Organizational Intelligence and nonprofits (part 1)

While I was getting my MBA, I took this amazing class in organizational intelligence. Basically, organizational intelligence is a cultural shift from a single person hoarding all of his or her knowledge in an organization to recording the knowledge so others in the org. have access to it. Think about it--when someone leaves an organization, there is usually a giant gaping hole left in their wake. If an organization has a culture of intelligence sharing there will be a smoother transition between employees and between employees across the organization in real time. Less duplication of work, more collaboration between employees--sounds pretty amazing to me!

In a nonprofit organization, many employees wear "multiple hats" and have so many different roles that the organization must instill a culture of shared intelligence where the employee (or volunteer) is willing to share what they know or do for the organization's future.

Technology is the best answer to this problem--asking employees to do something as simple as asking employees to post key documents on Google Docs (or another open site) or to record key relationships in the CRM would help anyone involved in the organization to see exactly where things stand with constituents.

how much does social media really cost?

Social media can be exhausting. To do it well takes a lot of time, effort and knowledge. Social media aggregator tools (like the one that i have been using--Yoono) are great, but at the same time can be so distracting that you can literally spend your entire day clicking and reading on links that are posted, replying to tweets and starting conversations. Then, there are the other social media aspects to pay attention to--blogs, comments on blogs, mainstream media, etc. i think that I can literally make a career out of being on social media all the time looking for a job in social media (any takers?)...

This doesn't even talk about the dollars and cents cost of social media, and hiring an outside consultant can run a nonprofit A LOT of money. Insanity. Some excecutives at nonprofits reject the idea of social media because they think that it's a fad, while others may reject the idea because it is just too expensive. At a resource strained nonprofit, can you blame them??

Facebook is Diggin' it

This week Facebook introduced the "like" button that can be used on any site anywhere., similiar to "Digg". It will be interesting to see how this will be used, and if it will catch on. Then again, it seems like anything that Facebook does will catch on. I was thinking of the ways that nonprofits will be able to use this to their advantage--will the sites get info on who is liking their site/article? Will they have access to any information on the sites? Facebook has said that the "liking" will allow advertisers to target their audiences more accurately, but what will happen with nonprofits? Also, I wonder if Facebook will have a grant program (similar to Google Ad Grants) that allow nonprofits to follow up with some of those who "liked" their pages...

A Conundrum

So yesterday, I met up with my friend Renee'. Renee' wants to start a career in volunteer coordination, and she and I started chatting about some ethical dilemmas that may come up when volunteering for an organization and how a volunteer should deal with that. For instance, what if you were volunteering (and highly invested) in an organization and you found out that said organization was involved in activities that were contrary to your beliefs. How do you, as a volunteer, deal with that? Conversely, what if an organization has a rock-star volunteer and then finds out that the volunteer is involved in some shady activities, etc. I think that this situation (or really either situation) would be the .00001% of the time, but it was interesting to think about nonetheless.

This involved into a conversation about corporate sponsorships for an organization....If an corporation approaches a nonprofit for a sponsorship, or vice versa, there is a courting process, but I think that so many times the donations or the prospect for joining forces with a nonprofit clouds some decision making. Whose decision making wouldn't be clouded though? Anyway, with the Internet making everything transparent, any corporation or nonprofit can't hide anything. For instance, a huge corporation may choose to join forces with a nonprofit who is focused on public health. The parent company of said huge corporation may manufacture food that is horrible for the public. How can the nonprofit accept a sponsorship knowing that the roots of this corporation works against the nonprofit's mission? Surely, this information will become known by some web-sleuths...but how can the organization pass up this huge sponsorship?

Just some food for thought...


***Update*** I just saw this article on the NPQ about a similar issue...and with some solid advice about turning something like this into a positive for the organization.

Phemonenal Presentation--I had to repost!!

Wow--this is a rockstar presentation! I wish that I had been able to go to the AFP conference to see this in person, but the slides are amazing as well!

Concrete ideas on how to actually get a social media strategy up and running and how it can be measured. Even though it's been said before, I haven't heard it said that social media has changed the conversation with constituents from "Monologue--> Dialogue". Love it love it love it!

great to check out!

Very Very interesting...

USA Today posted this article about giving. It seems like the response to the earthquake in Haiti has quickly become a benchmark for social giving, but I think that it shows what could happen, but it is doubtful that this type of giving will happen for an organization without a major crisis.



