Category Archives: Social Media

Google Finance for Nonprofits

December 17, 2007 – 11:10 am

I don’t know the inside story of how and why Google began including nonprofits in Google Finance. I almost wonder if it was an accident. Google pipes in data from Hoovers.com, which in turn has some limited info on nonprofits. Poking around Google Finance, I realized they also include profiles of cities (like this page for San Francisco).

The Google Finance nonprofit pages seem to not just be in beta, but appear to have not actually have been designed intentionally. For instance, the page on the Red Cross includes “Key Stats & Ratios” such as Net Profit Margin, which of course is not relevant for a nonprofit. The page also refers to “Related Companies”, instead of a more appropriate heading like “Related Organizations”.

So let’s assume for a moment that we have a bit of a blank slate to work with. If you were designing a template for the Google Finance nonprofit pages, what would you include? I was just cc’d on an email to Larry Brilliant asking him to consider some suggestions for what info might be made available on these pages and the sender is someone who is use to getting replies to his emails. So while we might have limited input into what Google eventually does, I don’t think this discussion is academic.

Here’s what I would like to see on the nonprofit pages:

Key Stats and Ratios: I would rename this “Key Stats” and not include any ratios. Displaying ratios imply that the ratio should be high or low, but very few ratios in the nonprofit world are all that relevant. In the for-profit world, most ratios include some sort of profitability number (not relevant to nonprofits), valuation metrics (not relevant to nonprofits) or are balance sheet ratios showing assets or debt (for nonprofits a big cash hoard can be viewed either positively or negatively). Instead, include info like: Fundraising Total, Total Budget, Total Employees, Endowment, etc. My strongest feeling is that the most important thing is for Google to avoid any mention of overhead expense ratios. Google has a chance to break the grip that overhead expense ratios have on donors and the media.

Overview: Right now, the Hoover’s profile is here. I’d like to see Google partner with someone more focused on the nonprofit sector than Hoover’s is.

Discussion: This is great. Don’t change a thing!

News: Recent headlines is a nice feature.

Blog Posts: Only some of the nonprofit pages include this section. This seems odd since I assume there must be only one template. But of course I would like to see this section maintained or expanded.

Related Companies: Calling this “Related Organizations” would make more sense. I think in this area Google should leverage their Map software and show me not only similar organizations, but local ones as well. If I’m looking at the Red Cross site from my home outside of San Francisco, I’d like to see disaster relief organizations that focus on the Bay Area.

Resources: This is a section I’d like to see added. Display links to GiveWell, Great Nonprofits, the nonprofit’s 990, the nonprofit’s website, a Wikipedia page, etc.

Video: Allow nonprofits to upload video content that donors can watch to get a better understanding of the organization.

Donate: Partner with Network for Good to allow donors to give directly to the nonprofit.

Contact info: Display contact info.

Blogging: Why not integrate with Blogger and offer a hosted blog to nonprofits to write their own blog?

Events: Include a list of upcoming events that the nonprofit is hosting or participating in.

Lastly, I’d like to see an area where the nonprofit can upload their own text about the organization as well as their answers to a set of predefined questions such as, “How does your organization track its effectiveness” as well as provide links to information such as mission statement, historical goals and what was actually achieved.

What would you like to see on the page? Leave a comment on this post and I’ll do what I can to get the suggestions into the right hands at Google.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in New Philanthropy, Philanthropy, Transparency, nonprofits, nptech | Comments (10)

Red Cross Replies

December 14, 2007 – 11:21 pm

The Red Cross took less than 7 hours to respond to my question about their effectiveness on the new Google Finance for Nonprofits portal. You can read our back and forth here. I believe that this is the first discussion occurring on a Google Nonprofit page. Personally I’m glad the discussion is about effectiveness. The Red Cross gives a good reply that most donors will be happy with. I was impressed. But I’m sure that no foundation or someone like Holden Karnofsky would find the answer sufficient. No links to impact data. But that’s OK. All of that is coming a short way down the road. I think that open discussions between donors, nonprofits and others in a hosted forum like Google will only hasten the move towards transparency and demonstrated impact.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Impact Measurement, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy, nonprofits, nptech | Comments (4)

Google Launches Nonprofit Portal

December 14, 2007 – 12:23 pm

This is a big deal. If you go to Google Finance, you can now search for charities by name and pull up data about them, news stories, blog posts and leave comments in a discussion forum (hat tip to “a fundraiser”). As far as I know this is brand new and as far as I know, I’m the first person to leave a comment in a discussion group.

