“The comments will be counted as of December 3 at midnight pacific time.”

Getting your post in early is definitely an advantage.

When is the cut off for comments? Do posts that go online on 30 Nov get only a day or so for responses, while those that went up on 15th have two weeks?

Or is it a even four weeks after each post went online?

……….

I like the random uncontrollable aspect of setting up a playground with a certain set of rules then standing back to see what the kids do in it.

I think that all the play we’re seeing in this competition is pro-social, so that’s OK. Words like ‘hijack’ only apply if the playground designer had an agenda of some sort. I get the impression that Sean (the playground designer in this case) was quite open to see what would happen.

Thanks for setting this up. I’m enjoying the various perspectives that are emerging.

My two cents (pence) is thus: you’re getting people to engage and react, and that’s what is important. I’ve been involved with competitions and my hunch is that the real benefit is that people learn from each other, and test assumptions, and– yes, vie for first place. But in this case, vying for first place is a win-win for us all. We learn, we engage, and our favorite nonprofit wins some cash.

I applaud the medium, and encourage us all to engage.

Sam

http://adage.com/article?article_id=121872

Rich’s tactic is nice, but flawed. He has a 60-comment deficit starting out, and doesn’t offer motivation to overcome it. Why isn’t $2500 motivation? Because it doesn’t go to the organization that overcomes that deficit, it goes to the one that he picks.

. . . or maybe the problem is that Pride at Work is the only organization motivated enough to participate that much, and they don’t want to risk the $500 they’ve got wrapped up.

On preview, Bruce has already said what I’m trying to say.

Bribery?

Nah, I’m kidding. What he/she did was a smart, valid technique. And it did some good - I, for one, know lots more about Pride at Work than I did before.

But just try adapting it to your own goals. At 7-8 bucks per supporter, give or take, and with each supporter contributing . . . a couple clicks and a sentence? . . . this method will need some serious tweaking. I like the idea of motivating people based on what they want, not what you think they should want. That’s good. Even motivating them with a small chance at good ol’ filthy lucre is fine - it works for McDonald’s, say. But straight-up handing out money? Geez. No thanks.

To me, don’ttell just proved the power of money. If anyone proved the power of networking, it was Pride at Work.

I said I would only post “relevant” entries. Here’s why I think Don’t Tell The Donor’s entry was relevant:

“I am going to use Sean’s “One Post Challenge” to demonstrate the power of fundraisers who understand the online world. Blogging is not about talking AT PEOPLE, it’s about making readers part of the story and giving them a reason to be engaged.”

Show not tell is the lesson we all learned in grade school about writing well. Don’t Tell the Donor could have written a post that explained why he/she thought that fundraisers and/or philanthropy in generally needs to understand social media tools to be effective in the 21st century.

Instead, he/she simply lay down the gauntlet and showed how a simple tactic could spread his/her message far and wide. To me, it was a powerful demonstration of how to get a message to gain traction online.

Is it possible for one of the posts focused on philanthropic theory to have that kind of viral element? Of course! But so far, none of the other posters have shown they know how to do it.

My bet is by the end of this thing, will see some interesting attempts.

Don’t Tell the Donor’s post was a great example of harnessing marketing potential, but it did not add to the conversation in any way and I do consider it a highjacking of the ideas challenge.

The prizes were not the point, but rather a nice incentive to promote ideas. A good organization will still get the reward, but the other authors’ external motivation is lost.

(Sorry, Sean… I didn’t want to be disrespectful saying this, but this is how I feel.)

My suggestion is– if available/possible– honorable mention prizes be rewarded as tokens for enhancing the communal conversation.

Maya Norton

The New Jew: Blogging Jewish Philanthropy

I like the TV program analogy from Sean’s comment. I watch both PBS and Comedy Central, and know what to expect when I tune to each. What happened here is that I tuned in to PBS expecting The News Hour and instead got South Park. Now I’m a huge fan of both shows, but I’m not sure I’ll ever be ready for fart jokes from Jim Lehrer.

My instigating post simply reflected my personal reaction to reality not matching my expectations. I find myself entered into a different competition than I thought I was entering, which is uncomfortable, but not necessarily unconstructive - it’s too soon to tell. But what I do know is that whatever names you attach to the two sides, the struggle between them is taking place inside our heads - not between them.

However, I don’t think your post on its own is the ultimate goal of this competition. But I think that it raises the bar significantly. Trista had some traction going in her comments, but now this competition can’t be won with a bright idea alone, it needs marketing too (just like in the real world).

As far as I have noted, not one of the other posters has even thought to submit their post to Digg or StumbleUpon. You’ve done the “intelligentsia” (those people who like to discuss high minded ideals in an echo chamber) a huge favor by showing how much more traction their ideas can get if they would figure out how to engage everyone else.

Three cheers for “a fundraiser” (seriously). He/she did this competition a huge favor. Now who’s got the next act?

Let’s clear a couple of things up.

When I thought of the angle for my challenge entry, I had never heard of the group “Pride at Work.” I was expecting several big groups to duke it out…

This wasn’t done by one kid jumping up and down 60 times… check the different IP addresses that left comments… this was a quick grassroots response triggered by an activist blogger who was able to reach (and motivate) dozens of engaged supporters to visit your site and leave a comment.

When I read your response and the comments by you and Bruce above, I was disappointed by the elitest voices you guys are using.

Do you really see the internet as an epic battle between the intelligensia who
have bright ideas versus the mob?

That’s scary.

You said it yourself: one link from a blog generated more engaged readers and traffic than the New York Times and the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Does that tell you something?

Nonprofit fundraisers who want to make the most of the internet will need to learn that it’s not about building a website and talking AT people, but finding a way to give motivated supporters an opportunity to engage and help.

If you continue to see the vast majority of web readers as a mindless mob who watches YouTube videos of cats rather than rising to your level, maybe this blog would be better suited as a private members only forum.

Thanks again for running the contest. I think it adds a lot to our nonprofit fundraising blogosphere.

Sincerely,
“a fundraiser”