Hybrid Online Campaigning Organisations

  • Ariadne Vromen
Part of the Interest Groups, Advocacy and Democracy Series book series (IGAD)


Contemporary mobilisation challenges traditional politics as new online campaigning organisations are nimble, change tactics and are responsive to moving targets and audiences. Hybrid organisations, like GetUp in Australia, 38 Degrees in the UK, Avaaz internationally and MoveOn in the USA, have developed novel strategic approaches to campaign work, including rapid response direct action and moving traditional offline tactics into an online environment. Complex layers of communication and campaign coordination are simply easier and quicker when based online, due to flexible and decentralised networks, yet it is the focus on creative forms of direct communication with supporters that is an important innovation of politics aimed at digital citizens. The chapter provides an overview of ten years of GetUp in Australia.


Social Movement Political Organisation Election Campaign Voter Enrolment Membership Base 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abetz, E. (2010, September 3). GetUp—A new kind of astroturfing. David Davies memorial dinner speech,
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2007). 2006 Census QuickStats,
  3. Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). (2015). Annual returns locator service, Australian Electoral Commission,
  4. Beck, M. (2015, October 30). Facebooks; News feed algorithm: A guide to recent changes. MarketingLand,
  5. Bennett, L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, L., Wells, C., & Rank, A. (2009). Young citizens and civic learning: Two paradigms of citizenship in the digital age. Citizenship Studies, 13(2), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bimber, B., Flanagin, A., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15, 389–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bimber, B., Flanagin, A., & Stohl, C. (2012). Collective action in organisations: Interaction and engagement in an era of technological change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowyer-Pont, P. (2014). The new organising model in political advocacy. Presented at International Studies Association conference, July, Yokohama, Japan.Google Scholar
  10. Carty, V. (2011). Multi-issue, internet-mediated interest organisations and their implications for US politics: A case of Social Movement Studies, 10(3), 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carty, V., & Onyett, J. (2006). Protest, cyberactivism and new social movements: The re-emergence of the peace movement post 9/11. Social Movement Studies, 5(3), 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chadwick, A. (2007). Digital network repertoires and organisational hybridity. Political Communication, 24(3), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1), 9–41.Google Scholar
  14. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chadwick, A., & Dennis, J. (2016). Social media, professional media and mobilisation in contemporary Britain: Explaining the strengths and weaknesses of the Citizens’ Movement 38 Degrees. Political Studies, published online before print May 13.Google Scholar
  16. Chen, P. (2012). The new media and the campaign. In M. Simms, & J. Wanna (Eds.), Julia 2010: The caretaker election. Canberra: ANU Epress,
  17. Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. (2009). The internet and democratic citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cross, W., & Gauja, A. (2014). Evolving membership strategies in Australian political parties. Australian Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 611–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dalton, R. (2008a). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56(1), 76–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eaton, M. (2010). Manufacturing community in an online activist organisation. Information, Communication and Society, 13(2), 174–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Emmens, B., & Houghton, R. (2008, July). Understanding surge capacity within international agencies. Humanitarian Practice Network,
  23. Gauja, A. (2010). Political parties and elections: Legislating for representative democracy. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  24. Gauja, A., & Gelber, K. (2011). High Court review 2010: The resurgence of rights? Australian Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 683–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gauja, A., & Jackson, S. (2016). Australian Greens party members and supporters: Their profiles and activities. Environmental Politics, 25(2), 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. GetUp! (2009). 2008–2009 GetUp! Annual Report,
  27. GetUp. (2010a). Federal election strategy: June 2010. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from
  28. GetUp. (2010b). Election Report back YouTube. Released August 26,!australia#p/search/8/_mD4P5z1Ssk
  29. GetUp. (2013). 2012–13 GetUp Annual Report,
  30. GetUp. (2014a). 2013–14 GetUp Annual Report,
