January 29, 2009
January 27, 2009
A Gen Y Strategy Director in Crisis: The Cell Phone Went Dark
Recently, I faced a situation that while it has nothing to do with fundraising, upon post traumatic reflection, I think is a good example of the Gen Y mind at work and shows just how reliant we are on technology and have become accustomed to being plugged in. The convergence of technologies also became evident here. So, brace yourselves for a look into what happened when my cell phone (i.e. lifeline to the entire world as it turned out) broke:
As I watched it happened, panic, regret, and cosmic karma payback swept over me. Why, oh why am I such a klutz? Why oh why have I been putting off switching plans so I could get a new one? I have seen the demise of this one coming for months....Why oh why did this have to happen with an ice/slush storm coming?
When my phone finally landed on the floor, the lights went out. The flip part of my phone literally flew off and slid across the floor.
"Ok. Stop. Breathe. Don't panic." There has to be some way out of this! MUST stop panicking. You do strategy for a living for goodness sake. Ok, let's try to approach this from the perspective of handling a client's fundraising crisis:
First, let's survey the landscape:
1) We know that I only have a cell phone. No landline. We also know I can't install Skype on my work laptop. %#%!
2) We know that when working from home, cell phone is the way to reach me.
3) We know that it's snowing, and icing, and nevermind that I am not going to drive 4o miles to work today because I am a bad-weather driving wuss, it is unlikely I am going to venture as far as the cell phone store, bc I still have not made up my mind about which new phone and phone plan to go with.
Analyze the Implications:
1) I use my cell phone to tell time and as my morning alarm. I am likely to have no idea what time it is and oversleep.
2) I have long ago stopped remembering phone numbers bc I had them all in my phonebook! This is what happens when we rely too much on tech. (If I wasn't such a luddite, I'd have one of those synching phones and could at least view my phonebook on my computer...) Let's hope I don't have to call anyone whose number or email I don't have memorized by heart.
3) No major meetings tomorrow, so if I am in the dark for a day, it could be ok. But you never know what client issue might arise...
Think Bigger Picture. (i.e. instead of panicking, try to figure out a way to move forward)(this is an important step once the full implications of the landscape one finds themselves in becomes clear):
1) Yes, my internet is working, yes I have TV, but I am CUTOFF from the world. I can't tell time, I am probably going to oversleep, and when my boyfriend, who is traveling, texts me that he got in safe on the other coast, I won't be able to read it, bc my screen is not working....
2) Why, oh why, does our IT department not let us install Skype??
Finally: develop, plan, and execute a plan to move forward and reach objectives (in my case, voice-to-voice communication ability for the next 24-36 hours). A good strategy person always has a good Plan A, and a back pocket plan B, and a real back pocket plan C:
(photo from http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2252631/2/istockphoto_2252631_broken_cell_phone.jpg)
As I watched it happened, panic, regret, and cosmic karma payback swept over me. Why, oh why am I such a klutz? Why oh why have I been putting off switching plans so I could get a new one? I have seen the demise of this one coming for months....Why oh why did this have to happen with an ice/slush storm coming?
When my phone finally landed on the floor, the lights went out. The flip part of my phone literally flew off and slid across the floor.
"Ok. Stop. Breathe. Don't panic." There has to be some way out of this! MUST stop panicking. You do strategy for a living for goodness sake. Ok, let's try to approach this from the perspective of handling a client's fundraising crisis:
First, let's survey the landscape:
1) We know that I only have a cell phone. No landline. We also know I can't install Skype on my work laptop. %#%!
2) We know that when working from home, cell phone is the way to reach me.
3) We know that it's snowing, and icing, and nevermind that I am not going to drive 4o miles to work today because I am a bad-weather driving wuss, it is unlikely I am going to venture as far as the cell phone store, bc I still have not made up my mind about which new phone and phone plan to go with.
Analyze the Implications:
1) I use my cell phone to tell time and as my morning alarm. I am likely to have no idea what time it is and oversleep.
2) I have long ago stopped remembering phone numbers bc I had them all in my phonebook! This is what happens when we rely too much on tech. (If I wasn't such a luddite, I'd have one of those synching phones and could at least view my phonebook on my computer...) Let's hope I don't have to call anyone whose number or email I don't have memorized by heart.
3) No major meetings tomorrow, so if I am in the dark for a day, it could be ok. But you never know what client issue might arise...
Think Bigger Picture. (i.e. instead of panicking, try to figure out a way to move forward)(this is an important step once the full implications of the landscape one finds themselves in becomes clear):
1) Yes, my internet is working, yes I have TV, but I am CUTOFF from the world. I can't tell time, I am probably going to oversleep, and when my boyfriend, who is traveling, texts me that he got in safe on the other coast, I won't be able to read it, bc my screen is not working....
2) Why, oh why, does our IT department not let us install Skype??
Finally: develop, plan, and execute a plan to move forward and reach objectives (in my case, voice-to-voice communication ability for the next 24-36 hours). A good strategy person always has a good Plan A, and a back pocket plan B, and a real back pocket plan C:
Plan A: see if there is anything salvageable with this phone. It
would appear, that while I cannot answer the phone through the flip part that is
across the room, if I plug in my headset, I can answer and make calls. But only
to people who's phone numbers I remember. Since I can't view my phonebook.Plan B: should this method of communicating with the world fail, I will log
into my other computer, sign on to Skype, and Skype out for all emergency calls.
