Originally appeared in the Chicago Free Press July 26, 2000.
The considerable impact achieved by the StopDrLaura.com website campaign illustrates not only the remarkable powers of the Internet as an organizing tool, but also the ways in which the economic marketplace can be more sensitive than the political one.
IN 1993, DURING THE CONTROVERSY over allowing gays to serve openly in the military, congressional offices were flooded with cards, letters, faxes and telephone calls from angry voters urging that the ban be retained.
For its part, the pro-gay side managed to generate only a comparatively small number of supportive messages; some congressmen said they received virtually none at all.
Now contrast: In 2000, advertisers on "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger's projected television show and her current radio program have begun to withdraw under pressure from gays-among them Procter and Gamble, Geico Insurance, Skytel and most recently TCF Bank.
A spokeswoman for Skytel said the company had been "inundated" with messages expressing opposition to its advertising on Schlessinger's program.
What changed in the intervening seven years? What is different here?
Probably the chief factors are: the rapid spread of Internet use, particularly by gays; the one-stop shopping convenience of a dedicated anti-Schlessinger website; the fact of a small number of targets; and the pressure-sensitivity of the economic marketplace compared with an almost pressure-impervious political system.
Everyone is aware of the enormous growth of Internet use; it is one of the most remarkable social facts of our time. And no one doubts the substantial Internet use by gays. At this point, it is rare to meet any gay person who is not online at home or at work. Usually both.
Much of the opposition to Schlessinger has been generated by a website called StopDrLaura.com, founded by gay Internet consultant John Aravosis, who heads Wired Strategies.
Aravosis says that his website has received million of "hits," representing perhaps hundred of thousands of unique visitors.
Aravosis' very useful website offers a generous serving of abrasive quotations about gays from Schlessinger's own program and her interviews elsewhere.
But, more important, it also provides telephone, fax and e-mail contact information for Paramount, which is producing her television show, and for executives at some of Schlessinger's advertisers, urging people to write and express their concern.
In the old days, just a decade ago, people had to gather the facts themselves, try to compose a cogent letter, hunt down the right person and the address to mail it to. No longer. StopDrLaura.com does much of the work for them.
How far can this model of activism be generalized? Would specific websites devoted to other topics be as effective? What about StoptheScouts.com or, since no one really wants to stop the Boy Scouts, maybe DefundScouts.com? Or Gaysinmilitary.com? Or Endsodomylaws.com?
In Schlessinger's case there was one specific target so it was comparatively easy to gather the relevant information about her. And there were only a few people or companies to contact with expressions of disapproval.
It might be possible to generate, say, 20,000-30,000 messages to Paramount or "inundate" Skytel with 5,000-10,000 messages over a short period of time. Those are a lot for a medium-sized company to receive.
But if we are trying to influence a national policy such as the military gay ban, remember that there are 435 U.S. Representatives. Even 30,000 messages dispersed among 435 congressmen comes to fewer than 70 messages per congressman. Not an impressive number.
Since the Boy Scouts is not likely to change its policy in response to outside criticisms, activists would have to put pressure on the numerous United Way campaigns, corporations and foundations that support the Boy Scouts.
Determining which ones provide support, finding contact information for the right executives, and so forth would be an enormous labor, something no volunteer activists like Aravosis and his colleagues could reasonably undertake. And again, there is the problem of a multiplicity of targets, even if the total number of messages were large.
An even more important factor here is that advertisers, as actors in the economic marketplace, are more sensitive to the pressures of small change in sales and support than are politicians.
Most legislators are from so-called "safe" districts, meaning that a modest amount of pressure is not going to influence them one way or the other. They can easily risk the loss of 5 to 7 percent of the vote and still win re-election. All they need is 50 percent plus one vote.
And, of course, they risk losing an equal or larger number of votes on the other side if they alter their position, a serious disincentive for change.
By contrast, most companies would strongly prefer not to lose, or even risk losing, 5 to 7 percent of their sales or market share. That could make the difference between overall profit and loss.
And unlike politicians who risk losses on the other side if they change positions, corporations as advertisers have the option of simple neutrality, avoiding controversy entirely and choosing non-controversial venues for their advertising.
Accepting these provisos and potential limitations, the
StopDrLaura.com idea is well worth trying for other purposes.
Aravosis himself probably does not have the time to pursue such an
endeavor, but if any of the lackluster national gay organizations
were smart, they would hire him as a consultant to teach them how
to reproduce his efforts.