How Does RAN Rank As An Irregular Competitor?

Today, you and I will begin a case study analysis of the Rainforest Action Network as an irregular competitor. Not sure what an “irregular competitor” is? Check the definition here then.

Okay. Ready?

Let’s Start with Twitter

In this post, the first in a series about the Rainforest Action Network as an irregular competitor, we’ll begin our case study by taking a look at the Twitter strategy employed by this organization.

One of the benefits behind social media is that one can use it to be, well, social. Being social means engaging others in conversation, talking with them, not at them. This is not a new idea, especially in social media circles.

Recently, I visited the Twitter page for the Rainforest Action Network (RAN). I do so periodically to keep current on what they, as well as other NGO and activist groups, are doing on the social web. I must say that I was not impressed by their Twitter strategy.

I looked at a random sample of 93 of their most recent tweets. Then I reviewed each of those to determine which were “shouts” and which were attempts at engaging their following. Only 12 of the 93 tweets, or about 13%, were attempts at engagement. The other 81 tweets, or about 87%, were just “shouts.” From this summary analysis, it would appear that RAN has difficulty, on Twitter at least, in engaging their audience in a worthwhile conversation. Apparently, RAN has not yet learned the conversational value of Twitter. And this perceived lack of value is plainly reflected in their Twitter statistics.

On the date I checked, Tuesday, February 23, 2010, RAN showed only 1,426 followers. Similarly, on that same date their Twitter page showed that RAN followed only 1,104. With regard to the total Twitterverse, and considering that the Twitterverse is likely “teeming” with the RAN primary demographic, these follower and following numbers are very, very low. What am I saying? These numbers, for this type of organization, in this type of social media environment, are extremely low. And it’s entirely possible that these numbers are low because potential followers don’t see any conversational value coming out of the RAN tweets. If you don’t have anything to discuss, people just won’t follow you on Twitter.

What does this mean for the corporate opponents that RAN has targeted. Well, for companies like Chevron, JP Morgan Chase, General Mills, and others I saw mentioned in RAN’s “broadcast-like” tweets, it means that, at least, from the tool of Twitter, these corporate opponents of RAN have little to worry about. My analysis indicates that RAN has a very difficult time in establishing a conversation in the Twitter environment. They are not using this social web tool to its fullest advantage. And by not using this tool to its fullest advantage, they handicap their other social media efforts.

So, due to RAN’s employment of Twitter, I would rate them very low on the Irregular Competition Threat Index, probably about a “2″ on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most threatening. But this “2″ is only a preliminary rating because Twitter is only a part of the total social media effort of RAN. As we go through subsequent posts, it’s likely that you and I will see this preliminary rating change.

*     *     *

Part 2 of “How Does RAN Rank As An Irregular Competitor?” will be posted on Thursday, March 11, 2010. If you are reading this before that date, please subscribe to the FREE RSS feed so that you will be notified when the article posts. Click here to subscribe. Or, if you are reading this after that date, please click here to be taken to “How Does RAN Rank As An Irregular Competitor? – Part 2.”

Share on Facebook