I will have to call everyone since they won't be able to call me. Whatever Skype
charges for out calls is worth it to not brave the cold, ice, and whatever else
is out there to forage for a new phone.Plan C: Should plans A and B fail, I will go downstairs and beg the lady at
the front desk to let me use the phone. I will knock on my neighbors doors and
finally meet them should the need arise.
Plan D: I don't even want to think about plan D. This would require going
outside...
(photo from http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2252631/2/istockphoto_2252631_broken_cell_phone.jpg)
Epilogue: after three days in a cell phone dusk (I could answer my phone but had no idea who was calling me, I finally ventured outside in the slush and am now the proud owner of an iPhone. More to come on how I think this "can do way too many things" gadget could be optimized for fundraising.
Why is Feedback's "Open Source" Missing from nonprofits?
What would make you more likely to purchase a new television? The manufacturer telling you it's the best TV ever made, or reading 20 reviews from consumers who have actually purchased said television and have provided feedback on either the manufacturer's or distributor's site?
This kind of online user reviews, in my mind, are the marketing version of open-source software: a system where everything is transparent and anyone who would like to can get a say in how it develops. Even though there might be some people who don't know what they're doing, common wisdom and experience tells us that opening up software code, and likewise, opening up products to unfiltered feedback from users/consumers ultimately leads to product improvements. Just think of what happened to iPhone applications when the code was opened to the public.
There are several for-profit organizations leading the way, like Starbucks and Dell, who have devoted entire sites to just hearing back from their customers. This kind of open feedback, that is out in the open for everyone to see, allows for, as one expert referring to what MySpace did to email called it, "the 365 day conversation": No longer are we resigned to sending out letters, surveys, phone calls, or just sitting on our hands waiting for consumers to call us, and then bringing reports up to someone to "evaluate" the feedback. The feedback can flow in realtime and 24/7.
With the ability to hear back from donors in real time, why is it that no nonprofit I know of is actively pursuing this transparent interaction with its online donors? (If yours is, please let me know!)
Did you post a new article on your website about some great program you
ran? How come I can't comment on the article?
Post a video about your work? How come I can't comment on that
either?
Do you have an "emergency fund" set up for some natural disaster? Why is
there nowhere on that page that I can talk about how I have seen (or not seen)
the funds I gave to you go to work?
For those of you with "catalog" type items, why can't I comment on a
specific item: did my friend and family enjoy receiving it? Was it everything I
expected? Did my e-card go through?
Why is it that on your "donation page" which is the equivalent of of a
shopping cart, there is no place for me to rate my experience with your
organization as a donor? Why is the closest thing we have to "feedback" and
"rating" as an industry Charity
Navigator?
Fear of transparency is certainly one reason. We have all endured those disgruntled donors, who apparently have nothing better to do than call up our 1-800 number and yell at the poor person who picks up the phone because they gave us $25 and we did something like call them Mr. instead of Ms. Just imagine what would happen if said person was allowed to rant like that in public, for all to see?
But, if we are to create conversations with our donors, which is ultimately what will build long-term relationships in the social space, we must allow for those rants, because with the rants will come raves: raves from people we have helped, raves from people who felt great when they gave to us, and maybe, even suggestions for how we could do better. And if the raves are not coming, this would signal us to stop and re-evaluate how our organization is communicating with the people who give to it. We spend so much time worrying about our "donor experience", why do we shy away from letting them tell us all about it?
And as far as Gen Y is concerned, we are not ones to be shut out of the conversation. And we also expect you to want to hear from us. "Buying" into your organization creates a sense of "ownership"--so let's "opensource" donor feedback and watch the great things that will develop.
January 26, 2009
Looking for ideas for iPhone Applications?
Even though I already posted today, I came across this great post by Britt Bravo with examples of iPhone applications in the nonprofit world. So check it out!
Oh, and by the way, I can't remember where I heard or read this, but apparently, Kraft foods is taking the iPhone world by storm. They have figured out a way to charge people $.99 to download an application that lets people peruse recipes. But it also shows ads. And they have loads of users. Genius!
Oh, and by the way, I can't remember where I heard or read this, but apparently, Kraft foods is taking the iPhone world by storm. They have figured out a way to charge people $.99 to download an application that lets people peruse recipes. But it also shows ads. And they have loads of users. Genius!
Hire, Train and Retain Gen Yers Now!
As a freshman in college, I watched seniors get picked up in limos and driven to "interviews" where they were offered double digit signing bonuses, corporate credit cards, and all kinds of other "perks." This was at the height of the dotcom bubble. When I graduated college 4 years later, I applied for an internship at PBS' New Hour With Jim Lehrer. It paid a tiny stipend and was basically the "when I say get coffee, you go get it" position. The hiring manager told me that he really liked me, and in most years, he would have hired me, but apparently, I was competing with four lawyers and 3 PhDs. The job market sucked that year.
Recently, the job market has moved past "sucking" to "sucks on steroids" and many in my generation, having just recently sighed a sigh of relief that the tech bubble bursting was over and jobs were aplenty, are having unwelcome flashbacks.
With more than 2.5 million jobs lost in the U.S. economy in the last year, competition for those positions that are open is sure to be fierce.
The nonprofit world has not been spared-many organizations have laid off, cutback, frozen programs, and hunkered down. Often, when looking for places to cut, the lower ranks of any organization are the "natural" place to look. These layers are often filled but bright-eyed, eager, and perhaps, even slightly disillusioned Gen Yers.
