks after the convening, Commonweal Institute staff had two meetings with

funders who had not been present during the convening. Both were heads of majorfunding groups (Democracy Alliance and Women Donors Network). The goal was two

such meetings.

While the evaluations that we received from participants were overwhelming positive, a

true assessment of participants attitudes toward the convening were not able to beassessed via questionnaire due to a low sample size: only a handful of participants

returned the questionnaire. In order to address this lack of data, when Commonweal


17/59

17

Institute conducted its one-year follow-up telephone interviews, participants were asked aseries of questions about the Roundtable itself and recommendations for improvement (as

described above in the Outcomes section).

The final metric, dealing with online discussions, we learned was not appropriate. During

the pre-conference period, Commonweal Institute staff recognized that virtually none ofthe participants were interested in online discussions, and that feature of the ProgressiveRoundtable website went largely unused. Consequently, efforts to recruit other

organizations to participate in post-conference discussion groups were not made.

Performance on Outcome Metrics

The first two outcome metrics were clearly met and exceeded. Within two months afterthe Progressive Roundtable convening, 17 Letters of Interest designed to meet the

priority objectives identified by the participants were submitted, most from

individuals/institutions that had been represented at the convening. The goal was a totalof six proposals within four months. [See Appendix 3 for summaries of the LOIs by

priority area.] The third outcome measure, funding will have been arranged (via

proposals or other means) for at least three new PMCI components and/or programmaticactivities that resulted from the convening, did not happen as expected.

We learned that a progressive branding project, which was one of the six additional

infrastructure capacity needs that were identified by participants (but not one of the 17LOIs), is proceeding with funding from one of the Roundtable participants (a funder),

with another of the PR participants acting as the lead agency. According to the funder,the Roundtable served to confirm his belief that such a project was needed and helped to

advance the project.

However, we have learned that while eight of the projects that emerged through the

Progressive Roundtable process are being carried out, albeit in modified form, funding in

all cases was obtained from sources other than the 18 funders to whom the LOIs weresent. None of those to whom the LOIs were sent provided support for the LOI projects.

An assessment of why the funding piece was not successful may be found in the

following Learnings section of this report; funder interviews and other fundingcomments may be found in Appendix 7. Data for this assessment were collected by

personal telephone calls to Progressive Roundtable participants and to funders to whom

the LOIs were sent.

Learnings

As we anticipated from the outset, the Progressive Roundtable convening, the first of its

kind, proved a rich learning ground. Participants learned from one another, and the

Commonweal Institute learned from the planning process, the execution of the

convening, and the outcomes. Our discoveries divide into three ongoing needs:


18/59

18

(1)strong, clearly identified networks to drive the progressive movement;

(2) proactive coordination of progressive messaging in the media; and

(3) donor education and closer cooperation between progressive funders and

organizations.

Need for Network Building

A strong theme throughout the Progressive Roundtable event was the need to identify and

strengthen social networks among progressives and between organizations. A network-

building approach was seen as important for:

Faster identification of potential problems; Faster implementation of solutions; Bringing more parties into the action; Reaching a greater diversity of audiences, and hence having wider influence; Encouraging use of over-arching frames and language across issue areas, in order

to have greater effect on public opinion and politics;

Achieving coordinated action; and Taking advantage of existing human and monetary resources.

One participant noted, There is no way we can achieve the changes needed without a

network to drive progressive change. The network has to have the capacity tosynchronize around opportunities. We [therefore] need a healthy network and network

leadership... network managers [who can look] at the state of health, security, and

functionality of the network as a whole. Several respondents emphasized the need for

creating or strengthening organizational hubs in the overall progressive networkthat could carry out infrastructure functions such as training, provision of resources, andcross-issue framing and initiatives. As well, network mapping and strengthening

should be an early priority.

Need for Coordination

Coordination poses a related challenge for progressives, who currently lack the

organization and strategic mechanisms to drive the agenda in the media. Without thesemechanisms, progressives are stuck in a reactive posture on policy and social action

agendas, political campaigns, and even funding patterns. Typically, progressives get

stuck responding to whatever shows up in the mainstream media, which does not chooseits topics based on a long-term strategy for advancing progressive values and ideas.

