January, 2007

Nancy Schwartz invited me to submit a piece for this week’s Carnival of Nonprofit Consultants theme on “How do Nonprofit Communicators Compete for Audiences’ Attention?”

So here goes…

Back in October, in my second post to this blog, I wrote about what I believe is our sector’s secret weapon: storytelling

Some fifteen years ago, I frequently travelled around the UK for Oxfam talking to often quite large groups of the charity’s dedicated supporters about ‘third world debt’ and ’structural adjustment’. Inevitably, I weaved in human stories from the ‘field’ to help illustrate the impact of these reforms on those living in poverty, the intended beneficiaries of Oxfam’s projects.

It seems that Michael Gilbert of Nonprofit Online News has a similar past. In his review of “Storytelling: Branding in Practice“, Michael says:

Back when I was a lobbyist for environmental and consumer organizations in the mid Eighties, I came to the conclusion that our cause had a secret weapon. We didn’t have the advantage of good ol’ boy webs of relationships with legislators. We certainly didn’t have the cash that built and sustained those relationships. But when the system worked and the fourth estate was functioning properly, we sometimes, just sometimes, had an amazing power on our side: the power of the true story.

Of course, we’re not talking about stories in a ‘newsworthy’ sense, but rather stories that remind your colleagues of the reasons they joined your organisation: passion for the cause.

In my last post, I went on a bit (too long?) about engagement. Now, I’ve always found it difficult to engage with a piece of direct mail, and this will only get more difficult with the trend towards a more visual culture. (But I’m looking forward to listening to and learning from Anna Crofton of Whitewater when I meet her on Wednesday.)

I’ve written previously about how Kresta King Cutcher has been posting powerful images from Rwanda to the Flickr photo-sharing community. And you could try weaving your Flickr photos into a storyboard.

For a primer on digital storytelling, you can do no better than read J.D. Lasica’s 10 Easy Steps tutorial.

When all the ingredients are in place, you get something like this:

• The Water Buffalo Movie by Robert Thompson

A plea: make a little time (8 minutes to be precise) to watch this inspiring story about a water buffalo donated to the Su family in China (thanks to Carnet for the tip).

It moved me to tears.

I can imagine empowering the entrepreneurs on Kiva to tell their own stories in a similar way.

By the way, I learned from these guys that this week is National Storytelling Week here in the UK. Good timing, eh?

Update: after posting this in a bit of a hurry, I’ve since noticed that Robert has a whole page dedicated to the water buffalo story. He’ll revisit the Su family in March to do a follow-up interview.

Measuring ‘engagement’ is like eating an elephant: it’s a big job and you’re not sure where to start.

I’m no exception, and my thinking on this topic still feels heavy and a little clumsy. So, please indulge me for a moment…

At the start of the year, I wrote:

The page view is dead, long live, err… something else! Hmm… web metrics just do not cut it (and just when you’d got to grips with it!). But what should we be looking at now? In 2007, the sector needs to identify new measures of ‘engagement’ online. This work is urgent, especially as charities need to show accountability for everything they do.

In one sense, this may seem a pointless exercise – preparing to get the tape measure out as the social web gets widgetised, atomised, and more distributed.

But engagement was a key theme explored at the Future of Information Summit ‘07 presented by Experian recently. Last month, a Factiva roundtable reached to figure out how to measure social media the best way, and Robert Scoble (no less) had already added his call for a new metric for engagement.

I’m equally aware that some people do not care for the term, ‘engagement’ (possibly because of all this attention). Anyway, for want of anything better, I’m sticking with it for now. More importantly, a lot of people whom I listen to in the sector are using the e-word. So there.

So, why all the talk about social media measurement? Well, it’s one thing to have an engaged website, but more and more the action takes place in other places, in existing communities and social networks. Charities must turn from ‘owning’ their cause to enabling networks to run with the ball. Yet again, this was reinforced to me over the weekend after reading Robin’s Hamman’s post about BBC 2.0.

So what are we measuring? Influence? Reach? Audience…?

Brian Oberkirch helped me make some more sense of this conundrum, although he admitted it was tough: “Like nailing down a shadow”…

That’s why I have a bit of trepidation over the rush to quantify and reify ‘engagement’ as the baseline by which all social media work should be evaluated. JKO called these ‘the holy grail’ as part of the discussion, and that’s what is problematic. ‘Engagement’, like ‘conversation’ is one of those terms that feels like it means something, but really is mushy enough for anyone to bend it to their will.

