A place to capture and share ideas, experiment with and exchange links and resources about the adoption challenges, strategy, and ROI of nonprofits and social media.
Late last night (or early this morning), Amy Sample Ward reported that Causes notified 184,725 users that its MySpace app will be removed from MySpace as of today. The email encouraged MySpace users of Causes to join the cause on Facebook.
Marshall Kirkpatrick, on ReadWrite Web, wrote a post further analyzing the situation, raising the question: Or are neither MySpace or Causes any big loss for social change organizations? Marshall goes on to quote an interview he did with Peter Cashmore from Mashable on Netsquared who questioned whether MySpace was a place for "social media for social good."
Without specific data on active users (versus app installs) of Causes app on Myspace or how effective it has been as a friendraising tool on MySpace by individuals and 40,000 plus nonprofits, it it is hard to quantify the loss. Ivan Boothe points out, fundraising efforts have probably not be spectacular because there isn't engagement built in. (I've criticized Causes interaction design in the past for being like a one-night stand, although they have improved since the two years that I wrote that post)
One wonders if this provides an opportunity for another fundraising and friendraising application to set up shop on MySpace, one that perhaps has a true interest in the nonprofit and community there.
Ivan Boothe points out a larger lesson for nonprofits moving forward:
I think Rebecca Leaman said it best — don't put "all fundraising eggs in one third-party basket!" These services are useful, and can help your organization advance its mission, but it's not accountable to you — and you need to have other options.
Those other options are a CRM where you own your relationships and donor data like email addresses. Yes, social media is about giving up control of your message, but you shouldn't be giving up your donor and supporter relationships.
Twitter Lists: A Natural Evolution of Internet List Culture
The Internet has a strongly ingrained "list-making" and "collecting" culture. Back in the early 1990's, during my "gopher mistress" days, I could use this Internet protocol to create lists of lists of public files on servers on the Internet. It made it easy for me to navigate through public files available on the Internet in a linear way. Even better, I could browse, collect, and organize files on my own gopher and make it available for others to "gopher surf."
Back then, there was a lot less information on the Internet than there is today - so there was less redundancy of lists. Unfortunately, the gopher did not live a long life, it was soon overshadowed by the World Wide Web.
Even in the early days of the web, there was the urge to organize collections of files and links. I discovered the WWW Virtual Library in 1993 when there were only 200 servers on the Internet. I volunteered to be the Dance Librarian. What that meant was that the Library pointed to my dance links on the Arts Wire server. It also enabled the WWW Virtual Library to scale in terms of server capacity and allow for a distributed network of volunteer librarians.
I remember organizing a meet up for 25 of these volunteer web librarians (all guys) when they came to Cambridge, MA for Web Consortium Meeting. That's where I met Arthur Secret, the project coordinator of this web volunteer effort. (He worked at Cern or the UN at the time and everyone wanted to view his public FTP folder - after all it was the "secret" folder.)
As the Web started to explode in 1995ish, I remember the dance links getting so plentiful that I started to organize volunteers who could self-organize different sections on their servers. (I kept the ballet and modern dance links).
There is something about Twitter Lists, the new feature recently launched by Twitter, that allows Twitter users to create their own lists of followers that reminds of the gopher. Twitter lists lets you curate your followers and keep connected to smaller affinity groups of your choosing. This feature is similar to the functionality to lists that you can create with popular Twitter clients like Tweetdeck, but with some important and compelling differences. Your lists can be public.
What made me think about the gopher and early web days, was the feature where you can join
any public list to receive the same tweets, whether or not
you follow the included individuals. This intelligence of the crowds, yet manual, filtering helps you improve the signal to noise on any your topics of Internet.
Twitter lists are very easy to create - so you can expect to see many people making Twitter lists and maybe even some large directories of Twitter lists. The key is to find good lists to follow or the ones created byTwitter users who know how to curate information and energy or capacity to keep their lists up to date. This is not unlike the strategy I used for people I followed on delicious or what is known as "Tag Sniffing." (Find the expert curators in topics that you don't have time or desire to go deep on and follow their lists, resources, or friends.)
I was going to spend a lot of time making up different lists and sub-lists of nonprofit techies, social causes, social media gurus, metrics geeks, and the way too many other topics I'm obsessed with, but realized all I had to do was find someone who I knew and trusted and follow their list. For example, I was looking for a list of Twitter users from Africa - and after some conversation with Kabissa on Twitter, I found their lists.
However, we're still in the early stages of lists - and lists are like gardening - they require maintenance, watering and feeding. And, that has to be done manually. Will Twitter lists become an graveyard of outdated lists? Maybe we'll see some tools to automate list maintenance, widgets, and clients.