Progressives need to develop a strategic, coordinated approach to proactively create

and capitalize on advantageous media opportunities.

The Progressive Roundtable, as a facilitated event with defined goals, proved to be a

successful model for sharing ideas and responsibility, developing cooperation and

trust, and achieving results. In advance of the convening, Commonweal Institute staffresearched and developed case studies of other successful models for progressive

coordination, including National Voice, the Living Wage campaign, and Wisconsin

Blueprint. These illustrate factors that facilitate coordination among large, geographically


19/59

19

distant groups, working toward short- and long-term goals: (1) enticements toinvolvement in the form of resources, training, and opportunities to share with peers; (2)

recognition of the unique knowledge and strengths of participant groups based on their

geographic location and the populations with which they deal; (3) a core working groupthat meets at regular intervals to set strategy and make policy decisions (and in some

cases, subsidiary core groups or nodes); (4) adequate funding for paid staff and programresources; (5) multi-way communications to facilitate coordination; and (6) web-facilitated communications.

Need for Funder Leadership and Peer-to-Peer Donor Education

Our third set of findings centers on the progressive donor community and the funding of

progressive organizations and projects. One of the LOI proposers summed it up this way:

The Progressive Roundtable was done fineit did all the right things. The funders say,You guys get together and come up with some ideas and pitch them to us. The

Progressive Roundtable did thatpeople came together, they worked together on

priorities and proposals, but then the funders didnt respond. It didnt work. Why?

The failure of the LOI process to attract funding from donors who had said they were

interested in supporting progressive infrastructure appears to have been related to bothdonor and proposer factors:

1. Inadequate follow-up by both proposers and funders

Most of the LOI proposers did not follow through with the funders, as had been

suggested. Only one proposer submitted a separate proposal for the same projectdescribed in the LOI directly to one of the funders on the list, the Democracy Alliance.

The problem of inadequate follow-through is not unusual among non-profit

organizations, whose operating capacity is often stretched to the limit.

2. Funders preference for short-term, project-specific investments

Infrastructure funding does not fit readily into most progressive funders short-term,

project-specific framework, as infrastructure functions would best be supported by

unrestricted funding over a long period of time. The National Committee for ResponsivePhilanthropy and others have advocated a shift to more general institutional support,

not restricted to specific projects, and the Progressive Roundtable proposers would

agree with that recommendation.

3. Funders adherence to set, cautious application processes

Foundations and other major donors are often guarded, and even excessively cautious,when moving into innovative and somewhat unfamiliar territory. In the for-profit venture

capital world, angel (early-phase) investors may make risky investments, but they keep

an eye on how their monies are being used by taking director positions in small new


20/59

20

companies in order to lessen their risk; a similar model may be appropriate for thefunding of start-up infrastructure nonprofit organizations, as well.

In terms of progressive institutional funders, a universal or standardized application formwould be an enormous help for applicants, as it would save them a great deal of time and

expense in the fund-seeking process. We attempted to address this with the ProgressiveRoundtables LOI process, but it was not satisfactory for some of the funders to whomLOIs were sent, as it was not clear to them how the LOIs fit into their usual processes.

4. Funders preferences for specific areas of interest over systemic investments

Moderate and progressive funders (foundations and individuals) and many recipient

nonprofits share a strong tendency to focus on single issues or narrow clusters of issues.

This issue silo mentality can lead to greater efficiency in addressing discrete problemsand lobbying for specific legislation. However, in recent years there has been growing

recognition that much of the success of the conservative movement has been the result of

their recognition that a set of underlying principles and values ties them together as amovement. Conservatives political infrastructure skillfully advances these principles in

order to benefit simultaneously all the issues that conservatives care about, not just one at

a time. As described in a number of publications by the National Committee forResponsive Philanthropy, conservative funders of infrastructure organizations are known

for providing ongoing general operating support to their grantees, not restricted by issue

boundaries. The Commonweal Institute has done extensive analysis of how conservative

think tanks and communicators tackle a wide range of issues, using common principlesand values, and similar techniques, to advance all of them.

