GénérationHeetch or the difficulty of mobilising people, even with slacktivism

At 12 noon on Saturday, Heetch launched a "digital demonstration" operation, taking the logic of digital labour to the extreme. What was in place? Was it a success? The answer lies in a brief analysis that shows that, even with slacktivism, it's hard to mobilise the troops these days.

I. The system

Following a court ruling, Heetch decided to organise a digital demonstration. The venue is a site called GénérationHeetch. Once you click on "I'm taking part", you can choose your avatar from a whole range of options. Naturally, I took on the role of the person who was going to count the demonstrators. So I was left with two options: share the status on Twitter, share on Facebook or choose a politician to send a postcard. The politicians are mainly the presidential candidates. In addition to the website, Heetch has also mobilised its supporters on Twitter via the Agora Pulse platform and Zendesk (a customer relations platform), encouraging them to join the movement. So that's it for the device.

II. Analysis

The initiative aroused little enthusiasm and can be described as a real flop without being harsh.

In terms of numbers, too, we're far from having hit the heights. Over the last 9 days, they have only reached 1,700 people, which seems low. Heetch's manoeuvres with its customers are also noticeable. While the semantics were based around the Heetch movement and appealed to its community, we can't say that the community aspect is very rich.

There have also been accusations of botting that are unjustified. There is one person on SiwiOnline who has an account that he activates for each of his tweets using Tweetdeck software. There are also a few uses of IFTTT. But overall, only 4.4% of the 2824 tweets were false, which isn't very many.

III. Conclusions

In short, I don't have the figures for Facebook, but on Twitter, there was clearly room for improvement. So what could explain the lack of success?

• An inappropriate message

Let's go back to what was being shared: a simple tweet with a request to join the movement.

It's not much of a message. All the more so because it's hard to make the message your own. While the illustrations were more or less customisable, having a single tweet without a lobbying argument is somewhat lightweight. Even small citizens' movements and NGOs make available over 200 tweets ready to be sent out in the event of a tweet storm.

This makes for a rather poor vocabulary:

• Unclear objectives

The idea behind this digital event is to make some noise. But what is the point of this slacktivism? The objectives are very vague. Even when you hold a demonstration, the aim is to attract attention or to walk right up to where the decision-maker is. Here, the target is not very well known. There's a sort of underlying ideology that making noise on Twitter is enough to reach decision-makers and carry weight. It would have been better to target politicians clearly and distinctly.

• The rush

The operation seems more or less rushed. It would have been better to wait and prepare the whole strategy. Behind the initial idea, there is a lack of precision in the details. However, this case illustrates the growing trend towards digital mobilisation as a means of influencing decisions. Is this a new form of activism? Are they click workers? Is it influence communication or astroturfing? These are just some of the questions that will arise in all future cases, and to which we will have to work to find answers.