While we all have to tighten our belts, I would urge nonprofits to think twice about laying off their younger workers, and why some may even think about doing something completely heretical in this kind of economic environment-hiring more Gen Yers!
As a recent Economist article notes, Gen Yers, or "The Neg Geners" as the article calls us, are having a tough time out there in the workplace.
"The global downturn has been a brutal awakening for the youngest members of the workforce... According to America’s Bureau of Labour Statistics, the unemployment rate among people in their 20s increased significantly in the two most recent recessions in the United States."
Apparently, this is creating all kinds of problems for management: "dissatisfaction is growing as crisis-hit firms adopt more of a command-and-control approach to management—the antithesis of the open, collaborative style that young workers prefer. Less autonomy and more directives have sparked complaints among Net Geners that offices and factories have become 'pressure cookers' and 'boiler rooms'."
Maybe Gen Yers should just stop our whining? But what is a rude awakening to my generation, may be a boon for nonprofits.
Consider this: According to an article in On Philanthropy "A 2004 survey of some 2,200 nonprofit organizations by the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that roughly 65% anticipated a change in top leadership by 2009. At the time of the survey, more than half of executive directors were 50 or older." Charities are facing a leadership vacuum. Give us an opportunity to grow into the space.
I wrote here before about how Gen Yers can help nonprofits through the recession as volunteers and donors, but, we can also turn out to be pretty useful as employees:
Recently, the job market has moved past "sucking" to "sucks on steroids" and many in my generation, having just recently sighed a sigh of relief that the tech bubble bursting was over and jobs were aplenty, are having unwelcome flashbacks.
With more than 2.5 million jobs lost in the U.S. economy in the last year, competition for those positions that are open is sure to be fierce.
The nonprofit world has not been spared-many organizations have laid off, cutback, frozen programs, and hunkered down. Often, when looking for places to cut, the lower ranks of any organization are the "natural" place to look. These layers are often filled but bright-eyed, eager, and perhaps, even slightly disillusioned Gen Yers.
While we all have to tighten our belts, I would urge nonprofits to think twice about laying off their younger workers, and why some may even think about doing something completely heretical in this kind of economic environment-hiring more Gen Yers!
As a recent Economist article notes, Gen Yers, or "The Neg Geners" as the article calls us, are having a tough time out there in the workplace.
"The global downturn has been a brutal awakening for the youngest members of the workforce... According to America’s Bureau of Labour Statistics, the unemployment rate among people in their 20s increased significantly in the two most recent recessions in the United States."
Apparently, this is creating all kinds of problems for management: "dissatisfaction is growing as crisis-hit firms adopt more of a command-and-control approach to management—the antithesis of the open, collaborative style that young workers prefer. Less autonomy and more directives have sparked complaints among Net Geners that offices and factories have become 'pressure cookers' and 'boiler rooms'."
Maybe Gen Yers should just stop our whining? But what is a rude awakening to my generation, may be a boon for nonprofits.
Consider this: According to an article in On Philanthropy "A 2004 survey of some 2,200 nonprofit organizations by the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that roughly 65% anticipated a change in top leadership by 2009. At the time of the survey, more than half of executive directors were 50 or older." Charities are facing a leadership vacuum. Give us an opportunity to grow into the space.
I wrote here before about how Gen Yers can help nonprofits through the recession as volunteers and donors, but, we can also turn out to be pretty useful as employees:
- Now, more than ever, nonprofits can give someone the opportunity to step up and take on more responsibility, truly show their abilities. Sure, this may require mentoring by already over-worked top brass, but the long-term pay off--organizational loyalty and leadership development--may turn out to be priceless. And you can pay us less to do so.
- Now, more than ever, is the time to listen to your Gen Yers. We are full of ideas to do more with less. With college loans, low pay, and huge happy hour tabs, we are experts at making meager funds stretch. Maybe you don't need to buy us a laptop cause we'd be willing to bring it ours. Or maybe, even though you hired the guy to be your network admin, he happens to dabble in web design on the side and he can step in to help with that. We could re-set all the printers to print double-sided. We are flexible like that. Some like to call it ADD.
- We are cost-effective. Consider how much money your organization spends on things like electricity, cubicles, offices, who knows what else. Gen Yers are very flexible. We are happy to work at home. Happy to call into conferences. Happy to work on weird schedules.
- On the cost-effective part, there are loads of us who decided to go to business school, or law school, or some other graduate school during the last downturn, right around 2003. And we are now graduating in droves. You could get a very educated person, who really wants a job, at a price you could never imagine!
- You have much to offer us. You can teach us how to do good in the world. You can show us how to be passionate about what you do every day and make it count. Yours is the only industry that still has anything that resembles pension plans, or 35 hour workweeks. We might chance it for a chance at "work/life" balance.
January 25, 2009
Festivals, Twestivals: Twitter gets into fundraising
Recently, I finally signed up for a Twitter account. For months, I had been holding back, convinced that my network really didn't need to know what I was doing at any given point of my day. But then I attended an even a few weeks ago where Rohit Bhargava, author of the Influential Marketing Blog, who told the audience all about how he became one of the biggest bloggers in the marketing blogosphere.
One interesting thing Rohit mentioned was his use of Twitter and how his view of what Twitter was useful for had changed: like me, at first he used it to let his friends and networks know where he was, market his blog, etc. But then, Rohit realized that his Twitter feed in itself was like a mini blog--a place to really engage with his networks and promote his goals.