These four factors highlight the need for closer cooperation between progressive funders

and grantees. These personal relationships have always been central to funding

decisions, and the Progressive Roundtable encouraged these relationships by involvingdonors as active participants working alongside the activists and organizations that drive

social change. In order to build organizational capacity to effect that change, however,

funders and grantees need to work closely to develop new criteria and processes for

providing ongoing operational support. This key finding confirms reports on

progressive funders published by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

As a first step, funders and other Progressive Roundtable participants alike agreed that

progressive donors need significant education about the nature and necessary features

of marketing and communications infrastructure, its value to the progressive movement,

and the importance of a long-term, disciplined investment strategy. We recommendadditional donor education in the following areas:

The nature of the social/cultural change process; Movement thinkingrecognizing that progressive issues do not exist in

isolation, but are part of an overall progressive way of thinking about the world

and how issues and problems are defined and should be addressed;

The value of a networked approach for speeding social change;


21/59

21

Specific functions that would be performed by progressive infrastructureorganizations, such as coordination and strategic planning;

The vital roles played by organizations that perform un-sexy ongoing functions,such as research, coordination, and staff development;

The nature and importance of media and communications;

Barriers to progressive action such as impaired media access, weakness of socialnetworks, and issue silo thinking; and The need for ongoing funding, not tied to election cycles.

Some efforts at donor education are already underway. We are encouraged by the New

Progressive Coalitions recent announcement (in May 2007) that it will concentrate onproviding prospective donors with tools to help them assess nonprofits and their

compatibility with donors interests. Our experiences with the Progressive Roundtable,

specifically with regard to the funding of the LOIs, confirm the vital and pressing needfor these donor services within the progressive movement.

In order to develop a more effective process for supporting the progressive movement,though, funder leadership is needed to organize donor education about

infrastructure needs. Peer-to-peer outreach and analysis of best practices are necessary

to remedy issues typical of many progressive funders and foundations, including riskaversion, heavy emphasis on process, and slow reaction to change. This is happening in

some settings, for example with private funding circles and some of the events that have

been hosted by Deborah and Andy Rappaport, but more such efforts are needed that bring

in institutional funders. Shifting the paradigm of progressive funding will requireleadership from within that community.

Recommendations

Based on our experiences and the foregoing analysis, we have two sets ofrecommendations. First, we recommend the following steps for the further development

and maintenance of the progressive marketing and communications infrastructure:

1. Map the progressive infrastructure and the progressive movement2. Multiple projects and events to strengthen and maintain progressive networks3. Increase progressives media access4. Increase coordination among progressives and mechanisms for long-term strategic

planning and action across issue areas

Second, the Progressive Roundtable revealed a vital need for developing the communityof progressive funders. To address this need, we make the following recommendations:

1. Substantial progressive donor education, ideally sponsored and planned by a teamthat combines donor(s) and nonprofit(s), addressing topics discussed in preceding

section. Affinity groups, donor networks, and/or donor-oriented ProgressiveRoundtables might be a part of this process.


22/59

22

2. Examine funding guidelines and processes and modify them as necessary in order tosupport the development of progressive infrastructure.

3. Donor leadership in planning and supporting events around the country that bringtogether local and regional donors with potential infrastructure grantees.

4. A long-term campaign to broaden the funding base for the progressive movement,

beyond major donors and to include more modest donors and possibly other fundingmechanisms.

Further Progressive Roundtable events of various sizes and formats could be

designed to address several of these points: donor education; convening donors and

potential grantees, done in collaboration with a lead donor; network strengthening

events; and strategic planning and coordination across issue areas.