One of the things that stood out to me in that there are approxmiately the same percentage of people from Gen Y and Matures gave via website. That was really interesting to me because I would think the Matures wouldn't give as much online as those in Gen Y.



Wowza. what does this mean? Should organizations have a site that speaks to a younger generation and a site that speaks to an older generation? How can the language and site speak to all without excluding any of the groups? It is a really intersting conundrum that nonprofits may need to address as the generational gaps become more evident.

Why emails are sent out

This is the chart of the week on marketingsherpa.com. The marketing objectives are ranked by importance on the chart.

I thought it was interesting to see the similarities (or what I think would be the similiarities) between this chart--which was made for for-profit companies and nonprofits.

Definitely the most important for both nonprofits and for profits would be to retain existing customers/constitutents. In one of the posts yesterday, I talked about how 8 out of 10 donors do not donate again. Keeping existing donors/customers/constituents is very important for a nonprofit, since it has already worked hard to gain the supporter in the first place. By communicating with this in mind will help to ensure that the donors know how their funds were used and why it is important to continue donating. This doesn't necessarily mean that it has to come through email (although that is clearly the cheapest method).

I would think that for the building brand education would be higher on the list for nonprofits as some email communications are made specifically to educate about what the organization does.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this--and how you think that this would be amended for nonprofits.

Facebook Fans Valued at $3.60 Each [STATS]

I came across this article (Facebook Fans Valued at $3.60 Each [STATS]) on multiple sites yesterday, but it was interesting to see exactly how these calculations were made. I don't think that this is particularly accurate (although it is probably as close as it could possibly be). It would be interesting to do this valuation for nonprofits and it is about as good an argument as any could be for noprofits to start focusing on social media. The value for gaining more and more followers and come up with unique information and updates for their fans. At a value of $3.60 a piece, gaining more and more fans can only help a nonprofit get more support for their organization.




Posted using ShareThis

8 out of 10 donors do what?>!?!

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a post on Social Fish that talked about some of the different free webinars that are going on through the month of April. Possibly the best post ever! I was able to sign up for a bunch of these free webinars and attended two today.

They were both interesting, but the second was really great--it was on how generations should be considered by nonprofits both for volunteerism and as donors. There are some generalities in each generation and it impacts learning styles, world views, etc. Nonprofits should know who their constituents are and how to approach them--for instance sending out a different newsletter to some of the age groups or changing messaging to recruit volunteers.

One of the most impactful things that came out of this was that 8 out of 10 donors do not donate a second time to a nonprofit. &*&(^(&(U WHHHAAT?!?! This is crazy. Thanking donors and mainitaining a good relationship with them is so important. But thanking them in a way that makes them feel good (possibly indicated by their generation) while making fiscal sense is the best. A millenial (born 1980-present) could be thanked via a quick personalized email. On the other hand, a Boomer may want a phone call thanking them, etc.
Moral of the story--get to know your donors, get to know their generations and use that information. Listening to the donors and what they want is imperative to keep donors coming back to your organization.

More from NTEN

I have so much to say about Beth and Allison's "The Networked Nonprofit" session that I couldn't fit it all into just one post. Plus, I am trying to get up to Andrew Sullivan's suggested 20 posts in one day. I kid, I kid.

One of the other things that was talked about during the session was how transparency of an organization and how that impacts the communication strategy. Transparency is so important because there is so much competition for donors and so many competing organizations that being transparent has become increasingly important.

Being transparent will hopefully help organizations to figure out what their "competitive advantage" is. This sounds really business-y, but it's true. There are millions of nonprofits all competing for donors. If the nonprofit doesn't have a clear idea of where it is going and how it is getting there, it will not be spending donations most efficiently. Transparency within an organization gives it more accountability to the donors, and force the organizations to find their niches.

NTEN Conference, Part 2

At the remote conference at Convio, we were able to choose some of our sessions. There were a couple that I desperately wanted to go to, and luckily they were one of the ones chosen for Convio to stream. I geeked out a little bit over the fact that I was able to attend "The Networked Nonprofit," which was led by Allison Fine and Beth Kanter. I had read Allison's book "Momentum" and LOVED it, and pretty much every informational interview that I have ever gone on has recommended to follow Beth's blog, since she is THE expert on social media.