So that's when I decided to dive in and signed up for Twitter. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I already had a secret Twitter account-one I had set up to show a client how they could use Twitter to recruit younger people for a travel abroad program the client ran.
The reason I decided to get a "real" Twitter account now is not necessarily to promote my blog, but in part, because I believe in practicing what we preach-if I am going to advise people to use Twitter for fundraising purposes, I better understand it in and out, backwards and forwards.
So, in the one week I have been on Twitter, I have discovered several fascinating things:
1) Twitter is not limited to 146 characters. There is TwitWall, for when "things are too long to Twitt." So basically, Twitter is now offering you the blog and the microblog.
2) As with other social media applications, the "masses" are taking fundraising out of the hands of professional fundraisers and self-organizing. Case-in-point: Twestivals.
As the official Twestival website explains:
"In September 2008, a group of Twitterers based in London UK decided to organise an event where the local Twitter community could socialize offline; meet the faces behind the avatars, enjoy some entertainment, have a few drinks and tie this in with a food drive and fundraising effort for a local homeless charity.
The bulk of the event was organized in under two weeks, via Twitter and utilized the talents and financial support of the local Twittersphere to make this happen.
Around the world similar stories started appearing of local Twitter communities coming together and taking action for a great cause. Twestival was born out of the idea that if cities were able to collaborate on an international scale, but working from a local level, it could have a spectacular impact."
Apparently, the current Twestivals, scheduled for early February, are raising cash for charity: water.
While this is an interesting concept, it is not new--recall the Meet Ups that made Mike Huckabee a serious contender for the republican nomination, but the fact that Twitterites are mobilizing to raise cash for charity is an incredibly novel way to fundraise and charity: water has found a way to mobilize millions on the web in a virtually cost-free way.
Now the Twestivals has turned to charity, this is certainly a trend to keep an eye on.
For more great info, check out Beth Kanter's post on Twestivals.
One interesting thing Rohit mentioned was his use of Twitter and how his view of what Twitter was useful for had changed: like me, at first he used it to let his friends and networks know where he was, market his blog, etc. But then, Rohit realized that his Twitter feed in itself was like a mini blog--a place to really engage with his networks and promote his goals.
So that's when I decided to dive in and signed up for Twitter. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I already had a secret Twitter account-one I had set up to show a client how they could use Twitter to recruit younger people for a travel abroad program the client ran.
The reason I decided to get a "real" Twitter account now is not necessarily to promote my blog, but in part, because I believe in practicing what we preach-if I am going to advise people to use Twitter for fundraising purposes, I better understand it in and out, backwards and forwards.
So, in the one week I have been on Twitter, I have discovered several fascinating things:
1) Twitter is not limited to 146 characters. There is TwitWall, for when "things are too long to Twitt." So basically, Twitter is now offering you the blog and the microblog.
2) As with other social media applications, the "masses" are taking fundraising out of the hands of professional fundraisers and self-organizing. Case-in-point: Twestivals.
As the official Twestival website explains:
"In September 2008, a group of Twitterers based in London UK decided to organise an event where the local Twitter community could socialize offline; meet the faces behind the avatars, enjoy some entertainment, have a few drinks and tie this in with a food drive and fundraising effort for a local homeless charity.
The bulk of the event was organized in under two weeks, via Twitter and utilized the talents and financial support of the local Twittersphere to make this happen.
Around the world similar stories started appearing of local Twitter communities coming together and taking action for a great cause. Twestival was born out of the idea that if cities were able to collaborate on an international scale, but working from a local level, it could have a spectacular impact."
Apparently, the current Twestivals, scheduled for early February, are raising cash for charity: water.
While this is an interesting concept, it is not new--recall the Meet Ups that made Mike Huckabee a serious contender for the republican nomination, but the fact that Twitterites are mobilizing to raise cash for charity is an incredibly novel way to fundraise and charity: water has found a way to mobilize millions on the web in a virtually cost-free way.
Now the Twestivals has turned to charity, this is certainly a trend to keep an eye on.
For more great info, check out Beth Kanter's post on Twestivals.
January 19, 2009
Massaging the Message DOES Matter
As an undergrad, I wrote a paper exploring the impact of CITES enforcement (or lack thereof) on the sturgeon population in the Caspian Sea, in Central Asia, for a class on International Environmental Trade. As I researched the issue, I was heartbroken to learn of what man had done to these prehistoric creatures, around since the age of the dinosaurs, with a complex DNA structure, one which actually involved more chromosome pairs than the humans!
The sturgeon had a lot of things stacked against them in their fight for survival, despite all kind of international trade sanctions attempting to limit their rapid population demise: the females of the species are the carriers of the coveted black caveat, which fetches ridiculous amounts of cash on the market, they take a long time to mature, so populations don't replace quickly, they compete for clean water with huge corporations and governments wanting to drill and dump in the oil-rich area, and finally, they are not cute.
(photo from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sturgeon2.jpg)
Huh? Yes, I said it. Sturgeons are not cute, and therefor not that many people are moved to save them (aside from the super rich who can afford black caviar I suppose). At least this is the theory behind an innovative new "Save the Sea Kittens" social media campaign recently launched by PETA.
The basic premise? People don't care as much about saving fish, as say, kittens, because most fish, are not cute and cuddly. People's heart go out to cute little kittens who are suffering-we want to cuddle them, and have them curl up on our laps and save them. Can't really do that with a fish, but, at least as far as PETA is concerned, fish need just as much help as kittens do. So, what if we were to change how people perceive fish? What if we could connect the warmth people feel toward small cuddly kittens to fish everywhere? Ta-da! The Sea Kittens campaign.