Conclusion

The 2006 Progressive Roundtable, convened by the Commonweal Institute and supportedby the Alan H. Zeppa Family Foundation and the California Teachers Association,

succeeded in meeting its immediate goal of determining the priority needs for building

the marketing and communications components of the progressive movementsinfrastructure. The six priorities were based on the direct work and experience of senior

people working in those fields. Following the convening, Progressive Roundtable

participants, both alone and in collaboration, proposed 17 programs to address thepriority needs. Eight of these programs are currently being carried out to some degree.

This report summarizes the progress made, and also recognizes the infrastructure gaps

that still remain.

Important additional learnings from the Progressive Roundtable convening and from one-year follow-up interviews reinforced the need for network building and coordination

among progressive organizations, and exposed the need for considerable donor educationabout best practices for funding progressive infrastructure. Based on these findings, a

number of specific recommendations have been made for further action.


23/59

23

Appendix 1: PR Attendees

PROGRESSIVE ROUNDTABLESM

MEMBERS

(including Commonweal Institute staff)

Convening attendees

Craig Aaron, Free Press

Joel Barkin, Progressive Legislative Action Network

Julie Bergman Sender, Balcony Films

Parker Blackman, Fenton Communications

Darrin Bodner, Media Matters for America

Robert Borosage, Campaign for Americas Future

Patrick Bresette, Demos

Rita Nakashima Brock, Faith Voices for the Common Good

Lorena Chambers, Chambers, Lopez & GaitanMartin Collier, Glaser Progress Foundation

Lark Corbeil, Public News Service

Carolyn Cushing, Progressive Communicators Network

Kirstin Falk, New Progressive Coalition

Ian Finseth, Commonweal Institute

Katherine Forrest, Commonweal Institute

Meg Gage, Proteus Fund

duVergne Gaines, Feminist Majority

Peter Glenshaw, Progressive Venture Fund

John Halpin, Center for American Progress

Randy Hayes, International Forum on Globalization

Don Hazen, Independent Media Institute

Connie Heller, Cagampang Heller Family Fund and Democracy Alliance

Dennis Houlihan, AFSCME

Michael Huttner, ProgressNow

Vince Isner, Faithful America and National Council of Churches of Christ

Marcus Jadotte, NASCAR

Quintus Jett, African Americans for Democracy

Dave Johnson, Seeing the Forest blogger

Keir Johnson, A. H. Zeppa Family Foundation

Steve Katz, Media Consortium and Mother Jones

Marty Kearns, Green Media Toolshed

Odette Keeley, New America Media

Lorelei Kelly, National Security Fellow, office of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, US Congress

Michelle Kraus, Technology & Politics

Jennifer Lindenauer, MoveOn

Bob Loeb, Netcentric Campaigns

John Luongo, Democracy Alliance

Rudolph Malveaux, Texas Black Magic Productions


24/59

24

David Mermin, Lake Research Associates

Pamela Morgan, American Environics

Mike Pogue, Last Mile Research

Pam Porter, Wisconsin Blueprint

Juan Proao, Plus Three, Inc.

Jerome Ringo, Apollo AlliancePaul Rivera, Unidos Project

Ethan Rome, AFSCME

Patricia Rucker, California Teachers Association

Erik Sahlin, Rockridge Institute

Leonard Salle, Commonweal Institute

Joseph Sandler, Sandler, Reiff & Young

Laura Saponara, University of California, Davis

Laurie Spivak, Commonweal Institute

Suzanne Stenson OBrien, Center for Civic Participation

Matt Stoller, MyDD blogger

Dave Tanner, Democracy AllianceBrooke Warrick, American LIVES

Eddie Wong, Democracy Alliance

Sophia Yen, Yen Chuang Foundation


members who were not able to attend convening

Susan Bales, FrameWorks

Dan Carol

Andre Carothers, Rockwood Leadership Program

Toby Chaudhuri, Campaign for Americas Future

Sandy Close, New America Media

Donna Edwards, Arca Foundation

Dan Geiger, Act Now Productions

Elizabeth George, Fenton Communications

Donna Hall, Women Donors Network

Jay Harris, Mother Jones

Sarah Ingersoll, Democracy Alliance

Celinda Lake, Lake Research Partners

George Lakoff, Rockridge Institute

Mike Lux, Progressive Donor Network

Holly Minch, SPIN Project

Ted Nordhaus, American Environics

Mark Ritchie, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Justo Robles, II, California Teachers Association