Check out Brian’s excellent post for some things we might want to measure. This certainly goes beyond the standard (and not so standard) toolset on web metrics deployed and listed here by Beth Kanter. To pick out one snippet from Beth’s post:

Metrics alone are not very meaningful – they need to be put into some context. Context to me means outcomes, intent, and audience. No matter what type of metrics you trying to figure out … that’s a universal metric standard.

Outcomes. That’s it. Or “Return on Objectives” (ROO) as my friend Richard Sedley is justly keen on saying.

It takes two to tango

For me, the term ‘engagement’ suggests a two-way street – it implies not simply a ‘connection’, but a reciprocal action. As Mark Ghuneim et al say in their mini-essay on the Wiredset blog, Terms of Engagement: Measuring the Active Consumer…

In the traditional sense, engagement is the period between proposal and marriage

True. Many (most?) people will rebuff your advances. Others may be content to donate cash, but not wish to be ‘engaged’ in anything. A few will get mobilised into taking some form of action for your cause.

These ‘degrees of engagement’ (is there a better way of saying this?) remind me of Dick Carlson’s comment on the aforementioned Scoble post.

Dick proposes a four-level model for measuring engagement:

1. Click – A reader arrived (current metric)
2. Consume – A reader read the content
3. Understood – A reader understood the content and remembers
4. Applied – A reader applies the content in another venue

Now, let’s put some meat on the bones – with thanks to Mark Ghuneim for allowing me to reproduce this terrific graphic (original here).

Now we’re getting somewhere.

Work with your buzz director to create milestones and targets for activity for each engagement ‘type’. Roll your findings up into monthly progress reports (which should get as wide a distribution as possible). And remember, ensure what you are measuring is aligned to your organisation’s strategic goals.

The ‘goalposts’ haven’t moved; it’s just that there are now many more pitches on which you must play (a bit like Hackney Marshes on a Sunday morning).

Ãœber-blogger Steve Rubel’s Micro Persuasion web feed is usually one of the first I read.

Today, Steve calls time on “a bunch of terms” he signals are now completely unnecessary. These include “social media,” “user generated content” and “consumer generated media.”

Now, clumsy they may be, but unnecessary? I don’t think so. But Steve continues…

Do any of these matter any more? I dislike all of these words and have stopped using them. Eric Hansen proposes we go with new media but that doesn’t quite work either. The reason is it’s ALL media.

The lexicon will hopefully change… We are all media, period.

Judging by the reaction of those commenting on Steve’s assertion, many also disagree (in fact, the majority… at least when I last checked in at 3:55pm). We do still need to differentiate between the “old” broadcast way of doing things and the “new”, more conversational.

The Mexico Tourism Board certainly didn’t get it (and probably still don’t). If anyone has the time or inclination, just check out my previous blogging cause, which I now frequently use as a case study.

In an effort to keep one of JMW Turner’s greatest paintings in the UK, the Tate and The Art Fund hope to raise at least £300,000 from the public via phone, postal donations and by donating £5 to “buy a brushstroke” online.

Tate needs to find a total of £4.9m (US$9.7m), and has allocated a record £2m to the purchase of The Blue Rigi, which represents 3 years’ interest from its endowment fund for the purchase of art. The Art Fund charity has added a further £500,000.

The BBC reports that a public appeal launched last month must raise the remaining £2.4m before 20 March, when the temporary export bar placed on the work by Culture Minister, David Lammy, will expire and the painting would be allowed to leave the country.

Several leading artists, including David Hockney, Peter Blake and Rachel Whiteread, have bought ‘brushstrokes’ to support the appeal.

As part of the campaign to save The Blue Rigi for the nation, for the first time ever the Tate has united Turner’s great Rigi watercolours. Painted in the Spring of 1842, The Blue Rigi will be shown alongside two companion pieces, The Red Rigi and The Dark Rigi, which capture the Swiss mountain at different times of day. The exhibition at Tate Britain opens today and will run until 25 March 2007.

Unlike “Your Name On Toast”, which I wrote about recently, this doesn’t quite add up to a ‘traffic pyramiding’ scheme, as you cannot ‘link’ your purchased brushstrokes through to your website. I just hope the appeal is as successful as Alex Tew’s efforts to help pay his way through university with his Million Dollar Homepage.

Reality check. This made me smile.

Hugh Macleod :: http://www.gapingvoid.com/

More on widgets.