On the Red Cross page, I wrote:

Is the Red Cross Effective? I don’t mean do they have low overhead expenses or some silly measure like that. I mean do they take donor dollars and use them to fund an organization that produces high levels of social impact? If the answer is yes, I’d love to know about any data that backs this claim up.

Thanks to anyone who can help.

Sean Stannard-Stockton
TacticalPhilanthropy.com

It was just last month that a One Post Challenge entry suggested that Google should buy GuideStar. Maybe Google thinks they can do it alone.

I think this is a game changer. If these Google pages resided at the top of the search results when people look up nonprofits, than these pages will become de facto home pages, but with blog posts, new stories and discussions that are both positive and negative. What if you’re a donor thinking about giving to the Red Cross and the first link you find is the Google Finance page? You take a look and find a question from someone asking if the Red Cross is effective… and no response from the Red Cross.

This is a big deal.

But it is obviously beta. Right now there is no silly overhead expense ratio analysis. But on the other hand Google bizarrely lists “Key Stats and Ratios” that are all blank, since the stats and ratios all refer to profitability measures. What data will Google choose to display? The choices they make will influence donors and the flow of charitable dollars in a big way.

What information do you think Google should list? I’ll do my best to get suggestions in front of Google.

If you want your voice heard, check out the Google Finance site, search for a nonprofit and leave your own comment in the discussion forum. You’ll be one of the first.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Media, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy, Transparency, nonprofits, nptech | Comments (12)

How to Write a Press Release

December 7, 2007 – 9:17 am

I get a lot of press releases. I hate them because usually the sender is blasting out a mass email and the content is only vaguely related to the topics we discuss here. Far better is when someone emails me personally and writes a brief note explaining why their topic relates to my blog.

But I just ran across a great press release. It wasn’t even sent to me, but I’m going to post the whole thing below because it is the best press release I’ve ever seen.

It’s from Holden Karnofsky of GiveWell.

The press release is so good because it is written in readable English, not the pained formal script of most releases and because rather than just touting GiveWell, it actually cites someone who doesn’t like their model (FYI: controversy creates conversation, 100% glowing commentary just looks fake).

The release quotes me (although I had nothing to do with the release and just ran across it online). You can find my original blog post that the release quotes here.

Now, before we get to the release, I’d like to point out that on Tuesday, December 11 at noon eastern time, the Chronicle of Philanthropy will be hosting Holden in a live online chat. Holden says in a recent blog post that he wants tough questions, not softballs. Well I got one for him. It’s a question I would never ask almost anyone else in a public forum. Most people would think I was being rude. But Holden likes tough questions.

On to the best press release I’ve ever read:

LEAVING FINANCE FOR PHILANTHROPY - AT AGE 26

New York, NY — December 6, 2007 — GiveWell, a research group started by two 26-year-old former hedge fund professionals, released its report on saving lives in Africa today.  The report, available at www.GiveWell.net , evaluates more than 50 major charities and finds that the top-ranked one – Population Services International – saves a human life for every $250-$1,000 it spends, roughly 3-4 times as good as other strong charities.  GiveWell also questions whether many of the charities reviewed are accomplishing any good at all.

The group started a year ago when Holden Karnofsky (Harvard ’03) and Elie Hassenfeld (Columbia ’04) couldn’t get help with a simple question: “Where should I donate?”  The two of them left the finance industry, raised over $300,000 from their former coworkers, and created what the Chronicle of Philanthropy calls a “new, more open kind of charity” and philanthropy consultant Sean Stannard Stockton calls the “pissed-off donor model.”