I have to say, this is a very clever approach. And fairly well executed: the site is a case study in "Social Media Campaigns 101:"
The second moral of the story? Gen Yers, as I've noted many times before, are certainly not afraid of sounding off, so when massaging a message, just remember it will sound back to you from every corner of the World Wide Web.
Personally, I was touched by the idea. I don't think I'll ever stop eating fish (mmm, sushi), but it certainly made the point with me that just because fish aren't cute like my cat, doesn't mean I should stop caring what happens to them.
The sturgeon had a lot of things stacked against them in their fight for survival, despite all kind of international trade sanctions attempting to limit their rapid population demise: the females of the species are the carriers of the coveted black caveat, which fetches ridiculous amounts of cash on the market, they take a long time to mature, so populations don't replace quickly, they compete for clean water with huge corporations and governments wanting to drill and dump in the oil-rich area, and finally, they are not cute.
(photo from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sturgeon2.jpg)
Huh? Yes, I said it. Sturgeons are not cute, and therefor not that many people are moved to save them (aside from the super rich who can afford black caviar I suppose). At least this is the theory behind an innovative new "Save the Sea Kittens" social media campaign recently launched by PETA.
The basic premise? People don't care as much about saving fish, as say, kittens, because most fish, are not cute and cuddly. People's heart go out to cute little kittens who are suffering-we want to cuddle them, and have them curl up on our laps and save them. Can't really do that with a fish, but, at least as far as PETA is concerned, fish need just as much help as kittens do. So, what if we were to change how people perceive fish? What if we could connect the warmth people feel toward small cuddly kittens to fish everywhere? Ta-da! The Sea Kittens campaign.
I have to say, this is a very clever approach. And fairly well executed: the site is a case study in "Social Media Campaigns 101:"
- Dedicated campaign with it's own branding? Check
- Avitars? Check
- Personalization/visitor involvement? Check (you can create your own Sea Kitten and write a story about him/her)
- Attempt at Viral? Check (those Sea Kitten avitars can be placed on other personal sites), you can also send it off to friends
- Engagement/Involvement techniques? Check, check. There is a petition, clear call to action, not so loud, but present call to give $$
- Since I got this link from a friend roughly 10 days ago, I have been keeping an eye on the top right hand corner of the site, where it tracks the number of people who have signed the "save the Sea Kittens" petition. And while the number has more than double since I first started keeping score, at just over 5,000 signature this isn't exactly a viral slam dunk, especially if we were to consider what I assume would be a fairly sizable investment in designing this campaign. However, it is picking up speed (viral campaigns often require that tipping point to turn from a sneeze into a full blown virus), so it may be early yet
- In another ominous sign that the campaign, while cute, may be totally missing the mark with its intended audience was when I searched for "Sea Kittens" on Facebook, and the first three groups that came up were groups dedicated to making fun of the whole Sea Kitten concept, with names such as "Sea Kittens Are Delicious"!
- I found a very similar pattern on YouTube: lots of people mocking the campaign! Not a good sign
But the real question is: who was PETA trying to target with this campaign and what were the metrics it was hoping to achieve? New emails? Dollars? Stirring up a discussion (that has certainly happened).
So the moral of the story: for one thing, this campaign makes a clear point that most of us fundraisers already know--regardless of your tactics, how you say something to your donors maybe sometimes be more important than what you are actually saying.The second moral of the story? Gen Yers, as I've noted many times before, are certainly not afraid of sounding off, so when massaging a message, just remember it will sound back to you from every corner of the World Wide Web.
Personally, I was touched by the idea. I don't think I'll ever stop eating fish (mmm, sushi), but it certainly made the point with me that just because fish aren't cute like my cat, doesn't mean I should stop caring what happens to them.
January 15, 2009
User-generated video: nonprofits' next frontier
While more and more nonprofit organizations are starting to utilize videos: links in email appeals, embedded on home pages, uploaded to YouTube, few appear to have a clear video strategy, and even fewer, (none that I can think of), allow users to interact with them through user-generated content.
Those who have been most adept at using video have tended to be relief organizations: displaying content of relief efforts both as promotional material and as an appeal tool.
Let's be clear here, I am not talking about DRTV, a space for many charities have been for years, and many have been successful, including a recent campaign by the ASPCA that has generated over $30 million dollars for the organization.
But few organizations seem to be capitalizing on an asset that is certain to be powerful, personal, and viral-video content generated by donors, volunteers, advocates, beneficiaries, and other that have been touched by an organization's reach.
Case in point: many health charities have developed extensive spaces for those dealing with a particular health issue, or those taking care of them, to share stories, discuss promising medical procedures, get moral support. Some even have memorial pages that can be set up in honor of a particular person. But I have not come across any large health charity that has created a space for people to upload videos where they can share their experience, video blog about their struggles, encourage others to press on.
Search YouTube for the word "cancer" or "heart disease" and you will find thousands of videos from cancer patients, survivors, memorial tributes, heart disease suffers. These stories are moving, and most have at least several dozen comments from YouTube viewers.
Why are so few nonprofits encouraging this kind of organic community building around their cause? In the process, developing an entire new network of potential donors, and at the same time, accessing marketing collateral that in all likelihood, they would not have to pay for?