Mark Steitz, TSD Communications

Rebecca Wharton, Schumann Center for Media and Democracy

Lisa Witter, Fenton Communications


25/59

25

Appendix 2: Agenda


Convening

Thursday, March 2 - Sunday March 5, 2006

THURSDAY

7:30-9:00

PM

Aspen Room Reception and Early Registration

FRIDAY

7:00-8:00

AM

Just outside the Bayshore

Ballroom

Registration

7:30-8:00

AM

Bayshore Ballroom BREAKFAST

8:00-9:00

AM

Bayshore Ballroom Welcome and Orientation

Laurie Spivak, Executive Director, Commonweal

Institute

Who Are We as a Group?

Expected Outcomes of the Convening?

Focusing on the Long View

Remarks from Commonweal Institutes Founders

Katherine Forrest and Leonard Salle

Thoughts on Being a Progressive

Alan Zippo, A. H. Zippo Family Foundation

Getting Started Laurie Speak

Understanding the Flow of Work

Mary Berryman Agar, Hyperion Associates

An Overview of the Work of the Convening

Instructions and Outcomes for BreakoutSession A

Q and A

9:00-10:10

AM

Role of Government-blue dot

Bayshore Ballroom

Global Interdependence-yellowdot-Chestnut Room

Public Education-red dot- Cherry

Room

Energy/Global Warming-green

dot- Cedar Room

Issue Area Breakout Session A

Thinking in 10 and 3 year horizons

What are the critical outcomes orachievements desired?

Who are the key target audiences that mustbe reached?

What are the foundational beliefs that mustbe conveyed?


26/59

26

10:10-10:30

AM

BREAK

10:30-10:40

AM

Bayshore Ballroom Instructions and Outcomes for Breakout Session

B

10:40-11:50AM

Role of Government-blue dot Bayshore Ballroom

Global Interdependence-yellow

dot-Chestnut Room


Room


dot- Cedar Room

Issue Area Breakout Session B

What are the necessary ingredients?

What action steps in marketing,communications, strategy, and coordination

will be needed to accomplish the 3 and 10-

year outcomes?

Who are the key players who will need to beon board?

Which groups will need to become allies inthis work?

11:50-NOON

BREAK

NOON-1: 30

PM

LUNCH in the Bayshore Ballroom Speaker: Marcos Militias

1:30-2:30PM Bayshore Ballroom Report Out and Whole Group Discussion

Public Education

Energy/Global Warming

2:30-2:45

PM

BREAK

2:45-3:55

PM

Bayshore Ballroom Report Out and Whole Group Discussion

Role of Government

Global Interdependence

Instructions & Outcomes for Breakout Session C

Mary Berryman Agar

3:55-4:15

PM

BREAK

4:15-5:35

PM

Role of Government-blue dot

Bayshore BallroomGlobal Interdependence-yellow

dot-Chestnut Room


Room


dot- Cedar Room

Issue Area Breakout Session C

Refining the Action Plan

Fine tuning action steps based on large groupcontributions

Identifying resources needed to accomplisheach action step

Classifying the resources based on a specific,provided taxonomy.


27/59

27

5:35-5:55

PM

Bayshore Ballroom Friday Wrap Up

Laurie Speak

5:55-8:30 DINNER AND FREE TIME ON

YOUR OWN

8:30-9:30PM

Bayshore Ballroom An Optional Presentation

Mike Hotter talks about Progress Now,

Colorados successful state-based

communications network started in 2004, now

serving the entire progressive community.

