Most failed campaigns share a common flaw: they target the wrong people. Protesters march on symbolic locations, petition signers flood inboxes of officials who lack authority, and passionate advocates exhaust themselves demanding change from institutions that genuinely cannot deliver it. The energy is real, but the strategy misdirects it entirely.

Effective movements operate differently. They invest significant effort before launching campaigns to understand exactly who holds the power to grant their demands—and what specific pressures might move those individuals. This isn't cynicism; it's strategic clarity about how change actually happens in complex systems.

Target selection represents perhaps the most consequential strategic decision any campaign makes. Get it right, and focused pressure on vulnerable decision-makers can produce remarkable results. Get it wrong, and years of organizing dissipate into performative action that changes nothing. The difference lies in understanding power as it actually operates, not as we wish it worked.

Every demand has a specific person or small group with the authority to grant it. This sounds obvious, but campaigns routinely ignore it. Demanding that "the government" or "corporations" change behavior targets abstractions rather than decision-makers. Power mapping forces the essential discipline of identifying exactly who can say yes.

The process begins with a simple question: who has the formal authority to make this decision? Sometimes the answer is straightforward—a city council vote, a CEO's policy directive, a regulatory agency's ruling. Often it's more complex, involving multiple veto points or requiring coordination across institutions. Mapping this decision-making architecture reveals where campaigns should focus.

But formal authority tells only part of the story. Effective power mapping also asks: what does this decision-maker care about? What pressures do they respond to? A corporate executive might be insulated from consumer boycotts but vulnerable to investor pressure. An elected official might ignore constituent mail but fear negative media coverage during an election year. Understanding these pressure points shapes everything about campaign design.

The most sophisticated power maps identify both the decision-maker's interests and their relationships. Who influences them? Who do they need to keep happy? This relational analysis often reveals that the most effective path to your primary target runs through others who shape their incentives and information environment.

Takeaway

Before launching any campaign, answer two questions with specificity: who exactly can grant this demand, and what pressures have historically moved them? Vague targets produce vague results.

Sometimes you can't pressure your primary target directly. They may be insulated from public pressure, geographically distant, or simply unresponsive to the tactics available to your movement. This is where secondary targeting becomes essential—applying pressure to someone who can, in turn, pressure your actual target.

Consider a campaign against a multinational corporation's labor practices. The CEO in New York may be unreachable, but the company's major retail partners face direct consumer pressure. University endowments hold company stock and respond to student activism. Institutional investors care about reputational risk. Each becomes a potential secondary target whose pressure reaches the primary target through existing relationships.

Secondary targeting requires understanding leverage chains. A worker organizing campaign might target a company's largest customer rather than the employer directly, calculating that losing that contract would force concessions. Environmental campaigns have successfully targeted banks financing polluting projects, recognizing that financial pressure often exceeds regulatory pressure in corporate decision-making.

The strategic key is ensuring your secondary target actually has meaningful influence over your primary target. A celebrity endorser might seem like an appealing pressure point, but if they lack genuine leverage over corporate decisions, targeting them wastes resources. Effective secondary targeting traces actual power relationships, not assumed ones.

Takeaway

When direct pressure fails, ask: who does your target need to keep happy, and can you reach them? The shortest path to change often runs through intermediaries who face different vulnerabilities.

Sophisticated movements don't start with their most aggressive tactics against their most ambitious targets. They build escalation ladders—sequences of increasingly intense pressure that build organizational capacity while testing target vulnerability. This approach reveals information, develops skills, and preserves options.

An escalation ladder might begin with private meetings requesting change, then move to public criticism, then to disruptive protest, then to economic pressure. Each stage serves multiple purposes: it demonstrates willingness to escalate, tests whether the target will concede at lower intensity, and builds the organizational muscle needed for more demanding tactics.

Target sequencing follows similar logic. A campaign might begin with smaller, more vulnerable targets before taking on larger ones. Early victories build momentum and credibility. They demonstrate that the movement can actually win, attracting new participants and resources. They also establish precedents that make subsequent demands seem more reasonable.

The strategic discipline here involves resisting pressure to immediately deploy your strongest tactics against your biggest target. That approach often fails because organizations haven't developed the capacity for sustained high-intensity campaigns, and because it leaves nowhere to escalate when initial tactics prove insufficient. Strategic patience in escalation often produces faster results than premature maximum pressure.

Takeaway

Design campaigns as sequences, not single events. Start with winnable fights against vulnerable targets, building the power and credibility needed for larger confrontations.

Target selection transforms unfocused passion into strategic power. The difference between movements that win and those that merely protest often comes down to this analytical discipline—understanding who actually holds decision-making authority and what specific pressures might move them.

This strategic approach isn't about abandoning principles for pragmatism. It's about taking your goals seriously enough to understand what actually achieves them. Symbolic action has its place, but movements that confuse symbolism for strategy rarely produce lasting change.

The most effective organizers treat target selection as an ongoing analytical practice, not a one-time decision. As campaigns develop and power relationships shift, targeting must evolve. The movement that continuously refines its understanding of power will consistently outperform one relying on moral clarity alone.