I almost stopped myself from posting this. Because no one likes a cranky-pants. In this rapidly evolving field of online campaigning and "new media", we're quick to exalt and profile massively successful campaigns. When I train others on building effective online campaigns, I like to point to projects like Green my Apple, Invisible Children and Nothing But Nets (among others).

But we rarely highlight those that under-perform. Our space lacks a healthy, open, and productive dialogue around the campaigns that don't meet wild success (ie. the majority). Perhaps we're worried that the non-converts, those who don't yet 'get it' will fail to see the wonders and virtues of the internet if we let them see anything short of magic. Perhaps we're simply all too nice to be critical.

Whatever the case, we owe it to one other to support our collective growth and learning in this new space. And we can do that more effectively through critical -- good-intentioned, loving, and supportive -- discussion rather than through sheer gloss. My colleague Sam Dorman opened this year's Web of Change conference invoking a similar feeling shared by Jon Stahl, one of our friends at One/NW who seems to have arrived at the same place.

Kudos to one campaigner for asking his peers on the Progressive Exchange email list the other day whether they thought Credo's petition landing page to be more effective than EFF's.

Every campaign's goals and objectives are different, so we can't apply universal metrics of success without insight into each campaign's strategy. But we can start talking about them from the perspective of our users or the stated audience.

So, my request of you, fellow technologist, campaigner, or new media geek: in our haste to parade noteworthy campaigns, let's not be afraid to critique those campaigns that students and rising practitioners need not replicate.

Hopenhagen.org, in its current iteration, is one such campaign. Check it out, and then tell me if you agree/disagree:

(1) Theory of change -- missing in action. As a visitor, I can't help but wonder if my participation here is going to have any real-world impact on these international climate negotiations. I'm asked to sign a petition and tell the world what gives me hope. Digging deeper, we're told that the petition will be delivered to world leaders gathering for the climate talks in Copenhagen in December. But there's no indication of how these power players will hear our call -- hand delivery to each delegate at their hotel? display of the website on a big screen inside the negotiating room? press conference?

When I first saw this website over the summer, it was also missing a clear ask of these leaders as part of the petition, which it has thankfully since added (summarized as "seal the deal").

To do: Identify and explain a politically effective delivery mechanism for the names/statements being added to the website, then communicate that strategy to prospective signatories. Unless this campaign is truly riding on hope alone (sorry, low blow).

(2) What's our goal? The counters showing the total "messages of hope" as well as days remaining to "seal the deal" is a great way to show momentum, and helps me see that i won't be alone if I participate. But, related to above, it's unclear what kind of numbers we need to achieve in order to make a real impact on these leaders and these negotiations. Is it enough to simple "become a citizen of Hopenhagen"?

To do: Add a numerical goal. Ideally a number that we could reach if we all chip in -- but one that's also politically effective. Assuming that a credible plan for delivering our names/signatures is in place (above), how many names/messages are needed to make an impact on the delegates? 100k? 500k? 1 million? From how many countries? Try to answer the question, "if X number of people participate, then Y outcome could/will happen [at Copenhagen]."

(3) What's the next action here? Bonus points for presenting me with some share tools after I signed, but is this where it ends? Is this really all that I can do, now that you've explained how important this global summit is to our future? I first signed the petition in early July. Two months later, I have yet to receive an email telling me what else I can do. This feels like a project that was paid for and sent to pasture. Real campaigns and real "movements" continue to communicate and engage and organize those who have stepped up and demonstrated interest.

To do: Along with share tools, give participants a specific goal for how many people to recruit. Then send participants to 350.org to participate in the global day of climate action on Oct 24, or send them over to TckTckTck to keep up with the real global movement and find out what else they can do. Effective movement-building campaigns link generously.

(4) Free your data. (But first capture it properly.) This is really just for extra credit, but in a few years will likely become the norm. Share some portion of the data you're collecting with others who can innovate on it in ways you can't anticipate.

To do: Create RSS/XML feed or similar of the messages or geographic locations being added so that we can help build this 'movement' and add content to our own sites or develop clever, perhaps more impactful, uses for this content, like special maps or visualizations, like twistori.com's parsing of twitter messages.

(5) What movement? Ok, now i'm just nit-picking, because I'm as guilty of over-propagating the word 'movement' as the next guy, but this just feels gratuitous. The website indicates that "Hopenhagen is a movement generated by the International Advertising Association representing the global advertising industry in support of the United Nations." I'm not aware of any social movements ignited by ad agencies. The friendlier language says that "Hopenhagen is a movement, a moment and a chance at a new beginning." I'm all for positive positioning and framing, but if you need to declare your project a movement, it's unlikely that you're going to find yourself in the middle of one.

To do: Replace some of the marketing language with straight talk. Few will argue with the hopes and dreams listed on the site, but we need to know a little more about you and your intentions in order to get on board. Did a few ad agency heads stand up at an association meeting saying that they have a responsibility to use their advertising skills to make a difference? Or did they choose a campaign for the UN every year and this is it for this year? Here's a good example of how the Step it Up crew told their story to earn basic trust and establish credibility.

Summary. The bar for effective online campaigning is rising. As more and more organizations come online with prefab online advocacy and organizing tools, we're naturally seeing repititon in tactics. There's nothing inherently wrong with a petition or email-to-Congress campaign -- but they do everyone a diservice when these tactics are pulled randomly out of toolbox rather than driven by a clear campaign plan or effective political strategy.