SATURDAY

7:30-8:00

AM

Bayshore Ballroom BREAKFAST

8:00-10:10

AM

Bayshore Ballroom Agenda Review

Common Themes and Unique Needs

Mary Berryman Agar

A presentation based on overnight analysis of

work accomplished in Issue Area Breakout

Sessions

Modification of Common Themes and Unique

Needs Document

A whole group discussion of the common themes

and unique needs identified in Fridays Breakout

Sessions

Understanding the Flow of Work: Looking

Through a Different Lens

Instructions and Outcomes for Breakout Session

1

10:10-10:30

AM

BREAK

10:30-11:50

AM

Marketing-Bayshore Ballroom

Coordination-Chestnut Room

Communications-Cherry Room

Strategy-Cedar Room

Functional Area Breakout Session 1

Considering what was created on Friday and the

analysis of that work:

What are the priority needs within the

functional area? What alternative strategies exist for meeting

unmet needs?

11:50 AM-

1:00 PM

LUNCH in the Aspen Room Speaker: Joe Sander, Attorney

Instructions & Outcomes for Breakout Session 2

Mary Berryman Agar


28/59

28

1:00-2:00

PM

Marketing-Bayshore Ballroom

Coordination-Chestnut Room

Communications-Cherry Room

Strategy-Cedar Room

Functional Area Breakout Session 2

Refining the Approach to Unmet Needs

Identifying critical players to include in

addressing identified needs Selecting a strategy for meeting each need

Exploring funding considerations andfunding sources for each need

2:00-3:00

PM

Bayshore Ballroom Report Out and Prioritization Instructions

Mary Berryman Agar

Report Out and Whole Group Discussions

Coordination

Marketing

3:00-3:15PM

BREAK

3:15-4:15

PM

Bayshore Ballroom Report Out and Whole Group Discussion

Communications

Strategy

4:15-5:45

PM

Bayshore Ballroom Going Forward

Mary Berryman Agar, Facilitator

A meeting of the whole group to

Discuss priorities from each functional group

Select overall priorities around whichproposals should be developed

Consider the Commonweal Institutesproposed process for moving ahead with

specific proposals

5:45-6:05

PM

Bayshore Ballroom Evaluating the Convening

Laurie Speak

6:05-6:25

PM

Bayshore Ballroom Saturday Wrap-Up

Katherine Forrest and Leonard Salle

6:25 PM DINNER ON YOUR OWN ForMost

6:25-8:00

PM

MEET IN LOBBY/DINNER

OUTSIDE OF HOTEL

Fenders Dinner

Fenders are invited to join the convening

sponsors for dinner and discussion.


29/59

29

SUNDAY

8:00-11:00

AM

Bayshore Ballroom BREAKFAST and Discussion

An informal, drop-in opportunity to discuss

The proposal process

Additional people, groups, or resources thatshould be brought on board

The convening itself


30/59

30

Appendix 3: Priority Areas, Related LOIs, Observations & Status

Participants identified twelve needed infrastructure capacities, which were thenprioritized and narrowed to the six capacities most urgently needed. The six priority

needs identified by participants were, in order: (1) progressive media lab(s); (2) a

research and coordination center for marketing and communications; (3) nationalstrategic working group; (4) investment in progressive human capacity; (5) a conveningbody to bring together progressive leaders; and (6) a network-based strategy to build

connected capacity of individuals, organizations, and campaigns.

For each of these priority areas, this appendix includes:

Detailed description of the priority area Capsule summary of the priority area Letters of Interest (LOIs) submitted in response to the prioritytitle, submitting

organization(s), and status of the project

Comments from Progressive Roundtable participants regarding the priority area and

related issues New and ongoing developments in this priority area since the Progressive Roundtable

in March 2006.

Priority Area 1: Progressive Media Lab(s)

Description of Priority Area 1

This component of infrastructure would integrate progressive messaging with both new

and existing media technologies. Its aim would not be simply to develop technology for

technologys sake, but to explore ways of testing emerging technological capacities,

reevaluating or reapplying current media strategies, and fostering creative approaches tocommunications technology. Ideally, a Media Lab or Labs would serve as a catalytic

force in allowing the progressive movement to stay on the cutting edge of how such

technologies as cell-phones, I-pods, satellite radio, and others not yet envisioned can beput in the service of positive social change. Importantly, a Media Lab would not exist as

an isolated single institution, but as a cluster of multiple, flexible, decentralized entities,

operating on the principle of connectivity. That is, it would both draw on and reinforcethe existing institutional or personal relationships that are the basis of the connective

tissue of the progressive movement.

Capsule Summary of Status

While no respondent reported the development of an overall coordinated media lab type

of consortium, there has been partial implementation of four of the six Lois in thispriority area. In addition, a number of new developments have occurred during the past

year with regard to more effective use of existing and new media.


31/59

31

Priority Area 1: Letters of Interest

Six LOIs were submitted, and five of these efforts are underway in modified form. All of

these efforts, which were in at least the planning stage prior to the ProgressiveRoundtable, are:

Progressive Communications Network Incubation Center, submitted by ProgressNow, ProgressNowAction, and Advancing Wisconsin. This project is underway in ascaled-back version. The ProgressNow model, pioneered in Colorado, is being

expanded into several other states: Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, and Washington.

Something similar was tried in Wisconsin; while the initial effort was not successful,

a subsequent effort is underway. Some of the funding came from Democracy Allianceshortly after the Progressive Roundtable.

Messaging for the Progressive Faith Community, submitted by Faith Voices for theCommon Good and The New Press. A portion of the LOI project is being carried out.Addressing some of the communication needs of the faith community, at least four

progressive religion books are in progress, with more in the pipeline.

Netcentric Campaigns, submitted by Green Media Toolshed. A portion of the LOI,development of software to capture the distributed work of volunteers, is reportedlygoing well. Unlike convening, this web-based collaboration process will not require

bringing people together physically. The developers are seeking major partners aspotential licensees of their software. Issue areas with which they are currently

dealing are peace and security, healthcare, and womens issues.

Public News Service Expansion, submitted by Public News Service and Media in thePublic Interest. Public News Service, which prepares media-ready pieces aboutprogressive nonprofits news and gets them into media (primarily radio, but

increasingly television, as well), is slowly expanding the number of states in which itworks, but has not been able to raise funds to include newsworthy material coming

from inside the DC Beltway.

Blogtank / Blogpac, submitted by a group of prominent progressive bloggers, wasintended to inject the values of speed, effectiveness, and accountability into the

progressive movement by increasing the size, the legitimacy, and the reach of the

progressive blogosphere. The goals of this proposal are being carried out by twoseparate organizations. The Center for Independent Media, a 501c3 nonprofit,

provides investigative journalism skills training and mentoring to bloggers and online

journalists, many of whose stories are subsequently picked up by television, radio,and newspapers. CIM is expanding on a state-by-state basis, with operating programs

in Colorado (http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/magFront.do), Iowa

(http://www.iowaindependent.com/magFront.do), Michigan

(http://www.michiganmessenger.com/magFront.do), and Minnesota(http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/magFront.do), and plans for a national program

based in Washington, DC. Blogpac, a political action committee (PAC), supports the

development of progressive infrastructure and builds the movement by funding givinggrants to two sets of emerging leaders: (1) activists on the internet who have a

demonstrated record of success in creating progressive change outside of a traditional

party or campaign structure, and (2) local bloggers who build community spaces foractivists in their state.


32/59

32

The following LOI has not been carried out:

Progressive Media Lab coordinating group, submitted by a multi-organizationcollaboration

Discussion Regarding Media Priority Area

The participants whom we interviewed offered many comments about the general topic

of media activities. Several expressed the view that there is a lack of understanding about

media, how important media are, and even a definition of what the term media

comprises. Emphasis on new media has distracted attention from the opportunities touse traditional media more effectively for progressive purposes.

At the Progressive Communicators Network (PCN) meeting in June 2006, there wasstrong interest in increasing skills in new media and helping different kinds of people

access the new media; this is consistent with this area being a priority for communicators.

PCNs analysis of communication is that progressives make a mistake in thinking justabout communications; the communications component needs to link to the grassroots

and mobilization components.

Coordination is evolving among different platforms where media can play blogosphere,

news, PSAs and other free (earned) media, etc. This is resulting in an expanded

communication landscape that needs to be integrated into the strategy for every large

organization. Most are getting that they need to do it and many will do media in-house iffunding is available.

The growing impact of alternative media platforms is changing the research and

development aspect of communications. This isnt just about good creative and staring

at an empty screen. There is a new emphasis on focus groups and other research toprovide fodder for creative media. The trend is to identify the call to action, and

release messages in guerilla ways that hit people in a cultural way.

There was a prediction that we would see much better use of media in the 2008 campaign

season. Simon Rosenberg of New Democrat Network has been emphasizing the need for

campaigns to look at other models that the typical ad buy models with networks, such asviral media, cable, etc. These other models could save money and make more impact. A

better understanding of media will lead to rethinking the role of media consultants.

Mirroring the political transformation in DC this year, there is a lot more conversation

and openness. We heard favorable comments about the Vote Vet effort in 2006 and theWomens Voices Womens Vote get out the vote campaign PSA in 2004.

Although the concept of media is still foreign to many funders, since the time of theProgressive Roundtable convening, several funder groups have started to understand

investment in media creation and distribution, and how to take advantage of various ways

to use media. Funders are being exposed to examples of how communications and mediawork when they work well. Funders benefit from seeing a campaign that functioned in


33/59

33

well, said one respondent, who asserted, This will become a cornerstone to any goodcommunication plan.

The Ford Foundation was noted as a major funder that is supporting a couple of largeprogressive media efforts, one around communicating the positive roles that government

can play, and another about accountable development (economic development) in theUnited States.

On the other hand, some of the creative new uses of media are happening on an ad hoc

basis and without specific or adequate funding. No one put a proposal on someones

desk they just did it. That is still the case. Build it and they will come. That is just theway it is. One respondent expressed the view that Democracy Alliance members prefer

to expand existing organizations in the media area, in which they have more confidence,

rather than going with totally new ones. This is consistent with the remarks of anothercommenter, who expressed the impression that funding for putting progressive messages

out via new technologies has actually been constricting, with less being funded.

With regard to developing a multi-issue, interlinked infrastructure to advance progressive

issues in the media, the responses suggest that that not much progress has been made.

Among funders, eyes start to glaze over when you talk about infrastructure. There hasbeen little movement here [with regard to infrastructure], but rather [what] movement

[there has been has depended] on individual efforts and by [individual] people.

Specific Media Developments during the Past Year

Specific media developments in the past year that were mentioned, in addition to thosethat were the subject of LOIs as described above, are:

Media in the Public Interest (no further details) The Banner Project helps a cohort of groups with messaging. LinkTV is using a traditional medium, but putting progressive content on ita

different model.

Synanim social networking software for religious groups My Church social network, for churches Maybe some of the things the Rappaports support would fall in this category. New Progressive Institute Avaaz.org (www.avaaz.org) a new, global mechanism for civic engagement.

Like a global moveon.org, dealing with issues larger than just one country and/or

with wider impact. Includes expression of progressive religious voices.

The Courage Campaign was doing an adaptation of Blue State software for thepurpose of funding campaigns.

Some people in San Francisco are trying to create a competitive game about theenvironment, for children or adults, which would both educate and changeattitudes.

Nothing integrated, but Opportunity Agenda, Media Consortium, and Color ofChange are doing some pieces of this, sometimes with new constituencies.

Rockridge Institute


34/59

34

MFA and Mobile Voter. Rapid response pieces coming out of blogosphere and not just coordination

people know what they are doing.

Efforts by Brave New Films and Balcony Films (including some coordinationbetween the two)

Womens Media Center

Priority Area 2: Research and Coordination Center

Description of Priority Area 2

There is an urgent need for a research and coordination center for marketing andco

Progressive Roundtable: A Convening to Build Marketing & Communications Infrastructure (Commonweal...

Documents

Transcript of Progressive Roundtable: A Convening to Build Marketing & Communications Infrastructure (Commonweal...