1. ‘Online Members and Virtual
Organization: Reconnecting or
Disconnecting with the
Grassroots’?
Rachel Gibson
University of Manchester, Institute for
Social Change

2. Multi-speed Membership Parties
Traditional
Members
Trial Members
Membership
Lite
Cyber
Members
Sustainers
Friends
Audience
Source: Susan Scarrow ‘Multi-speed Membership Parties’ Paper presented at the 2010 Annual
Meeting of the American Political Science Association

3. MEMBERSHIP TYPES
• Trial - reduced membership fee, right to attend local party meetings and participate in discussions, and
receive newsletters and get other communication.
• Lite members – v similar to trial but option of remaining in this category. 2nd class membership, with lower
dues and other obligations, but also with lower benefits. Cannot stand as a party candidate, hold internal
party office, vote in intra-party contests or in local meetings.
• Cyber-activists – centrally registered party supporters, recruited via national web page, sign up to help by
distributing messages, do not pay dues or attend meetings. Form a network of tech-savvy supporters
‘Netroots’ make use of party web tools and external platforms (facebook, twitter, blogs) to promote party
message.
• Sustainer - supporters with financial links to their parties. Their gifts may be small, one-time, events, or
they may be given on a regular basis through automatic bank withdrawals.
• Social Network Friends - interact with a party and each other via party-controlled digital space. Facebook
‘friends’ that ‘like’ the party and discuss its policies, leaders, tactics etc in an ‘official forum’ but the
relationship is more casual than for the cyber-activists.
• News Audience - in contrast to Social Network Friends, these individuals are more passive recipients of
the organizational message. They are getting the news but not necessarily talking back about it. So this
includes regular visitors to the web pages and watchers of party tv, subscribers to the free e-mail news
services, party tv to Twitter feeds, and to Facebook logs. Through these channels the parties stay in
constant contact with supporters, giving them a party viewpoint on the political news.

4. Online membership types: does the Evidence
support their emergence?
Studies of party/organizational membership online are quite limited: some look at online joiners and
some at internet users within the party.
• Pedersen (2006) ‘Danish Parties: Plugged and Unplugged’ & Pedersen and Saglie ‘New Technology
in Ageing Parties’ (2005) Mail surveys of Danish and Norwegian party membership 2000/1. Explore
the use of ICTs in party membership organizations. Key findings: Approx 1/3 rd visited party web
pages overall but only 4% daily and 11% monthly. Higher among elites/office holders. 1/10 take
part in electronic forums. 1/10 receive email from party. Email more strongly associated with
attending meetings than website use. Online ‘only’ activists were the smallest but not insignificant
category (12%) vs offline only (13%). Non-active most common and then mixed online and offline.0
• Lusoli and Ward (2003) Countryside Alliance membership survey 2002 (online and postal. 20% of
internet users use website regularly and just over 10% membership overall. E-petition and e-voting
among most popular features. Attracts younger age groups. Email is a powerful mobilisation tool
but this is for members who are already engaged online. Conversely, the website appeared to have
wider impact on less frequent and less active Internet users.
• Lusoli and Ward (2003) ‘Dinosaurs in Cyberspace’ GPMU 2002 Survey (online and postal) & BWRS
Online Survey 2001. 25% of internet using members visited site, 10% overall membership. Types of
features like are more information oriented than discussion but do like renewal and online voting.
• Lusoli and Ward (2004) ‘Digital Rank and File’ Online survey of Labour and LD members 2002 (N
4.700 17% and 23% response rate) younger, male, hi educ. 39% LD and 38% LP said use of in
internet led them to join party. Stronger effect for website visitors, younger and less active. Email
stronger mobilizing tool than website. Information features most useful and accessed, particularly
policy (8 of 10 accessed), feedback features (surveys,email polls etc) also valued (6 of 10 accessed).
Information and services preferred over discussion

11. Key lessons
• Members don’t necessarily want more opportunities to ‘chat’ with the party or union.
Looking for information and services primarily.
• However, should assume not passive – looking for tools to get involved and help. Email seems
a key channel but for those with existing levels of activism.
• Email lists are crucial to build and maintain for any campaigning organization. Offer a ‘ladder
of engagement’ – step up the ‘asks’.
• But Holy Grail to generate stronger activist network is integration of organizational data held
on members to activate the ‘inactives’. What are their issue profiles? Are they active in the
workplace? Have they donated? Are they party members? Have they taken any online action
or campaigned offline. Target messages to activate them of key issues of importance.
• ‘Dashboard’ Obama 2012 – wave of the future? Virtual field headquarters. Builds on MyBO
2008 which was emulated by all 3 main parties in last election.
• How far does this translate to political organizations more generally? Argument of ‘hybridity’
(Chadwick, 2007) is that parties are moving more to adopt the tactics and organizational
fluidity of issue advocacy / pressure groups – so this online/offline network structure that can
change dynamically and expand/scale quickly is an extension of this.
• Message, Money and Mobilization are 3 Ms powering the Obama effort in digital election
campaigning and these are clearly goals for any campaign organization. Facebook for the
message, Dashboard for the Money and Mobilization.