I suspect that in the coming year, as many organizations struggle to find the internal resources to pay professionals for designing, editing, and publicizing video thru more "traditional" means, more will tune into the untapped potential of user-generated video content.
Those who have been most adept at using video have tended to be relief organizations: displaying content of relief efforts both as promotional material and as an appeal tool.
Let's be clear here, I am not talking about DRTV, a space for many charities have been for years, and many have been successful, including a recent campaign by the ASPCA that has generated over $30 million dollars for the organization.
But few organizations seem to be capitalizing on an asset that is certain to be powerful, personal, and viral-video content generated by donors, volunteers, advocates, beneficiaries, and other that have been touched by an organization's reach.
Case in point: many health charities have developed extensive spaces for those dealing with a particular health issue, or those taking care of them, to share stories, discuss promising medical procedures, get moral support. Some even have memorial pages that can be set up in honor of a particular person. But I have not come across any large health charity that has created a space for people to upload videos where they can share their experience, video blog about their struggles, encourage others to press on.
Search YouTube for the word "cancer" or "heart disease" and you will find thousands of videos from cancer patients, survivors, memorial tributes, heart disease suffers. These stories are moving, and most have at least several dozen comments from YouTube viewers.
Why are so few nonprofits encouraging this kind of organic community building around their cause? In the process, developing an entire new network of potential donors, and at the same time, accessing marketing collateral that in all likelihood, they would not have to pay for?
I suspect that in the coming year, as many organizations struggle to find the internal resources to pay professionals for designing, editing, and publicizing video thru more "traditional" means, more will tune into the untapped potential of user-generated video content.
January 10, 2009
Museums in Distress
Every once in a while, I like to write about our fellow fundraisers in the arts, which while still fitting under the umbrella of "nonprofit fundraising" is, as many of us know, a totally different animal.
A recent story on NPR's All Things Considered showcased just how much in financial distress many museums around the country are. Museums may often rely on government support and revenue from endowments to a larger extent than other types of nonprofits, and with state budgets drying up and endowment cash disappearing in the blink of an eye in the stock market, museums are having to resort to all kinds of previously unthinkable methods.
Anecdotaly, I have been hearing this type of thing from friends of mine in the art world. A friend who works in government relations for a very popular art museum told me the shock wave that the fall of one of the museum's large supporters, Lehman Brothers, sent thru the entire institution. A portion of the annual budget had, poof, disappeared, with the collapse of the financial institution.
According to the NPR story, one museum, faced with selling its historic building to stay afloat, committed "the cardinal sin" of the museum world-it sold two works of art to pay its bills. The National Academy Museum and School of Fine Art is now "blacklisted" by other museums-they won't lend artwork to it for shows. But as the director of the museum who had been part of the decision to sell the art works commented: "There are going to be a lot of institutions that are being brought to their knees by the current financial climate."
Some museums are looking for innovative ways to draw in crowds, and finding the the young urban professional might be a cash cow in hiding. Case in point: two friends of mine who live in San Francisco enjoyed the San Fran MOMA so much they became members. When they attended a member function, museum staff were so excited to discover two "young" people among their membership list, they featured Adam and Rebekah in a membership campaign. Not only could an influx of younger donors help plug some of the budget gaps left by the collapse of larger donating institutions now, it could begin building relationships long into the future. When it comes to "estate planning", Gen Yers certainly have not made up their minds, and there is lots of opportunity to win us over.
(Adam and Rebekah: live and on poster)
January 9, 2009
Getting to the point, quickly.
My dad sometimes asks me when I am sending or happen to receive a text message, why I don't just actually call the person, and (gasp) talk to them?! Usually, I blow him off with something like, "because I don't feel like talking to them" or "because I am busy", but I have myself often wondered why it is that people text message when you could call, or even email.
Sure, sometimes, text messaging is the least obvious thing to do-say you are in class, or in a meeting, you can't really call someone. But there is more to it than that.
As a tool for communication, for those who use it, text messaging has two advantages over email and phones. First, it allows an ADD generation to do even more things at once. Carrying on a real conversation with someone, while it may certainly allow you to do a bunch of other things at the same time, requires you to concentrate on what is actually being said and pay attention, respond, formulate more or less cohesive thoughts. Not doing so may lend one in how water with the person on the other end, who can figure out pretty quickly if you are distracted.
Email takes resources too. Since it doesn't have a space limit, you could type out quite a lengthy document in trying to communicate whatever it is you are trying to say. Additionally, in general you need both hands to type. If you've ever tried to type out an email on a non-QWERTY phone, I am sure you can remember the pain and agony.
Text messaging, in my opinion, requires the least concentration, especially since your phone, when set to the right setting, helps you finish your thoughts by helpfully spelling the rest of the word you started keying in. As text messaging contests around the world have shown, people can get pretty good and tapping those little keys into words. And often, text messaging requires just a tiny part of your attention span. I can watch TV, read my email, if someone is at my house talk to them, all while typing you "what's up?" on my phone to my friends.
The second thing about text messaging that makes it so attractive is it makes you get to the point, and quickly. Small message sizes, screens, and the aforementioned not so easy of typing out words using numbers (most of us started texting in the pre-qwerty era), make you really figure out what you're trying to say. Instead of "Hey buddy, it's been a while, want to get together for a drink or dinner?", your friend may end up receiving a text that says "want to do smth 2nite?".
This is also one of the reasons why sites like Twitter are so popular. While texts may be self-imposed, Twitter purposefully imposes a limit on what you can say, so you have to figure out how to say it quickly. How many of us could condense our organizational missions in 140 characters or less and why people should care?
"Mission: Help poor people in developing countries."
"Mission: Ensure a livable earth for all its species."
Not so easy, huh?
So why would a generation that actually enjoys limiting itself to expression restrictions in the day-to-day (I am not saying here that this is a generation that does not want to express itself, we do!), want to slog through a 4 page donor fundraising letter, or a multi-paragraph email, to figure out what it is that you do, why you do it, who you help, and most importantly, why we should get on board with you?
Don't get me wrong, a well-written fundraising 4-pager or 2-pager can be a slam dunk in DM-retired folks (especially the older ones) seem to love spending time reading the stories we tell them, but they have time to do this. A generation constantly on the move, isn't going to stop just to read your lengthy fundraising letter or email. And this is also why, the campaigns that have been successful at getting Gen Y involved, have been ones that have had a message that was easily digestible and easy actionable.
"Lance Armstrong is famous. He has cancer. Buy his bracelet. Help cure cancer. Everyone is doing it."
"Tired of the same old? America needs to change. Obama is that change. And he needs you to help."
"Terrible tsunami kills loads of people in Asia. They need help. Donate cash now. Check out footage of disaster on YouTube."
Sure, sometimes, text messaging is the least obvious thing to do-say you are in class, or in a meeting, you can't really call someone. But there is more to it than that.
As a tool for communication, for those who use it, text messaging has two advantages over email and phones. First, it allows an ADD generation to do even more things at once. Carrying on a real conversation with someone, while it may certainly allow you to do a bunch of other things at the same time, requires you to concentrate on what is actually being said and pay attention, respond, formulate more or less cohesive thoughts. Not doing so may lend one in how water with the person on the other end, who can figure out pretty quickly if you are distracted.
Email takes resources too. Since it doesn't have a space limit, you could type out quite a lengthy document in trying to communicate whatever it is you are trying to say. Additionally, in general you need both hands to type. If you've ever tried to type out an email on a non-QWERTY phone, I am sure you can remember the pain and agony.
Text messaging, in my opinion, requires the least concentration, especially since your phone, when set to the right setting, helps you finish your thoughts by helpfully spelling the rest of the word you started keying in. As text messaging contests around the world have shown, people can get pretty good and tapping those little keys into words. And often, text messaging requires just a tiny part of your attention span. I can watch TV, read my email, if someone is at my house talk to them, all while typing you "what's up?" on my phone to my friends.
The second thing about text messaging that makes it so attractive is it makes you get to the point, and quickly. Small message sizes, screens, and the aforementioned not so easy of typing out words using numbers (most of us started texting in the pre-qwerty era), make you really figure out what you're trying to say. Instead of "Hey buddy, it's been a while, want to get together for a drink or dinner?", your friend may end up receiving a text that says "want to do smth 2nite?".
This is also one of the reasons why sites like Twitter are so popular. While texts may be self-imposed, Twitter purposefully imposes a limit on what you can say, so you have to figure out how to say it quickly. How many of us could condense our organizational missions in 140 characters or less and why people should care?
"Mission: Help poor people in developing countries."
"Mission: Ensure a livable earth for all its species."
Not so easy, huh?
So why would a generation that actually enjoys limiting itself to expression restrictions in the day-to-day (I am not saying here that this is a generation that does not want to express itself, we do!), want to slog through a 4 page donor fundraising letter, or a multi-paragraph email, to figure out what it is that you do, why you do it, who you help, and most importantly, why we should get on board with you?
Don't get me wrong, a well-written fundraising 4-pager or 2-pager can be a slam dunk in DM-retired folks (especially the older ones) seem to love spending time reading the stories we tell them, but they have time to do this. A generation constantly on the move, isn't going to stop just to read your lengthy fundraising letter or email. And this is also why, the campaigns that have been successful at getting Gen Y involved, have been ones that have had a message that was easily digestible and easy actionable.
"Lance Armstrong is famous. He has cancer. Buy his bracelet. Help cure cancer. Everyone is doing it."
"Tired of the same old? America needs to change. Obama is that change. And he needs you to help."
"Terrible tsunami kills loads of people in Asia. They need help. Donate cash now. Check out footage of disaster on YouTube."
January 5, 2009
Miriam's giving year in review
So yes, I am showing some of my Gen Y ADD by promising a post about video blogging and getting distracted by other topics, but I was reviewing my documents today for taxes (yes, I get started early), and it occurred to me that it might be fun to review my "giving" from the past year as a case study of a Gen Yers giving habits. The Gen Yers in the wild if you will. So, in chronological order (and by the way I know this bc I get email receipts since I only give via the web, so I can just save them all in a little folder in my email and refer to them whenever I feel like it)
Before we get started, I should also probably share that my personal "goal" is to give to one organization every single month. I also like to give to all kinds of different organizations, to "spread" my giving as widely as possible, following the theory that everyone could use a little help.
1) Apparently, my first contribution of the year, a whopping $25, was to a political candidate. I really am not sure what this says about it me. I would note, that this was the first campaign season when I was compelled to give. This was also not my first contribution to a politician during the FY 09 election, just the first one of 2008. And no, it was not who you're thinking.
2) Next, just a few weeks later and breaking my once a month rule was a donation to the Avon Foundation for the Avon Walk For Breast Cancer. My friend's team was called "Simply the Breast." And when a friend creates a personalized fundraising page, and knows if you've given or not, it doesn't matter much if this was not an organization on my "in line to give to list." Oh well.
3) I then broke my own rule again, but giving yet another donation in the same month to the Wildlife Friends of Thailand. I had actually stumbled on them by accident on Facebook Causes while looked for the Wildlife Animal Sanctuary, and after looking at the pictures of the poor animals, well, I just couldn't help myself. But I would note that my donation was apparently made on a leap day. So really, we could pretend it was in the next month.
4) Ah, now here is something exciting! In April, I gave a donation online, but in response to a piece I had received in the mail. At first, I had opened it out of curiosity as a marketer-it was once of those pieces from a celebrity on behalf of an organization. But, I found their mission and story very compelling. So online I went, and gave a gift.
5) The next month, my gift went to Mercy Corps. This was in response to the double-header of the earthquake in China and the cyclone in Myanmar. My company was having a matching drive. So I gave. Through Network For Good.
Apparently, I decided to take the entire summer off from giving, because I have no records of donations until September when I gave to:
6) The American Heart Association Walk. A colleague had set up a personalized fundraising page and again, she would know if I didn't give :).
7) My next donation was a very personal one. I gave in memory of my best friend of 13 years to the Col. Potter Cairn Rescue Network.
8) Next, still in mourning, I guilted myself into donating part of the proceeds of some used shoes I sold on Ebay to the Humane Society.
And apparently, this was all the giving I had in my for 2008. I did not reach my goal of giving once a month, nor did I give as much as I had hoped, and I was absolutely convinced I gave to the USO this year but apparently, it was really last year.
If you would like to share your giving year in review, hit me up! Or feel free to post in the comments section.
Before we get started, I should also probably share that my personal "goal" is to give to one organization every single month. I also like to give to all kinds of different organizations, to "spread" my giving as widely as possible, following the theory that everyone could use a little help.
1) Apparently, my first contribution of the year, a whopping $25, was to a political candidate. I really am not sure what this says about it me. I would note, that this was the first campaign season when I was compelled to give. This was also not my first contribution to a politician during the FY 09 election, just the first one of 2008. And no, it was not who you're thinking.
2) Next, just a few weeks later and breaking my once a month rule was a donation to the Avon Foundation for the Avon Walk For Breast Cancer. My friend's team was called "Simply the Breast." And when a friend creates a personalized fundraising page, and knows if you've given or not, it doesn't matter much if this was not an organization on my "in line to give to list." Oh well.
3) I then broke my own rule again, but giving yet another donation in the same month to the Wildlife Friends of Thailand. I had actually stumbled on them by accident on Facebook Causes while looked for the Wildlife Animal Sanctuary, and after looking at the pictures of the poor animals, well, I just couldn't help myself. But I would note that my donation was apparently made on a leap day. So really, we could pretend it was in the next month.
4) Ah, now here is something exciting! In April, I gave a donation online, but in response to a piece I had received in the mail. At first, I had opened it out of curiosity as a marketer-it was once of those pieces from a celebrity on behalf of an organization. But, I found their mission and story very compelling. So online I went, and gave a gift.
5) The next month, my gift went to Mercy Corps. This was in response to the double-header of the earthquake in China and the cyclone in Myanmar. My company was having a matching drive. So I gave. Through Network For Good.
Apparently, I decided to take the entire summer off from giving, because I have no records of donations until September when I gave to:
6) The American Heart Association Walk. A colleague had set up a personalized fundraising page and again, she would know if I didn't give :).
7) My next donation was a very personal one. I gave in memory of my best friend of 13 years to the Col. Potter Cairn Rescue Network.
8) Next, still in mourning, I guilted myself into donating part of the proceeds of some used shoes I sold on Ebay to the Humane Society.
And apparently, this was all the giving I had in my for 2008. I did not reach my goal of giving once a month, nor did I give as much as I had hoped, and I was absolutely convinced I gave to the USO this year but apparently, it was really last year.
If you would like to share your giving year in review, hit me up! Or feel free to post in the comments section.
January 3, 2009
Environmental Defense Fund hits the mark with Polar Bear Ad.
I know I promised my next post to be about video, but as I work on that, here is an ad that really caught my attention recently. I saw this on TV and think it is very effective. Here is why:
1) It tears at your heartstrings, but not in the kind of way that makes you want to switch channels because you can't watch anymore.
2) It makes its point, poignantly. The ad is very self-explanatory without being verbose.
3) Connects two issues that may seem unrelated (the threat posed to polar bears and taking public transportation), but both of which have a lot of passionate supporters .
4) Points to something we can all do, even if we can't give
The interesting part of this ad on TV is that it had a "branded" URL. Nowhere did it say "Environmental Defense Fund" but rather pointed viewers to a global warming URL. An interesting technique for an organization that may have a certain "reputation" and did not want to put off certain types of donor who may have had preconceived notions.
1) It tears at your heartstrings, but not in the kind of way that makes you want to switch channels because you can't watch anymore.
2) It makes its point, poignantly. The ad is very self-explanatory without being verbose.
3) Connects two issues that may seem unrelated (the threat posed to polar bears and taking public transportation), but both of which have a lot of passionate supporters .
4) Points to something we can all do, even if we can't give
The interesting part of this ad on TV is that it had a "branded" URL. Nowhere did it say "Environmental Defense Fund" but rather pointed viewers to a global warming URL. An interesting technique for an organization that may have a certain "reputation" and did not want to put off certain types of donor who may have had preconceived notions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