Their research draws heavily on charities’ internal reports of program execution and outcomes – reports GiveWell gained access to by inviting charities to apply for its $25,000-40,000 grants.  GiveWell is the first organization to publicly publish charities’ internal reports, as well as the first to rank charities based on their activities and outcomes; Mr. Karnofsky and Mr. Hassenfeld have been highly critical of Charity Navigator and similar donor resources, which they say look only at “how good a charity’s accounting department is – completely ignoring what the charity does and whether it works.”

“Rating a charity by how much it spends on administration is like rating a movie by how much it spends on actors,” says Mr. Hassenfeld.  “There isn’t any other kind of business we expect to do great work while skimping on administrative costs – administrative costs mean people, planning, technology, and all the things you need to crack tough problems.”

GiveWell has drawn its own fair share of criticism, for its skeptical approach to charity – which some fear will discourage giving – and the tone of its blog, which criticizes charities, foundations, and donors alike. Holly Ross, Executive Director of the Nonprofit Technology Network, has accused GiveWell of “misrepresenting organizations … who are just trying to do good”; fundraiser Jeff Brooks maintains that “giving is overwhelmingly an emotional decision,” and thinks donors won’t be interested in GiveWell’s analysis – “not unless they figure out how to re-wire the human brain.”

Mr. Karnofsky argues that individual donors – who give 6 times as much to charity as all charitable foundations combined – will never even have the option to make informed decisions, unless major funders start openly sharing the reasoning, opinions, and facts behind their decisions.   “If that means admitting that not all charities are wonderful, then that’s what we have to do,” he says.  Others agree, including Stannard-Stockton, who asks, “Why are the young members of the GiveWell project doing more to improve our shared knowledge base than The Ford Foundation?”

Karnofsky and Hassenfeld maintain that it’s precisely their lack of age, wealth, and security that makes them innovators.  In a blog post titled “Spending the better half,” Karnofsky writes that “All the great foundations today are following the orders of people who’ve made their fortune doing something else, and who no longer have to consider any criticism they don’t care for.”  He concludes, “The first half of life is where people do great things or fall by the wayside. I want to spend that half ‘giving it away.”

Contact:
Holden Karnofsky
GiveWell
T: 646-217-4256 F: 866-436-2061
http://www.GiveWell.net

###

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Media, Philanthropy, Transparency | Comments (2)

Kjerstin Erickson of FORGE

December 5, 2007 – 11:41 am

Who is FORGE, the nonprofit that posted 423 comments to the One Post Challenge winning entry? Well here’s the story as written by FORGE founder and executive director Kjerstin Erickson.

By Kjerstin Erickson

One week ago Monday, I stumbled across the One Post Challenge after following a few links from the ‘Philanthropy Today’ update that I receive in my inbox every weekday. As a blogger myself, I first considered entering. But then I came across the $500 for your nonprofit entry and immediately knew that with the right mobilization strategies, FORGE would win.

FORGE is not a huge organization, but we have three things working in our favor:

a) an engaged and highly motivated network

b) a strong presence in today’s online social networking tools

c) a staff that understands the power of social media and is willing to use it

The beauty of web activism is that you don’t even have to know the people that you reach – they are often 3 or 4 degrees of separation away from you. I know everyone that has ever worked or volunteered for FORGE, but I only knew approximately 15% of the people that voted for us.

So what did we do? Every nonprofit keeps a master listserv of their supporters, but we didn’t even have to use ours. Rather, we depended on the personal connections of our core staff and alumni – approximately 50 people – who we then asked to reach out to others. Being requested to do something – anything – is much more potent when it comes from someone you know well. Therefore, dozens of smaller emails are often much more powerful than a few large email blasts.

Sending the request to our core staff was our original, ‘catch-up’ strategy. But we asked people to not reach deeper into their networks until the deadline was upon us. When there was just 12 hours left in the competition, we pounced.