Twitter Lists and List Numbers As Popularity Contests
Amy Sample Ward, on Socialbrite, has a post with some recommendations on the types of lists they should create. It is important to remember that lists do require maintenance - and you don't want your Twitter lists down the road to become outdated - like web pages that aren't updated. Amy riffs on a post by Geeking for Good outlining seven different types of nonprofit twitter lists:
* Your organization’s chapters and campaigns. * Related international organizations and campaigns. * Organizations that are somewhat related to your organisation. * Celebrities, politicians and others with a high profile. * Media. * Volunteers. * Retweeters and people who have contacted you.
The most common application of social media is for fundraising and
marketing. But what about using social media as part of program delivery.
Do we have examples of using nonprofits using social media for:
Volunteer
or board recruitment strategy
Ooutreach or educational program
delivery
Crowdsourcing ideas for program development
Professional
development
Integrated in other areas
How can social media people at different organizations collaborate to
form action networks?
What are the best emerging examples and early
lessons learned?
I'm really curious what you think? You can add your ideas or pointers to resources here on the WeAreMedia wiki. I'm also tagging Amy Sample Ward, Nina Simon, Britt Bravo and Allison Fine who can point us to some of their posts on this topic or even share some current thoughts.
It's NTEN appreciation month and I can think of no better way than to say thank you to all the NTEN members (and non-members) who have contributed to the WeAreMedia project. It is time for the community to write the Hollywood ending!
But we didn't stop there. Together, NTEN members and other nonprofit techies/trainers, developed and delivered workshops and webinars based on the community-generated content.
One important design concept for this project is creative commons licensing - which allowed the community to remix, reuse, or repurpose the content. We've been able to track some of the remixes - that is those who kindly let us know about it and gave us attribution.
When we started this project, there were only a handful of instructional resources geared for nonprofits on how to use social media strategically. For the next stage of the We Are Media Project we're focusing on nonprofit technology practitioners from organizations that have integrated social media into their external communications strategies for at least a year. We're developing resources for practitioners looking to integrate social media into program delivery, and scale their efforts so the entire organization becomes more social.
This three part discussion series includes: Social Programs, Deep Engagement, and Getting To Scale. More on each topic:
Social Programs: The most common application of social media is for fundraising and marketing. But what about using social media as part of your volunteer or board recruitment strategy, outreach or educational program delivery, crowdsourcing ideas for program development, professional development or integrated in other areas of your nonprofit's work? What are the best emerging examples and early lessons learned? (November 1-15th)
Deep Engagement and Social Content Strategies: Ongoing deep engagement and building relationships is the heart and soul of social media success. This is different from a campaign mentality where you flip an on or off switch. What are the different strategies for engagement? But having a conversation with your supporters is only half the job. You also need social content. This is partly what your organization creates as part its web presence, but it is also content created by your supporters that they share or that you repurpose and remix. What is a social content strategy? What are some tips and techniques? #WAMdeep (November 15th - 30th)
Getting to Scale: What does it take for everyone in the organization to embrace social media? How do you scale? What are the challenges? How do you overcome them? What exactly does a staff person, whether full or part-time do on behalf of their organization? How do they balance "social productivity" with other tasks? What are the qualities or experience you need to look for? (November 30th- December 7th)
Over the next few weeks, we hope to inspire guest posts on these topics from nonprofit professionals that have been around the social media block and get your ideas, examples, and pointers to resources collected on the WeAreMedia as we march towards a Hollywood Ending for this project.
Many of us have a love and hate relationship with nonprofit dashboards. We know the power of numbers that tell us where we are headed or how well we are doing. But we also know that numbers don't tell us the whole story - whether we headed in the right overall strategic direction, taking the right road, and how to get back on course if we get lost.
But, for the most part, nonprofit dashboard reports, if they are measuring the right metrics, are useful tools. Dashboards go beyond just reporting financial results as this post from the Blue Avocado explains. And, they can be incredibly useful for helping leaders to focus attention on critical mission matters.
Nonprofit dashboard reports, which communicate critical information in a concise, visual, and more compelling way, are mostly used by board or staff for discussion at internal or private meetings or used as part of reports back to funders for grants.
That's the cultural norm in the nonprofit sector, with a couple of exceptions. An organization's dashboard is an internal report and the data not shared publicly (although NTEN shared its Dashboard spreadsheet template recently).
The Indianapolis Art Museum has been doing just that by sharing its institutional dashboard out for everyone to view. I remember blogging about it when I first noticed it in November, 2007. It was met by with both positive and negative reactions from nonprofit and museum professionals. Jim Spadaccini from Ideum Blog noted that dashboards are not new, in fact, there's a book about Dashboard Design. He went on to describe the Museums' bold move as an example of sharing information in an unconventional way.