  31. Gibson, R. K. (2009). New media and the revitalisation of politics. Representation, 45(3), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gibson, R., Römmele, A., & Williamson, A. (2014). Chasing the digital wave: International perspectives on the growth of online campaigning. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 11(2), 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Griffiths, M. (2010, August 20). Decidedly not in Sturt. National Times. Retrieved August 22, 2010, from
  34. Halupka, M. (2014). Clicktivism: A systematic heuristic. Policy & Internet, 6, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heimans, J. (2010). Keynote address to net change week, Canada,
  36. Karpf, D. (2010a, September 1). Advocacy group communications in the new media environment. Presentation at the APSA Political Communication Preconference. Retrieved from www.davidkarpf.comGoogle Scholar
  37. Karpf, D. (2010b). Online political mobilization from the advocacy group’s perspective: Looking beyond clicktivism. Policy & Internet, 2(4), 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Karpf, D. (2012). The MoveOn effect: The unexpected transformation of American political advocacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karvelas, P. (2005, August 25). Poll body seeking GetUp! Lowdown. The Australian.Google Scholar
  40. Kerr, C. (2013, February 7). GetUp conflicted says Eric Abtez. The Australian,
  41. Kleis Nielsen, R. (2011). Mundane internet tools, mobilizing practices, and the coproduction of citizenship in political campaigns. New Media and Society, 13(5), 755–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kreiss, D. (2009). Developing the “good citizen”: Digital artifacts, peer networks, and formal organisation during the 2003–2004 Howard Dean Campaign. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liddy, M. (2014, October 22). It’s time: 9 reasons Gough Whitlam’s iconic campaign worked. ABC News,
  44. Lynch, P. (2010, August 6). A win for human rights in the High Court. Centre for Policy Development. Retrieved August 7, 2010, from
  45. Marks, K. (2010, October). Exclamation politics: GetUp! The Monthly,
  46. Micheletti, M. (2015). Does participation always have a democratic spirit? In N. Manning (Ed.), Political (dis)engagement: The changing nature of the “political” (pp. 27–52). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  47. Norton, A. (2007). GetUp!’s entrepreneurial success. Retrieved March 17, 2011, from
  48. Schlosberg, D., Shulman, S., & Zavestoski, S. (2007). Democracy and e-rulemaking: Web-based participation and the potential of deliberation. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 4(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shulman, S. (2009). The case against mass emails: Perverse incentives and low quality public participation in U.S. federal rulemaking. Policy & Internet, 1(1), 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sharp, A. (2010, July 22). Activists to pursue online enrolment. The Age. Retrieved July 28, 2010, from
  51. Sheikh, S. (2010, September 23). Simon addresses media 140. Keynote speech to Media 140 conference,
  52. Snow, D. (2010, June 19). So loudly they cannot be ignored. Sydney Morning Herald,
  53. Stolle, D., & Hooghe, M. (2009). Shifting inequalities? Patterns of exclusion and inclusion in emerging forms of political participation. Discussion paper, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB). Retrieved April 25, 2011, from
  54. Sweet, M. (2010, March 29). Dick Smith, Pat McGorry and GetUp join forces on mental health campaign. Croakey: The Crikey Health Blog. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from
  55. Taylor, L. (2010, August 14). Activist report cards left wanting. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved August 14, 2010, from
  56. Thomas, H. (2014, May 31). GetUp donation under scrutiny. The Australian,
  57. Tiffen, R., & Gittins, R. (2004). How Australia compares. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Toscano, N. (2015, October 27). Trade union membership hits record low. Sydney Morning Herald,
  59. Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1147–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vissers, S., & Stolle, D. (2014). The Internet and new modes of political participation: Online versus offline participation. Information, Communication and Society, 17(8), 937–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vromen, A. (2008). Political change and the internet in Australia: Introducing GetUp. In T. Hayhtio & J. Rinne (Eds.), Net working/networking: Citizen initiated internet politics (pp. 103–126). Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Vromen, A., Xenos, M., & Loader, B. (2015). Young people, social media and connective action: From organisational maintenance to everyday political talk. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(1), 80–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wells, C. (2015). The civic organisation and the digital citizen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ariadne Vromen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations