The slide deck for the presentation Debra has developed for this issue is here.

In particular, I love Debra’s phrase that the community engagement goals are aspirational.  Aspirational as a concept is forward-leaning, how can we move towards the communities we envision and hope for? How can we continue to dream about our communities without becoming discouraged or cynical (“why can’t ‘they’ just do what we want them to”)

NOW….let’s stretch the model once more. We have SMART goals for online community engagement, how do we connect them to larger social change goals? This is the work that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation presented last week. I think there is another layer here about how all of these online activities connect with, support, augment on land activities. I know that seems horrifying complicated, however, if we don’t connect the two than we have two spheres of activities that are unrelated and too often the online piece will take a back seat in terms of resources and attention internally.  How do we take both realms and move communities towards greater awareness and action for causes by clicking, volunteering, donating, organizing online and on land?

Certainly clear, easily understandable and thoughtful frameworks like Debra’s are a tremendous help pointing us in the right direction.

(It’s hard to see here, you should go and look at it on the RWJF’s blog post.)

I love the push the foundation is making to go beyond the busy-ness of social media to get to the “so what” of it for social change. As the Claire writes, “Although there has been substantial discussion among users of social media about how to measure social media use, it has primarily focused on how many people did something (e.g., visited a Web page, tweeted about a topic, etc.) or how many things were done (e.g., the number of tweets sent, page views, etc.). There has been very little discussion of evaluating the use of social media with an eye toward reaching strategic goals.”

I totally agree with that, I am concerned assessing the value of social media within the framework of a logic model. It’s certainly a great way to test assumptions and help folks drill down past bromides like “raising awareness” and “inspiration” but it misses the essence of what makes social media so unique, the serendipity and fun that are essential parts of “being” social.

In an article that is unfortunately behind the pay wall at the American Evaluation Association, Susan Kistler, the CEO of the AEA, writes about the impact of social media on nonprofit program evaluation. She writes, “Logic models and theories of action may be ill prepared to encompass multiple change-agents and the potential for network-driven shifts not only in structures, but in inputs, outputs and outcomes.”‘

I am delighted that RWJF is taking up this charge, and as Claire writes, this is just a beginning of a conversation that is going to take some time to unfold. I am very interested in see how it unfolds, particularly as it relates to measuring the value of networks not just their activities.

So, here, take a read.

I would love your comments there if you want to add something or push back. Enjoy!

Of course, the schools, all schools, need guidelines, but I have a few concerns with these guidelines (of course, you knew I would!) The first is that they need to be accompanied by training of school personnel and teachers, otherwise, they’re just going to be retroactive, cover-their-asses policies for the schools to punish teachers after something bad has happened. Second, they really are intended to make it very difficult for educators to engage with their students online, separate private and personal email accounts, privacy settings on networks like Facebook, be very, very careful about anything you say online and any friendships you make. What we know for certain is asking people to work in unnatural ways is just a prescription for telling them not to engage online – which is unrealistic for younger professionals and feeds into the paranoia of older workers.

Of course, we are dealing with an environment in which the chief cop of the school system, Richard Condon, reports over one hundred complaints about the behavior of teachers and other school personnel on Facebook over the past 18 months. But this is a hiring and training problem, not a social media problem. People do and say stupid things, I don’t know if that can be stopped, but I would work harder, if I was the king of the school system, to hire people who are less prone to ask girls their bra sizes on Facebook, and then to do intensive training once they are hired of what are and aren’t appropriate conversations to have with students.

There is a larger problem, though, with guidelines (actually more like restrictions) that are really aiming to separate teachers from students online, which is just how sad it is that we want to create a chasm between teachers and students. Last year, while working with the Avi Chai Foundation on their social media academy, I was impressed with how much the parents wanted their kids connected to teachers, particularly rabbis, outside of the classroom. These are exactly the adults they want their kids connected to socially. And yet, in the public school realm, we don’t trust teachers to interact with students outside of the classroom. I think this is a very sad state of affairs and something much more important to talk about than all of the supposed hazards of social media.

One news report on the fizzle described it this way: But paltry turnouts on Friday at locations across north America, Europe and Australia left cities largely unplastered and the movement’s credibility damaged. “What happened to all the fuss about Kony?” said one typical tweet. “Kony is so last month,” said another.