In December, 2007, this post from the Chronicle of Philanthropy Blog, expanding on a post by Jeff Brooks, creative director at Merkle Direct, on his Donor Power Blog asked:
Do most nonprofit organizations do enough to share key information with
the public? Is it risky to provide statistics about finances and
results on a public Web site?
Two years later, we might have some answers. In October, the Indianapolis Art Museum Dashboard celebrated its' second year. The institution has continued to share its data and engage in conversations with the public on its blog about how to use the statistics to improve its programs.
To celebrate, Rob Stein, the CIO, has started a series of blog posts on transparency. Part 1 addresses the prevalent concern shared by their peers about adopting transparency, a fear of the unknown, or that sharing the gritty details with the public will be too overwhelming and therefore misconstrued. Rob goes on to say that nothing terrible has happened. I caught up with for a quick email interview:
Has your organization always been an "open" institution?
Prior to the IMA Dashboard and in particular the arrival of Maxwell Anderson as CEO in 2006, the IMA was more closed about sharing details about its performance. Max's leadership from the top of the organization was important in that he advocated a culture in which it was better to be open and understand areas of poor performance, so that we can take steps to improve... rather than hide behind rationalizations for why certain things were broken. I think all organizations have these broken areas, it's been refreshing to work in a culture where honesty and transparency about them is encouraged as a step towards continuous improvement.
What motivated the dashboard project?
To improve as an organization, we need to understand our baseline performance against things we care about. The Dashboard is both a way to communicate to donors and the press the truth behind how we're running the museum, but also a crucial tool for staff members to track their own performance over time, knowing that the world is (potentially) watching. The "openness" is a hair shirt that encourages us to stay on the straight-and-narrow, an external motivation to continue to do the right thing even when it has a negative appearance on the surface.
Were there any institutional concerns internally?
Certainly there were concerns initially, and there are limits to how open we can be. I made a suggestion in my blog post this morning that Transparency is the discipline of an organization to demonstrate its integrity. Obviously sharing certain types of information can be illegal or potentially damaging to the museums mission in a number of ways.
In general there were some concerns about the "unknown" factor of how it would be received, how it could be maintained, and what the long-term impact of doing so might be. I think we've resolved many of these over time. (The Dashboard turned 2 in October) We've certainly used the tool for performance tracking and press relations during that time...
What has been the response to "learning in public" when numbers don't go the right way?
We've certainly had our share of bad data to share in the last 12 months. The total value of our endowment took a significant beating as demonstrated in the online statistic. Couple that fact with our Contributed Support numbers which are displayed there, and its clear that this has not be the best financial period for the IMA. We also went through a restructuring which resulted in the elimination of a number of staff positions which is also indicated online. There were some gut-churning moments putting those numbers up, but they are really the proof-in-the-pudding and demonstrate that the dashboard isn't just a spin exercise for the museum's PR department.
On a positive note, sharing the negative statistics accurately gives us a GREAT platform to talk to donors and funding agencies about the realities of the IMA's financial situation, it's very clear that we are caring for the museum well as indicated online, but continue to need support from our community. It's great to let the facts make the case for you.
What does it feel like to be an open institution?
It's work, but overall feels really good. We're constantly figuring out ways to adjust / add to / drop statistics and information that is of the most value for continuing to improve the IMA as an organization. The Dashboard is a reflection of those areas we consider to be vital to the museum's mission. Large numbers of staff from the museum are responsible for updating statistics related to their areas... so these important metrics are frequently brought back to mind as they continue to track and update them online.
One big issue that I've seen nonprofits grapple with when they want to be more open is deciding what to share. Do you share everything? If not, how do you decide what to share?
As I mentioned above, integrity needs to be our guide in what information to put online. Obviously anything that breaks a law is out :) But we start from an assumption that all information is available to go online. We can then look at things to disqualify based on what impact this data can have on the museum. Admittedly, there are few hard and fast rules that govern this process, but it's important to start from a position of openness instead of approaching the problem from a protectionist view. More importantly choices about what to share are driven by which metrics will be the most important in helping the museum grow or improve as an organization. Which areas are the most critical to our mission. These are the areas we want to track and keep an eye on so that we ensure that we continue to improve and maintain excellence there.
Is Indiana Art Museum just an outlier exception or will this type of transparency for nonprofits become the cultural norm for our sector in the next five years? Are there other examples of nonprofit institutions opening the kimono to their dashboard and discussing results with stakeholders?
Update: More thoughts on transparency from the nptech blogosphere and beyond