One of my recent predictions was that widgets and widget fundraising would make their mark here in the UK in 2007.

A good time then for prolific US-based blogger Beth Kanter to write an excellent case study on her experience using the ChipIn widget for her successful personal fundraising campaign for the Sharing Foundation.

ChipIn founder Carnet Williams hopes that others can learn from Beth to make their own fundraising efforts more successful.

It seems especially appropriate to mention this today, as Beth is celebrating a Big Birthday! A toast would seem in order, then.

Crumbs, I may have just the thing: talking of toast, and talking of sharing… this is another one of those ‘traffic pyramiding’ schemes, but this time in aid of charity. A cool (and slightly eccentric) way to donate to a good cause.

Intrigued? Point your mouse to Your Name on Toast!

Just back from Baristas (terrific vanilla latte) where George and the team proudly sport “Make Starbucks History” t-shirts (as captured by caffeine buddy Ed Mitchell).

This got me thinking…

First, I was reminded of something Heather Green wrote in the Business Week blog last week. Heather noted how activism “splintered” to pursue different interests during the 1980s and 1990s. But now, she continued…

Because of the Internet, the different activist groups and NGOs can still be dedicated to their specific cause, but can coordinate on broad goals or campaigns when they want.

So on one hand you’re seeing fragmentation, but on the other, you’re seeing effective coordination.

On a small scale, the Starbucks Challenge, takes the form of always asking for fairtrade coffee when in-store. On a much larger scale, the online activity behind Make Poverty History – one of the most widely supported and recognised campaigns in recent years – stands out as an example of how to effectively devolve the distribution of campaign messages to a supporter base… to build a movement.

There have been other interesting examples such as the Jubilee 2000 movement, which grew from small beginnings to become an effective international campaign. Not all coalitions are as effective; the Stop Climate Chaos campaign has (so far) failed to grab me… nor, more importantly, influence many headline writers. (Do movements need a figurehead? Discuss).

The issue of connecting dispersed supporters through new technologies was covered in more detail in the first of a series of ICT Foresight reports published by NCVO in October (and free to download from the NCVO website).

The inspirational Network-Centric Advocacy blog always has lots to say on such subjects. This caught my attention recently:

There is widespread recognition that positive change on a variety of big and small issues will need to be driven by loose networks of global and local activists connected together from global warming to the plight of trash pickers in the developing world…

…The raw components for transforming the way to “do” organizing are on the table and staring leaders in the face…

There is serious need to inspire a cadre of activists, strategists, campaigners and investors to shift real resources into this new model of activism. Our best thinkers need to move horsepower into thinking about networks, how to build them, how to assess them, training on leadership in a networked world, what can networks do and how to invest in them.

(Read the whole post; it’s worth your time.)

I organised campaigns in a previous life (Oxfam; 1988-91) and it hasn’t escaped me that I first think of global issues (at least before I became a Dad) before concerning myself with more achievable changes needed on my own doorstep. The age of connectivity is yet to make a serious mark on local politics and online activism. At least, not on my watch.

Local campaigns often start out with just one or two people determined to change things in their community, like the installation of a zebra-crossing.

We happen to need one at the north end of our village in North Somerset. To be honest, I’ve only recently become more aware of this since becoming a governor at my daughter’s infants’ school.

I thought that it would be relatively easy to find another local community which had already managed to get the authorities to install a crossing, perhaps as part of a safe routes to school campaign. Not so.

An obvious first place to look was the BBC’s Action Network, but there’s not an awful lot going on under the pedestrian crossings category. Maybe we need something like change.org, but for local issues. Looks like I may have to re-invent the wheel.

Finally (for now)… the always-readable Kathy Sierra posts her frustrations at how James Surowiecki’s “Wisdom of Crowds” concept has been twisted and abused to mean virtually the opposite: The Dumbness of Crowds.

Steve MacLaughlin has just posted some good advice on the Blackbaud blog:

Make sure that your online communication, wherever it takes place, clearly conveys who you are, what is your mission, why it matters, how people can get involved, and what is the impact of their involvement. Choice abounds on the Web and someone else’s site is just a click away. Your message needs to be compelling and coherent enough to rise above the clutter. Don’t let your message get lost in the medium.