Facebook is our networks’ social networking tool of choice, so we:

1) formed a Facebook Event and invited thousands of people to “virtually attend” (the event was named “FORGE go go WIN!” after comment #200, our favorite, from one of the refugee students we sponsor to University)

2) asked our staff members to “Post a Facebook Note” telling everyone in their network about the contest and how they could take part

3) asked our staff members to “change their Facebook status” to “Just Voted for FORGE at http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2007/11/500-for-your-nonprofit”

Within 3 hours, we had 100 new votes. By the end of the evening, we had more than 260 new votes. And the rest is history…

Do I have any lessons to share? I think that the majority of the nonprofit world is blissfully unaware of the revolution that is happening in cyberspace. Many organizations have little idea what Facebook is, much less how great of a tool it can be for them if used properly. Web 2.0 has brought with it a great transformation of the possibilities for human outreach and interaction, and the social sphere is one of the best places to use it.

Everyone loves a little competition, and this contest was extremely fun for us. But perhaps the best part of it was not the winning or even the funds, but the way in which our ‘constituents’ – the refugees that FORGE serves – got involved from across the world. Most of the refugees we work with live in camps that don’t have electricity, much less internet access. However, we are currently sponsoring six talented refugee students to attend university in Lusaka, and they have internet access at the ‘flat’ where they live. The day I found the post, I decided to send them a quick email to let them know about the competition. The next morning, I woke to find that not only had they all posted a comment of support, but that they had gotten so excited about the contest that they went all over their apartment building, knocking on doors, and getting people to come over to vote for FORGE! When you are an African refugee, you have little opportunity to break down the barrier between ‘server’ and servee’ and fundraise for yourself – they took the opportunity with gusto.

And boy we’re they excited when FORGE won…you’ve just gotta check out the video and attached photos they sent!

fef-u-guys-celebrating-forge-victory1.JPG

fef-u-guys-celebrating-forge-victory.JPG

Kjerstin Erickson

FORGE Founder and Executive Director

www.FORGEnow.org

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in One Post Challenge, Philanthropy, nptech | Comments (3)

And The Winner Is…

December 4, 2007 – 8:58 am

Surprise, surprise, the post $500 For Your Nonprofit won, no… absolutely dominated, the One Post Challenge. Regarding whether the post actually furthered the online philanthropy conversation, I will note that a number of people who were drawn to Tactical Philanthropy to vote for their charity stuck around and commented on other posts.

Without further ado here is the victory speech from the author of $500 For Your Nonprofit, the anonymous author of the blog Don’t Tell The Donor.

By “a fundraiser”

When I submitted my entry to Sean’s “One Post Challenge”, it wasn’t my intention to hijack the contest.

Fourteen months ago when I started my Don’t Tell the Donor blog, it was one of only a handful of fundraising blogs. Over the past year, I was initially excited to see so many more bloggers add to the online conversation.

Unfortunately, the proliferation of websites has all too often produced an incestuous conversation. For this medium to reach its strongest potential and serve as a true benefit to the nonprofits we serve, we must find a way to reach out beyond a limited number of fundraisers and foundation staffers to engage directly with individual donors.

As I wrote in my initial post, “blogging is not about talking AT PEOPLE, it’s about making readers part of the story and giving them a reason to be engaged.”

Engaged was a bit of an understatement. Within the first 24 hours, my post generated 57 comments, which by itself would have been enough to win the contest.

Sean himself noted that the deluge of hopeful supporters leaving comments for their cause generated more traffic to the website than his mentions in both the Chronicle of Philanthropy and the New York Times. That single comment proved my point more than the huge number of posts that came in.

…oh, but by the way… there were a heckuva a lot of comments. As I write this now, it looks like there are 683 total comments. I will leave it to Sean to see if he thinks there was any cheating with multiple votes coming from the same IP address (Sean’s note: The voting seems to be valid. Some duplicate voting on both sides, but nothing that would change the outcome)… but here is how I saw the horserace unfold:

A total of ten nonprofits tried to lobby for votes. The early leader, Pride at Work after generating more than 60 votes within the first 36 hours. Thanks to one dedicated activist who was able to use his own site to reach out to more people, Pride at Work built a commanding lead… so much of a lead, they stopped thinking about the contest.

Then, on November 26th, someone who went by the name “Kjerstin” posted comment #75 - the first vote for Forge. That was followed by more than 50 more votes for Forge within the next couple hours… and the battle lines were drawn.

