In this piece I highlight some of the innovative thinking occuring in the charitable sector. While the post is not focusing on Social Media, it does talk about what the Kellogg Foundation and other donors are doing as well as what charities like Storehouse 39:3:10 are doing.

Given the episode in 2006, plus Godin’s response to Tom Watson about Squidoo ( http://bit.ly/401WHM ) one can’t help but wonder if the nonprofit execs that Godin cites in this week’s post were rejecting Squidoo, rather than online fundraising and social media in general. In fact, a friend from a large nonprofit told me his nonprofit was treated arrogantly by Seth and company when they refused to get involved with Squidoo — the nonprofit leaders were made to feel stupid.

And if we’re talking about blowing people away, you know what would blow me away? If Seth would publish a detailed report showing exact amounts raised by each nonprofit in the Squidoo program, along with case studies of the time and resources they expended. To my knowledge, detailed figures have not been published — there are only vague statements about thousands raised.

That would be the best thing Seth could do to help nonprofits use Squidoo effectively.

I wanted share a few recent posts about some methods for working through the vertigo
http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/08/to-adopt-social-media-master-the-dread.html

http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/08/what-do-maori-and-gourma-creation-stories-have-in-common-with-social-media.html

Also, we don’t where we are – what does the adoption curve for social media and nonprofits look like?

Does the fear come from resisters only? Have we crossed the Chasm finally?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cambodia4kidsorg/397202645/

1) Are nonprofits worse at social media than anyone else? This is the point that Tom makes and I think that most of the evidence points to nonprofits being as effective or more effective as for-profits. However, I’d also argue that both nonprofits and for-profits are not particularly good at it yet. Certainly Seth’s point that the nonprofits he supports spam him afterwards is something donors and customers both see themselves.

2) Are the metrics Seth cited, such as Twitter followers, valid? I think they are not. In an email to me (which Seth gave me permission to quote from) he wrote:

“It’s important to note that my post has nothing to do with Twitter, not one thing. My post was about fear of change and need for control, Twitter was just an easy way to make a point. I hate it when people think I’m being literal…”

The Top 100 Twitter mention in his blog was a poor choice in my opinion. But I’m not particularly interested in having a conversation about which social media metrics are best. That’s a better conversation for another blog.

We observed later that the charity Everychild, who we’d met with to discuss early actions, was able to achieve similar influence on Georgia’s government. So nonprofits can change too.

The change philanthropy perhaps isn’t ready for is that it may become redundant in the existing form when the social businesses approach, which is “philanthropic” from inception, begins to deliver large scale impact which is not dependent on (anti)social capitalism.

But what I think one point that needs to be made is that there is actually plenty of evidence to show that Godin is off-base in saying that nonprofit groups are cowering in the corner while others are rushing to take advantage of the opportunities presented by social media.

In fact, it can be argued that nonprofit groups are among the most aggressive organizations out there in using social media to promote change. There are some really innovative people out there rallying supporters behind some very worthy causes through Twitter, Facebook, and the like: http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/article/1294/followers-and-friends-not-the-only-measure-of-nonprofit-success-online

Godin’s post made it sound like the nonprofit world is filled with Luddites. Yes, many groups have been slow to adapt. But a large number are also working through the vertigo that Beth mentions.