Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Think Tank Communication

Submitted by Jon Henke on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 15:52
in

Google Trends says the Heritage Foundation is winning the battle for traffic among prominent Think Tank websites, followed by the Cato Institute, Brookings and then the Center for American Progress. 


Note: Heritage.org traffic rose sharply immediately after the launch of the Heritage Foundry blog in early 2008.  I'm not sure how much of a causal connection there is, but it's very likely that the blog (a) improved their daily visitor traffic, (b) improved their Google visibility, and (c) led new blog readers to explore more of the Heritage site.

However, there is an interesting complexity.  The Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress are both 501(c)3 organizations, focusing only on policy analysis and education.  They "may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of ... activities [and] may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."   That sharply limits their ability to use the information they collect effectively in the blogosphere or in audiences outside of policy, academic and some narrow media communities. 

However, political advocacy and campaign activity are fuel to bloggers and internet activists.  So, the Center for American Progress set up a separate 501(c)4 organization: the American Progress Action Fund.  501(c)4 organizations can engage in political advocacy and "some political activities".   The Action Fund produces the research distribution outlet, ThinkProgress.org, and the daily talking points newsletter, The Progress Report. 

Look at how Think Progress compares to the Heritage Foundation.

These, not its own legally limited website, are the communications weapons of the Center for American Progress. 

Rather than trying to consolidate power within a single bureacracy, they realized their goals required separate organizations, each specializing in one aspect of the larger goal.  They have created one organization to play in the academic and policy world and a second organization to play in the media and activist world.  

Differentiation allows specialization, and specialization allows...well, the kind of success you see above.  This allows them to pursue multiple, coordinated paths to achieve their goals.  As a result, the Center for American Progress is not so much a Think Tank as it is a Marketing Tank.

The lesson here is that, while organizations should think of information as an asset, but they should not necessarily assume they are also the best distributors of that information.  The collection and analysis of information is a task distinct from framing, synthesis and distribution of information. 

Note: the measurement tools are, of course, imperfect; consider this a best-available approximation.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Think Tank vs. Marketing Tank

Submitted by Rob Bluey on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 22:33.

Jon makes some excellent points. I'd just like to add some historical context.

For 10 years, from 1995 to 2005, Heritage owned and operated Townhall.com. But faced with restrictions under Heritage's 501c3 tax status, Townhall was spun off into a private company so it could prosper.

Here's how I described it in an April 5, 2005, article for Human Events:

[Townhall] draws 1.5-million visitors per month, has active e-mail lists with 300,000 subscribers and inspired community Meetups (Meetup.com) during the 2004 presidential election. Sixty-eight opinion columnists ... can be found there as well. But under Heritage's umbrella, there was a limit to what Townhall could accomplish.

Jon notes that the Center for American Progress "created one organization to play in the academic and policy world and a second organization to play in the media and activist world." That was similar to the relationship between Heritage.org (academic and policy world) and Townhall.com (media and activist world).

Although Heritage is faced with restrictions as part of its 501c3 tax status, that hasn't stopped us from experimenting online following Townhall's departure. The Foundry, for example, has been a great addition, allowing us to respond rapidly to policy debates and breaking news. However, it's not Think Progress and it doesn't pretend to be.

I guess that's the difference between a "think tank" and a "marketing tank." Although the latter might do a better job messaging to liberal activists, I'd argue that the former is still more effective on Capitol Hill.

Vistors <> Political Success

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 09:17.

Differentiation allows specialization, and specialization allows...well, the kind of success you see above.  This allows them to pursue multiple, coordinated paths to achieve their goals.

Good job on explaining what's going on, but one thing to keep in mind, just getting vistors to your website isn't enough.

Is CAP achieving it's legislative or electoral goals?

I have yet to see a "think

Submitted by Repack Rider on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 09:42.

I have yet to see a "think tank" that does any actual "thinking."

These entities exist merely to create rationalizations for actions that someone has already decided to carry out.

Thanks, Rob

Submitted by Jon Henke on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 22:44.

 

For 10 years, from 1995 to 2005, Heritage owned and operated Townhall.com. But faced with restrictions under Heritage's 501c3 tax status, Townhall was spun off into a private company so it could prosper.

That's true, and Heritage gets credit for both creating Townhall and letting it go.  Townhall.com has never quite made the transition from pulpit, though.  Perhaps it shouldn't, either.  It is good at what it is.  But there are many things that entities like Townhall can't do, and they are things we need done.

 

I guess that's the difference between a "think tank" and a "marketing tank." Although the latter might do a better job messaging to liberal activists, I'd argue that the former is still more effective on Capitol Hill.

There's no doubt Heritage can be effective on the Hill.  But I suspect we need more help right now in the media and in the movement.  The Hill is a very,  very limited target - and even many of them are reading the blogs - and we need to rebuild a movement.  For that, we need mechanisms that aren't aimed at the Hill. 

 

Is CAP achieving it's legislative or electoral goals?

Some of them, sure.   If Obama wins, then CAP will be in about the same position as Heritage was in 1980.  

 

I have yet to see a "think tank" that does any actual "thinking." These entities exist merely to create rationalizations for actions that someone has already decided to carry out.

Well, of course.   Everybody brings some perspective to their policy analysis.  Otherwise, you would have data, but no objectives.   An agenda is a prerequisite to policy-making. 

The problem you're really talking about is rationalization.  And yes, there's certainly a non-trivial amount of that.  But that's true of humans in general, not just think tanks.