Previous: Advocacy Television: From the Sofa to the Streets

These case studies illustrate that advocacy video and television do play a critical role in educating elected officials and mobilizing the public. The technology itself cannot create change. As Lillian Jimenez said at the Benton Foundation Advocacy Video Conference, "video, no matter how wonderful, will never take the place of that tedious trench warfare." But the technology can clearly be used to create change. Video possesses a distinct ability to document social issues, to sway the emotions, to make an argument, and to unite viewers in a unique and powerful way. Though video and television cannot serve as substitutes for organizers or political activists, they are uniquely powerful tools which help those activists reach more people in general—and more legislators in particular—with persuasive evidence illustrating the need to address social concerns.

To evaluate the impact of the field or the impact of any particular video is almost an impossible task. If an advocacy video is truly an integral part of an overall campaign, then the video and campaign should be so interrelated as to be one and the same. Then if the campaign succeeds or fails, if the objective is reached in whole or in part, how can advocates separate out the role of the video from the total campaign? As Herb Chao Gunther said at the Advocacy Video Conference: "We forget the central reality of our efforts, that it is art, not science. With media campaigns, with video, with public interest organizing strategies, using media is in fact a form of art. And we make the mistake constantly of trying to apply the standards of science to art."

But the foundations, the nonprofits, and the independent film and videomakers who put their precious time and dollars into advocacy video need mechanisms and standards for determining the impact. Without creating cumbersome models of evaluation, advocates can establish simple criteria to determine the success of each advocacy production and decide if the project represented is a worthwhile investment. If a tape is created for use in grassroots organizing, advocates need to ask the people "in the trenches": "Did the tape actually help you in your work? If so, how? Give some examples."

In the earliest planning stages of each production, advocates need to consider how the tape will be distributed and how many people need to see it in order to consider the distribution effort a success. If they plan to organize around a broadcast, how many events or screenings are necessary to reach the outreach goals? If a program includes an 800 number, what is the minimum number of calls needed to deem the broadcast a positive mobilization of the public?

Many of the benefits of advocacy video are, and will always be, intangible. But advocates should determine what benefits are tangible and can be measured. If producers and nonprofits build clear, simple distribution goals into their planning process and their grant proposals, then they and their funders will have the necessary information to prove that advocacy video works, as we intuitively know it does. Meaningful evaluations (based on real numbers and stories from the field) will only lead to continued investment in advocacy video and television.

Video can undoubtedly be the spark that leads to change. The images of a bulldozer destroying a forest, the stories of people poisoned by nuclear waste, or of young women suffering from AIDS will always hold within them the potential to stir the hearts of viewers. How to tap that emotion and channel it into action remain the constant challenges of advocacy media. As communications tools become increasingly interactive, this challenge will continue to evolve in new and exciting ways. Though communications tools will constantly change, the basic principle of successful advocacy video, namely the importance of weaving media tightly into campaign strategy, will remain the same.

Next: Related Resources