But I don’t think it’s a lack of interest in the cause, or that it’s so last month, or that there’s a backlash against Invisible Children. I think the organization overlooked a fundamental tenant of networked activism: do what you do best and network the rest. Invisible Children has spent years honing its expertise in online organizing. And it showed in the initial outburst of support associated with the video and tens of thousands of people signed up to participate Cover the Night (for instance, 30,000 signed up in Toronto alone.) I think it fizzled because on land organizing is simply not what Invisible Children does best. A better approach would have been to partner with an organization with the core competency of on land organizing, a group like Oxfam perhaps.

Too often, organizations that gain some momentum expand sideways and add new functions to along with their new found success. It’s a mistake and will inevitably tax their resources. An organization gains momentum because of what they do best, and very few organizations do everything well, particularly if the subject is worldwide organizing. Part of losing control and becoming more networked is to understand when it’s smart to partner with other organizations rather than try to everything alone. And, in the long run, it will be that much easier to contract, when things calm down as they inevitably will, rather than lay off staff.

I became intrigued with this notion yesterday and started to do a blog crawl to get a sense of what folks are thinking about in this regard. I started with this post, Proof That Facebook Fans are Worth More to Brands. What I found intriguing was the link to Augie Ray’s post that outlines how the cause and effect for Likes is a chicken and egg problem. He writes, “Cause and effect:  Which came first, the chicken or the egg?   Do Facebook fans spend more, or do people who spend more become fans?”

Seems logical to me that you wouldn’t Like a company or brand unless you already had a positive experience with them (unless your brother is the company founder and says you have to Like his page or you can’t come to Sunday dinner.)

I then took a peek at what the always-smart Frank Barry had to say about Facebook Likes and nonprofits. Frank’s post has a ton of good information including these gems:

1. A Facebook fan’s value is not the same as the cost of that fan’s acquisition.
2. A Facebook fan’s value is relative to his or her purchasing habits (and/or influence on others’ purchasing habits).
3. Each Facebook fan’s value is unique.
4. A Facebook fan’s value is likely to be elastic.
5. A Facebook fan’s value varies from brand to brand.

Frank linked to Olivier Blanchard’s outstanding post on the value of Facebook Likes. And there I saw something that really struck home for me. Olivier writes that there is an Indirect Value for Likes:

Indirect value: If a fan seems to be influencing other people in his or her network to become transacting customers (or increase their buy rate or yield), then you can factor that value in as well for those specific time-frames. Because measurement tools are not yet sophisticated enough to a) properly measure influence and b) accurately tie it to specific transactions, I wouldn’t agonize over this point a whole lot. As long as you understand the value of word-of-mouth, positive recommendations and the relative influence that community members exert on each other, you will hold some valuable insights into your business ecosystem. Don’t lose sleep trying to calculate them just yet. Too soon.

There was something missing to the posts I had read so far, really the heart of the matter for me. It’s not the value of an individual on a social network that’s important, it’s the value of the network.

The notion of creating a direct equation of how much it cost to get one person to Like a Facebook page and how much that person bought or gave as a result might satisfy the bean counters, but misses the larger point of why social media are so much more powerful than broadcast media. If you’re just looking for one, or ten, or one hundred thousand stand alone customers or donors, then there is no extra value in using social media. You could have just sent out a direct mail piece for that. The value in using social media is that every person, every Like, comes with their own network that can be activated in an instant, and at no additional cost, for the organization. And that value, the value of having an army of your  most ardent fans, affects far more than the development department.

Social media is more than a department or a function, it s a way of engaging with the world, it includes communications, advocacy, sales, fundraising. In fact, it’s hard to think of a function other than internal bookkeeping that isn’t affected by social media. The job of any organization is to widen and deepen the network of supporters, whether they are customers, donors or volunteers. The most efficient and effective way to do that right now is through online social networks. Online we can see the network, have conversations with participants in the network. These are the people who are going to tell their friends and family about the great work you do, share a video and help make it go viral, call you on it when you make a mistake, will you to do better in the future.

And what’s the value of that kind of network? Well, what’s the value of your entire enterprise?

We discussed three recent social justice/action issues that went viral: Komen/Planned Parenthood (full disclosure: Stephanie and I worked together on the #takebackthepink effort in reaction to Komen’s decision), KONY 2012, Trayvon Martin.

On the podcast, we discuss the why these particular events went viral, their common ingredients and lessons for other groups.

Also, this month, I added a fun quiz at the end of the podcast. Can you guess which state has the largest nonprofits per capital? The prize is a hearty pat on the back!

Editor’s Note: [This is still me, Allison, just seemed all grown up to call this an "Editor's Note"] The answer to the quiz according to these data from the National Center on Charitable Statistics is Montana! Basically, there’s about a nonprofit per person in the Big Sky state.

The report notes that online giving is increasing, that online donors tend to be younger than direct mail donors and give less initially. But here’s the kicker, the data from 28 major national nonprofit organizations indicates that these organizations take the online donors and transition them to direct mail donors.

Hang on!

These organizations take new donors who came in online and put them in the direct mail slot? Why? I asked Frank Barry of Blackbaud that question. He agreed it sounded crazy, but the facts are that donors who convert from online to direct mail end up giving three times more. Given these data the desire to convert donors to direct mail makes sense – but only in the short run.

I hope organizations will take a longer view, which is that donors are capable of giving more online, but we need to get more intentional about how we engage them in conversation and action, and give them compelling reasons to give. Continuing to convert them to direct mail will ultimately be counter-productive because the cost of direct mail is very high, losing donors when they move is an industry hazard, and keeps donors in a tiny giving silo as opposed to enabling them to become doers, connectors, creators and fundraisers for causes.

Maybe his online and on land giving conversion is just a blip in time, part of the large transition we’re making, or at least I sure hope it is.

The arc of awareness of this issue moved along a fairly predictable path: an outrageous crime is committed, the local fortresses are unresponsive, key players, in this case Trayvon’s parents, use the social media megaphone to share their story and demand justice, the networks begin to fire and a cycle of protests, petitions, blogs, and celebrity Tweets create mainstream media attention and on land protests.

It’s become the way protests begin and are carried forward, and it works.

I just saw a small paragraph in USA Today that I thought was an interesting addition to this mix. The item is in the sports section and is entitled, “ESPN Reversal.” The gist of it is that employees at ESPN were expressing their support of the effort to bring Zimmerman to justice, or at least to trial, by posting pictures of themselves in hoodies, the symbol of solidarity with Trayvon’s family, on Twitter. The immediate reaction of ESPN was to order them to stop. And then they reversed themselves after internal discussion. As the head of ESPN said, “It’s a tragic situation that’s led to much thoughtful discussions throughout the company.”

MediaBistro has more on ESPN’s decision here.

What I find fascinating about this issue is the possibility that we’re inching towards large institutions beginning with an internal conversation that leads to a policy decision on how social media should be used personally by employees, rather than the de facto alarm, shut down, calm down, it’s OK, the sky-isn’t-falling concession. Social media policies are never going to cover all of the possibilities in this fast moving world, and the hope is that employees will learn to use their common sense when using even their own channels when their affiliation with their company is public, but, we also need a new default setting within organizations that has senior staff begin with a conversation about what makes them uncomfortable about certain uses of personal channels and allows employees an opportunity to respond and find common ground.

And wouldn’t that common ground be a great place for all organizations to set as a goal to find over the next year? We’re all figuring how to use social media organizationally together, in real-time, and this is one more example of an organization becoming more authentic and agile.

Certainly rings familiar to us folks who have been researching, writing, and talking for a few years on ways to help organizations transition from traditional command and control models to networks. It reminded of the Working Wikily model the Monitor Institute developed a few years ago of how networks work.

I’ve been thinking there might be a pre-step to Rich’s model. I was asked a few month’s ago whether I could develop a list of questions a group could ask itself to see how “fortressy” they were. So, here’s a start, I need to think more about how to score the answers to these questions, so open to help from you all on that.

How Fortressy Are We?

• How comfortable is senior management with staff speaking as themselves on social media channels?

Not a chance! They’ll let one or two people speak for us. They’re starting to let more people communicate. We’re all on the channels.

• How often do you hear the phrase, “That isn’t professional behavior” in your organization?

Every hour! Every day. Most days. Almost never. Absolutely never, but we don’t wear shoes, either.

• Your communications about your organization focus on how unique and successful you are.

Of course, we have to raise money. Usually, our board expects it. Sometimes. Not often. Never.

• How concerned are you in revealing your decision-making to the world?

Very concerned, somewhat, a little, not much, not at all.

• What do we do when someone criticizes us?

Freak out! Call in the crisis management people. Spend a day worrying about it. Let the intern respond. Has someone criticized us?

• Are your measures of success based largely on the number of people who participate in our efforts?

Of course! Largely. Evenly split with other measures. We never count heads or beds. Who measures success (don’t tell anyone)?

Let me know what you think of the questions/measures and what you would add or delete.