For the last week, votes poured in from both charities. It wasn’t until late on December 3rd when Pride at Work must have thought the voting was over when Forge moved in for their final push. The refugee assistance group poured on more than 250 votes in the final day and won the contest by a final vote (through 683 total votes) by a score of 423-231.

Truth be told, I had never heard of either group when this contest started, but I have learned a lot about them in the past couple weeks… I hope others have. Both groups did an excellent outreach marketing job… and I would suggest that even though I will donate the $500 gift card (Sean’s note: the prize increased to $750 during the contest) I won to Forge, I would like to suggest that Sean award his second $250 award to the second place group in this contest, Pride at Work.

My work here is done. This “fundraiser” is off to run a couple victory laps around the blogosphere. Congratulations to Sean and to Forge (who apparently live about an hour away from each hour). I would encourage other bloggers to organize these challenges… it seems much more effective than those bland carnivals.

Thanks again for letting me be a part.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Giving Blogs, One Post Challenge, Philanthropy, Prize Philanthropy, nptech | Comments (3)

One Post Challenge Wrap Up

December 3, 2007 – 10:35 am

Wow.

I am deeply impressed with the people who took the time to participate in the One Post Challenge. Never did I imagine that the result would tally up to 36 entries and over 200 comments (and that excludes the over 400 comments on the $500 For Your Nonprofit! post).

You can find all of the entries under the heading One Post Challenge Entries in the middle column. The contest officially ends tomorrow at midnight (new entries are not being accepted, but comments will still be counted until the deadline).

Clearly though, what happened here goes far beyond the contest. Entries came from all over and covered a huge range of topics. Time and again people entering their post told me, “I’ve wanted to say this for a long time, but I haven’t had a venue. Thanks for hosting this.” I was particularly impressed with the number of foundation employees who entered posts and the foundations themselves who approved of their employees blogging.

Some people have complained that the post by the author of Don’t Tell The Donor “hijacked” the competition. Personally, I think the issue is kind of beside the point at this point. However, I think the $500 For Your Nonprofit post highlighted the fact that people who know how to spread ideas online are poised to win the public mindshare. Writing smart content is not going to change the world, you have to know how to make your message spread.

I enjoyed the One Post Challenge far too much to end it now. So I’m going to officially make posting guest blog entries part of Tactical Philanthropy. I’ll post more info about this later, but if you have something you’d like to share, keep the entries coming.

Now even though the $500 For Your Nonprofit post is, short of a miracle, going to win the contest, there is still a $250 charitable gift card waiting to be awarded to another post (click here for details). So my question to you is which entry should win this runner-up prize? Leave a comment on this post and on Wednesday, I’ll announce the winner.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in One Post Challenge, Philanthropy | Comments (3)

The Futures of Philanthropy, Fundraising, and Advertising

November 28, 2007 – 12:50 pm

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from Peter Deitz. Peter writes a blog called About Micro-Philanthropy and is the founder of Social Actions, a community website that aggregates person-to-person fundraising campaigns and helps people to start their own. Deitz also works as a consultant to nonprofits and philanthropists interested in leveraging the power of social networks.

By Peter Deitz

The Futures of Philanthropy, Fundraising, and Advertising

The futures of philanthropy, fundraising, and advertising are looking remarkably similar. In all three fields, technology innovators are turning to real people to do the hard work of moving money.

Foundations are asking non-specialists to “crowd source” their grant recipients. Development teams are using “wired fundraisers” to increase online donations. Companies are relying on “fansumers” to promote their latest products.

The online marketing guru Seth Godin first reported on this trend in a series of e-books entitled Flipping the Funnel. In three versions of the same e-book, Godin addresses companies, nonprofits, and politicians. He instructs them on how individuals can be empowered to sell products, raise money, and recruit votes respectively.

Godin could easily have written a fourth version of Flipping the Funnel, one tailored to the needs of foundations and private philanthropists. The hypothetical e-book would have emphasized the important role that non-wealthy and non-specialist individuals can play in awarding grants and redistributing wealth.