So, just thinking out loud for a moment…

• Ignore the tools… start with strategy, outcomes and the message.
• If it fits, embrace social networks. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
• Keep this core message simple, e.g. “Make Trade Fair”.
• Simple actions repeated at scale within a social network produces serendipity.
• Post your edgiest, most viral content… be useful, and (if appropriate) be entertaining. Be prepared to respond quickly, too… and offer guidance.
• Remember, it’s about helping people to connect to each other… rather than to your database.
• Be collaborative – recognise that people may like to create something which will be seen by many.
• Let them know their efforts are crucial to advancing the cause / your mission.

But manage the risks. Social networking is both a blessing and a curse :)

• Be ready to lose some control – it comes with the territory.
• You cannot ‘vet’ who wants to become your friend.
• People may seek to build their reputation or associate you with ‘their’ cause by adding your logo to their video / blog / profile.
• be wary of anti-big-brand videos / spoof ads.
• Have a strategy in place in case things go wrong.
• Look at the probability of something occurring (e.g. legal action), and assign a value to that and calculate risks.
• The benefits outweigh the risks. In most cases people have the best intentions and will respond to a gentle nudge.
• Don’t embed yourself too deeply into social networking (and for that matter, anything else I might enthuse about) and forsake the other stuff.

Of course, all this will be easier to manage if you employ a buzz director or recruit some virtual volunteers!

I have to point you over to Beth Kanter’s post about the new ChipIn mapping widget that mashes Googlemaps with GEO-IP tracking of donations.

This is the best application of Googlemaps I’ve seen since the Be the Full Stop campaign I posted about in October.

Also worth a read is this post by Idealware’s Laura Quinn about distributed online fundraising tools.

I’m sticking my neck out with some of these (sort-of) predictions.

If I’m honest, I share Bertie’s view that next year, 2008, will be the real breakthrough year when charities get ’social’. This is partly because budgets have largely been fixed for activity this year.

Never mind, there will be plenty of elbow room to experiment and innovate in 2007.

As always, comments (especially additions to this list) and challenges (be nice) are positively encouraged!

• 2007 will be the year of the widget. Charities will benefit from the downloadable fundraising widgets offered by Justgiving (launched just before Christmas) and Bmycharity (on its way).
• The desire from donors (especially major givers) for more involvement and information will intensify and the need for accountability will further erode the sacred cow of the general fund. Note: most charities will be dragged kicking and screaming down this road. Initiatives like the ImpACT Coalition seem more concerned about reputation management than championing transparency. This is disappointing.
• Social entrepreneurs and venture philanthropists will have an even higher profile this year.
• The page view is dead, long live, err… something else! Hmm… web metrics just do not cut it (and just when you’d got to grips with it!). But what should we be looking at now? In 2007, the sector needs to identify new measures of ‘engagement’ online. This work is urgent, especially as charities need to show accountability for everything they do. Engagement + accountability = effectiveness. Note: numerous conversations in recent months tell me that there’s a lot of head scratching going on around this one. Get in touch and maybe together we can figure something out.
• A blended media approach will gain ground and charities will reach and engage stakeholders where, when, and how they want to be communicated with. This means greater cross-departmental collaboration.
• More charity employees (and virtual volunteers) will identify with the roles of buzz director / community steward / social reporter. Charity managers will sit up and listen (and even start blogging). Note: I’m thinking of co-organising an open-space event for those championing social media tools (and change management) within their organisations.
• Charities will get better at reporting their achievements and aggregated update reports via RSS feeds will become standard. Podcasts will become commonplace.
• 2007 will provide some high-profile stunts and more cause-related avatars in Second Life, but remain a peripheral activity.
• Some well-equipped charities will learn to use these tools for storytelling and weave user-generated content into their own content, thus giving stakeholders more of an authentic voice.
• The distinction will become more apparent between those charities wishing to build hosted communities for supporters and activists and those who have accepted the inevitable loss of control of ‘their’ cause and become active in existing communities and social networks.
• Furthermore, by the end of 2007, many charities will register that they need to slim down their websites, and create a more personalised, targeted, atomised (but consistent) presence on the web.
• One or more of the popular social networking sites will tap into the desire for members to identify with a cause and create a “My Causes” tab.
• We’ll end 2007 with some excellent case studies (I’ve high hopes for Red Nose Day in March), some disappointments and a great deal of learning in the process.
• The novelty of ethical gifts will begin to tire by the end of the year (there are too many copycat catalogues out there).
• Not really a prediction as the One Laptop Per Child project looks set to really happen this year. Interesting to read about the look and feel of the UI.