One of the biggest brain grapes that I got from this session was that "Listening is the gateway drug for social media." Whoa--this ties in to what Andrew Sullivan was saying about how blogging is a one-on-one conversation, that social media is really SOCIAL, it's not all a one way street. Listening does so many things for the social organization--it allows the organization to not only find where its constituents are, but also to figure out HOW to interact with them. The session talked about how there is a "great learning in reflection"--how organizations need to assess ideas, look and see what works and if they don't give them a "joyful funeral" to say goodbye.

But doing this means that there must be a culture of innovation, of not just forging ahead blindly, but figuring out what to do and giving it up if it's not working. That's a lot of pride to swallow. If this isn't part of the nonprofit's culture, taking small steps in that direction will definitely help--but big steps would probably be better. :)

my Tom's Shoes obsession and a Day without Shoes

Ok, like most females (and a portion of my male friends), I love shoes. At the risk of turning into one of those Sex and the City chicks, I will say shoes make me happy. If I'm feeling down, a pair of heels will literally give me the lift I need to get through the day.
Anyway, last week was Tom's Shoes "A Day without Shoes", which encouraged people to go without shoes for an entire day to raise awareness about those who do not have shoes at all. There are millions of people who are exposed to a variety of diseases through their feet because they don't have shoes. I had to work on the "Day without Shoes", but I rocked my red Tom's in solidarity with the cause.

Tom's did an AMAZING job promoting this cause through social media. They twittered, sent out reminders, talked about the t-shirts they had for sale (if you couldn't go shoeless), and asked for pictures of people who were going without shoes. They really turned this event into a "social" event--even though many of the connections that were made were virtual.

Great job!


Here's a pic of my Tom's on a recent outing to Austin's Mount Bonnell:

My new position--WOO HOO!!

I am extremely fortunate to announce that I am now the Director of Fundraising and Communications for Cadence Sports Online. This is a part time role, so I will still be able to look for jobs and move. My role at Cadence is EXACTLY what I want to be doing--I am writing the communications for a few of the events that Cadence is producing. This includes the fundraising encouragement letters, the registration pushes and the social media pushes for the events.

I am really excited about this opportunity because I will be able to look in depth at the emails and social media and how it will impact these events. One series has a fundraising minimum and the other doesn't--so it will be interesting to see how different reactions to different types of emails.

I am extremely lucky because both of the nonprofits that I am working with are forward looking and are willing to try different things. From my friends at other nonprofits, I have heard that the opposite is usually the case, so I am extremely fortunate to be working with organizations that aren't stuck in the mud.

One of the things that I am looking to do is to hit the $0 fundraisers...Most experts say that it is best to concentrate the focus on the participants that are already fundraising, rather than to focus on the ones that are at a $0 balance.

I don't believe in this--I think that there is a HUGE opportunity that we are missing. For an event that less than 20% of people are fundraising for, getting the remaining 80% to donate SOMETHING will hopefully make the sloooooowww cultural transition to making this event a fundraising event, not an awareness event. I have come up with a few different ideas and done some cost analysis on some of the different ways that we can recognize those who do donate, which will hopefully encourage others to do the same. My boss calls this "Shaming". I look at it the other way--we just need to do something that is fun and recognizable and will get people talking, which will hopefully translate into getting at least a portion of those $0 balance fundraisers raising some funds.

I will keep posting on any updates for the events, and how things will turn out with these great organizations!

the NTEN Conference, Part 1

Lucky for me I live in Austin (at least for the time being). On Friday, I was given the topportunity to go to the NTEN Remote conference at Convio. We were able to watch the plenary (I think that's the word) speaker, blogger Andrew Sullivan. It was very interesting to hear him speak--he addressed how to best interact with the audience and then he said something that rocked my world. He said that blogging really is a one-on-one conversation. This is such an interesting perspective on blogging (or writing in general). Most of the time when I write posts, I feel like it's being sent into the great unknown. I feel like I'm just sending my thoughts out into the great unknown. However, Andrew's thoughts on this make me realize that this is a much more intimate experience. Blogging really is a conversation with someone, and all of my many readers (thanks guys!) are able to get inside my head for a bit, just like having a conversation with someone.

Andrew also casually mentioned that we should be blogging about once an hour, every day. Umm..
Andrew has a medium sized country worth of followers. I don't. As much as I hope the people that read this like me, I dont think anyone wants that much information from me. If I wrote 20 posts a day, 10 of them would be mildly relevant, 3 would be interesting and 14 would be about brushing my teeth.
That being said, my schedule is allowing me a little more freedom to make more posts, so I will be trying to post more...just not 20 times a day :)