Flipping the Funnel for Foundations and Private Philanthropists would have noted that:

  • Real people are often excellent judges of innovation and long-term impact;
  • If provided with the right incentives, individuals may back their grant recommendations with donations of their own, resulting in larger grants and more grantees;
  • People who are involved in grant-making are more likely to recognize a philanthropist for his or her contribution to the field.

Today, only a handful of nonprofits are effectively using wired fundraisers to raise money. Companies experimenting with fansumerism are drawing criticism for their attack on consumer privacy. And only a handful of foundations and private philanthropists are actually crowd-sourcing grant-making.

And yet, the innovators in these fields are continuing to experiment with new technologies that enable person-to-person communications and discernment. Overtime, the pioneers who balance privacy and fraud concerns with the opportunity for greater sales, donations, and grants will reap rewards for their early adoption.

Compared to fundraisers and advertisers, philanthropists have been the least exuberant in their embrace of the peer-to-peer economy. The sector needs leadership and technology innovation so that more wealth can be moved, and more effectively.

This post will hopefully serve as a starting point for discussing the trend as it pertains to philanthropy. Lessons from person-to-person fundraising and advertising will no doubt inform the discussion and provoke more innovation.

I look forward to exchanging ideas with the Tactical Philanthropy community and the larger world of emerging philanthropy bloggers.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Effective Giving, Foundations, Fundraising, New Philanthropy, One Post Challenge, Philanthropic Technology, Philanthropy, nptech | Comments (2)

Blogs Aren’t For Everyone

November 26, 2007 – 9:19 am

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from an anonymous writer named “S”. S works in communications at a large California-based foundation and has worked in the philanthropy sector for more than a decade.

By “S”

You know what? Blogs aren’t for everyone. I get so tired of hearing how important it is to start a conversation online and care for it and feed it and make it go. Blogging can be a great tool, but has anyone thought about the fact the blogging may not be the greatest thing to ever come to philanthropy? How is posting a blog and receiving comments really a conversation? I post, you post, I post…

Paul Brest needs a blog. Really? What for? Let’s step back and think about this for a moment. Paul Brest needs a blog why? So that his completely scrubbed words can help philanthropy make its mark on the world? Let’s be real. Not only is Paul Brest too busy to have a blog, but the honest truth is, people don’t crave news about philanthropies, they just don’t. I work for a foundation and we share about our work only as much as we want to. Other than that, no go.

This blogging community in philanthropy is tiny. The only people who regularly comment on others’ posts are the bloggers themselves. When you need to ask people to Digg it or to StumbleUpon it, what are you doing? Skewing the result of what normal people might do. People aren’t Digg-ing it or StumblingUpon it because it’s not what is on their agenda.

Philanthropy is a great thing and helping out all kinds of people is a great thing. But foundations get so wrapped up in trying to tell everyone about their work and how great they are. Who cares about what the general public thinks? We are important and we are doing great work. We are so convinced that we need to get out there with our message.

The foundation I work for has spent nearly four decades doing good work. And before the Internet and blogging and Digg and StumbleUpon and other avenues online, we have been able to get the word out as necessary.

I am not against an online conversation or building the interest around philanthropy. We just need to think about it and not assume that everyone should be interested. They have their lives, too.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Foundations, Giving Blogs, Media, One Post Challenge, Philanthropic Technology, Philanthropy, Transparency, nptech | Comments (11)

Does Blogging Substitute Real Action?

November 21, 2007 – 11:19 am

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from Perla Ni. Perla was the founder of the Stanford Social Innovation Review. Her current project is Great Nonprofits, a “Zagat’s”-like guide to nonprofits.

By Perla Ni

Does blogging substitute real action?

I get asked about this a lot because I blog.   Why are all these people blogging?   Why aren’t they out there in the real world doing something?

Especially in the nonprofit world – where there’s so much need and most ED’s I know are busy enough running their programs, fundraising, doing the jobs of 4 people – blogging about nonprofits or philanthropy seems quite a luxury in navel-gazing.  There’s so much work that needs to be done in the real world, why waste time blogging?

I have two minds about this.  On one hand, yes, I’ve seen blogging become an end to itself for some bloggers.  One blogger I know started blogging in order to vent his frustrations about the lack of community spirit in his town.  Though he’s still very much looking for solutions, he’s equally absorbed with monitoring how many people have visited his blog and how long they’ve stayed on the site.  Because the “success” of blogs are measured by these metrics, it’s easy to see how some can get so absorbed in the process of blogging that it saps their focus from tackling the real world problem.\

On the other hand, blogging is essentially the mass, interactive, publishing and the dissemination ideas.  It’s an efficient means for spreading ideas.  As Seth Godin says, “ideas that spread, wins.  Period.”

When we think of some of the most important accomplishments of nonprofits – the civil rights movement, environmental movement, women’s rights movement – these are all massive systemic changes that required the winning of millions of hearts and minds.  The ideas and values at the heart of our nonprofit work – whether it be providing after school programs, cleaning up local streams, providing battered women shelter – need to be spread and supported even more widely if we want systemic change.

That’s where blogging can matter.  Blogging is not the only means – but one easy and efficient channel for you to spread your ideas far and wide.    Even those of you who are on the front lines – working with incarcerated juveniles, or running a museum, or providing health counseling – you are all also in the business of winning support for your patients, clients and cause.   You are all in the business of gaining converts to your ideals and goals.  Now if they can only add another 2 hours to the day!

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Giving Blogs, One Post Challenge, Philanthropy, nptech | Comments (4)

When Technology Trumps Philanthropy

November 18, 2007 – 5:11 pm

When Technology Trumps Philanthropy

This entry to the One Post Challenge is from Valerie, an Alumni Relations Associate at a major university.

By Valerie.

Gone are the days of keeping track of donors on 3 x 5 cards and marking return envelopes on the side with a red swipe of the marker to know that it is the “ABC” appeal (although I heard someone say nary a year ago that they did that!).  Computers are here, we have databases, printers, the web and the ability to track, analyze and reach people in ways that were not possible a decade or more ago.

Yet, I find that with all this technology, if the IT department is left in the driver’s seat, it can hinder marketing efforts rather than help them.  What is “convenient” or makes sense technologically is not always best for Development or - more importantly - the donor.

Two examples have happened recently that illustrate this constant struggle.

In every online marketing class I have taken, it has been emphasized that the donor must be engaged to, well, DONATE first before asking them all sorts of superfluous questions such as “How did you hear about us?” “When did you graduate?” “Does your company have a matching gift program?” and so on.  Therefore, when I redesigned the online giving form for simplicity, I asked the donor for their amount and credit card information first.  Once this has been entered, they are much less likely to disengage - they will fill out the entire form.  (I also reduced the number of overall questions from the previous form.)

Scrolling endlessly is also a no-no, so page 1 is money - amount, credit card - & fund designation, page 2 (next) is donor name, & contact information (next) and page 3 is extras that few people fill out, such as matching, tribute, etc. (submit).

I’ve been informed by the IT department that our particular software doesn’t like placing the credit card information on page 1, so they’d prefer to move it to page 3.  It CAN be on page 1, but it’s DIFFICULT to do, so they’d prefer that each of my online donor forms just have it on page 3.

I’ve explained my reasons, but have been told that “the programming/software makes it difficult…”

Likewise, a different IT person doesn’t care for my requests for multiple redirects (which goes to these many forms).

So that I can track responses to multiple appeals, I have asked for redirects such as

www.company.org/donate
www.company.org/contribute
www.company.org/scholarship
www.company.org/stock
www.company.org/alumni
www.company.org/future

I have been told that this “has to stop” because “it’s creating too many folders” on the website.  The alternative I was given is that I could have as many redirects as I want…under one folder: the “Donate” folder, which would give me the following options:

www.company.org/donate/(appeal1)
www.company.org/donate/(appeal2)
www.company.org/donate/(appeal3)
www.company.org/donate/(appeal4)
www.company.org/donate/(appeal5)

When I tried in vain to explain that it has to be “marketable and memorable” to the donor and can’t go on and on, I was informed that “We can’t have this many folders on the website.”

So, accommodating the software’s preferences appears to trump the donor’s preferences?  This is how we came up with voicemail that says, “If you want ________, press eighteen…”

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Fundraising, One Post Challenge, Philanthropic Technology, Philanthropy, nptech | Comments (2)

Impact Through Inspiration

November 13, 2007 – 3:23 pm

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from Rich Polt. Rich is president of Louder Than Words, a Boston-based PR agency that works with foundations, nonprofits, and mission driven businesses. When he’s not communicating good for his clients, he can be found with his family, on his bike, or with the NY Times crossword puzzle.

By Rich Polt

First let me applaud DontTellTheDonor on their blogging coup. I recently cast my vote for Aid to Artisans on that thread, but my “Spidey-Sense” tells me that Pride at Work might be running away with the prize. Congratulations (potentially)! Don’t Tell The Donor showed us that there is power in numbers on the Web. I believe that there is also power in ideas (and would like to place some internal resources against that assertion… read on).

I believe that inspiration is the greatest commodity this sector has to offer.

Blogging should not just be about casting a vote, but advancing ideas and inspiring others to action through those ideas. Two weeks ago, I attended a great conference in Miami that was sponsored by the Communications Network. The theme of the event was What We Know (Or Should Know) About Effective Communications in the philanthropy sector. The penultimate plenary session included a presentation from the Skoll Foundation about how they have leveraged storytelling to build the successful Web site Social Edge. Check out this amazing example (produced for Social Edge) of how unembellished storytelling can elicit a visceral response.

What I would love to know is this:  What deserving, undercapitalized nonprofit has a story to inspire the masses AND a few sentences on the source of that inspiration (i.e., the “why”). Feel free to either name nonprofits or to comment on other people’s suggestions. Hell… I want to know why Pride at Work inspires so many people! If this post wins the “One Post Challenge,” Louder Than Words will donate the $500 gift card as well as $2,500 of in kind time and services to the nonprofit with the most inspiring comments/story (as determined by us after reading your posts). It’s all about the inspiration…

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Fundraising, Media, New Philanthropy, One Post Challenge, Philanthropy, Prize Philanthropy | Comments (3)

One Post Challenge: Something’s Happening Here

November 13, 2007 – 1:48 pm

In case you haven’t noticed, the One Post Challenge entry from “a fundraiser” has generated 60 comments as of this writing. I have intentionally not commented on the progress of the competition so far as I didn’t want to interfere in the process that was unfolding. But I’m going to break my silence.

What the $500 For Your Nonprofit post did was take control of the competition and create an incentive for commentators rather than retaining the incentive for the blog post author. This was an exceptional demonstration of the author’s understanding of online fundraising. His/her post generated attention and a link from a high traffic blog called BlogActive, which quickly became the top referring site to my blog (hello Pride at Work!). The fact that both the NY Times and the Chronicle of Philanthropy coincidently mentioned my blog yesterday also spurred traffic (although it is important to note that BlogActive sent more readers, and more engaged readers, than the NY Times or the Chronicle).

So now we see that when competing for attention online, having a great, well thought-out message doesn’t always win the game. You also need to understand the medium that you’re working with. Now the question becomes does the $500 For Your Nonprofit post simply highjack this competition and show that mobs are more powerful/important than intelligent thought provoking commentary? Or are their new and creative ways that participants can take back control of the competition and find a way to redirect this traffic surge to engage people to type more than three words?

To me, this is the central dilemma of online marketing. Is the internet great at getting millions of people to watch online videos of cats doing dumb things? Or can the power of social media be harnessed to provide a benefit to the public good?
I can think of no industry with a more vested interest in this question than philanthropy.

What’s your answer? Email me your entry to the One Post Challenge and demonstrate how social media for the social good is done.

(I’d like to thank Network for Good for co-sponsoring this competition and awarding their new Good Card to the One Post Challenge winner. Click here for One Post Challenge rules.)

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Fundraising, Media, New Philanthropy, One Post Challenge, Philanthropy, nptech | Comments (21)