Sports teams have long had "fanatics" - as have celebrities and other well known characters.  In my gaming days we referred to them as "fanbois". These days, as I watch human behaviours on social networks, I see no shortage of those same characteristics for companies, bloggers, popular Twitter personalities and more.

Today Apple launched its iPad.  I see a larger, iTouch with very minor improvements. I certainly don't see anything impressive, innovative or magical.  I don't see my life being made any more convenient than it is today.  I will still need my laptop and a blackberry or iPhone.  It's a cool toy - that will undoubtedly be useful to people who don't need all the functionality of a laptop.

The iPad is all the rage for some fanbois and fanatics.  I keep hearing things like "this is the future of mobile".  From my perspective, it's nothing I can't get in an iPhone... and an iPhone is also a phone!  Lets face it, this is something most people don't need.  However, the beauty of having fanatics and fanbois is that you can do anything and they will love it... and they will give you their money.  Fans are also fabulous because they passionately support you.  In difficult times, they will stick with you and talk about your good work.  They are your champions.  On the other hand, if you're the unfortunate person who happens to upset the fans... you'd better pull out your virtual armor.  You could be seriously, (albeit virtually) subjected to some very unpleasant comments.

Apple is just one example.  A few others that I've witnessed in recent days involve a Vanity Fair article which referred to some female twitter personalities using unflattering language, the issues surrounding Wyclef Jean's charity, Yele Haiti and another incident where a fundraiser made some well reasoned critcisms of a popular blogger whose fundraising efforts had been lackluster.  In at least two of these cases, there were some very difficult days for the parties involved. 

In the worst situations, this can reach unthinkable proportions on the internet.  Blog comments will fly by at a frenzied pace, Twitter hash-tags will light up, facebook wall comments will scroll by the hundreds (or thousands) and if you're on the receiving end of the fan fury, you may find yourself up against what feels like an unstoppable force.  Do not think that this won't reach the traditional media or your donors. It can and your phone lines and email inbox will be next.  I don't say this to discourage people from communicating online, but rather to understand the potential pitfalls and to be prepared should they occur.

As with all things internet, be cautious of what you say.  Always have a communications plan to deal with a potential Twitter-storm or other potential social media unrest.  Don't disregard those early signs of discontent online.  It's far better to acknowledge it and address it, than it is to ignore it.

Apple has done a remarkable job of cultivating an impressive following of fanatics. Steve Jobs is not trying to be all things to all people.  He's built a remarkable community and he makes products for that community.  As a result, that community sticks with him and each time he creates something, that dedicated group of fans will buy it - whatever it is.  Go Steve!

What has your charity done to build a fan-base of dedicated, loyal supporters who will donate every time you ask, and who will stick with you through difficult days and challenging times?  There is value to be found in those people - when cultivated well and managed appropriately. 

I won't repeat the content here - the authors did a great job on their own.  I recommend you check them out.  Mark Rovner at Sea Change Strategies says "the donor pyramid is a lie".  And I think he's right.  Steve McLaughlin at Blackbaud takes a different approach and calls it "an unfulfilled promise".

I think they're both right.  The reality is - a good many major gifts come from friends "nudging" friends and not from within the mass market donor pool.  These people definitely care about the charities they support, but they are also extracting personal benefits from supporting the influential friend who asked them to contribute.  It's a very real, very successful formula for major gift fundraising.  However, it also presents sustainability challenges.

Charities have managed to succeed for decades by mailing heartfelt letters and blasting them out hoping for a return.  It's the equivalent of an impersonal cold call.  Guess what?  Cold calling is dead in the corporate world.  Professional salespeople today rarely use cold calls to connect. The ROI is horrendous and it's an horrible waste of an organization's resources. Generating and following up warm leads is where time and effort is better spent. Warm leads can come from a variety of sources.  They can come to you from referrals (usually happy customers - i.e. your board members & donors), people who have come to your website, attend an event, subscribe to your newsletter, participate in advocacy, or any other opportunity you create that allows people to express their interest in your organization (or product). 

Warm leads come to you from all parts of your organization and to identify them, your organization needs to have an integrated infrastructure and strong communications across departments... and it needs to make their idenfication a priority.

When you have a warm lead, you meet with the person, you identify their interests, needs, concerns... some might say you identify their pain.  You may give them samples of your product (or service) and have them use it for months (a "pilot"), you invite them to conferences you put on, you take them to lunch; you demonstrate your ability to solve the problem that causes their pain and make them happy.  In some industries you may spend 1 - 2 years (depending on the size and scope fo the sale) before you ask for their business. 

I don't know many charities who will do that with the contacts in their database?  Does your organization have someone dedicated to visiting your donors - of all sizes?  The "data driven" people will tell you that they have ways to help you find those folks who are most capable of making larger gifts, and they can certainly help.  However, there are many people out there that won't show up using traditional data mining techniques and it's going to take more time and money than most charities are willing to spend to find and communicate with those donors.

Charities do a great job of identifying problems and helping people feel the pains of the world.  Unfortunately, they are horrible at selling their solutions to those problems.  In many charities, the entire organizational infrastructure works against doing that successfully.  Fundraising is the ugly redheaded stepchild - tossed scraps now and then, but expected to perform. It is underfunded and is often kept in a silo, separate from programs, communications and other key areas of the charity.  Until charities prioritize fundraising on an equal footing with their charitable mission, they will continue to fail at connecting with donors and making them feel like they are an important part of the solutions that the charity offers.  And they will fail at moving people up the donor pyramid. 

The donor pyramid works in theory and in those precious few organizations who implement cultivation well.  Unfortunately, the donor pyramid can't work without proper funding, infrastructure and an organization with a culture that views fundraising and donors as a priority.  Most people who talk about the donor pyramid, neglect to mention that most organizations won't be willing to prioritize their culture and infrastructure in a way that makes the donor pyramid work... and that's where we find the Big Lie.  

Happy New Year!

I've neglected my blog for awhile. I don't like to write unless I feel really compelled to say something.  Today, I got the feelin'. 

While many charities are sitting around grappling with how to "do social media" and whether development or communications should be managing it; and while you're working on writing "social media strategies" and getting board approval - the world is changing.  We're a collegial bunch and we like to take our time, compromise and make everyone happy.  That's really nice, but sometimes we just need to "go". The world is moving fast and it's going with or without us. Jen Love, at Agents for Good recently wrote a great post about these types of situations. Feel free to check it out here.

By the time these types of charities decide to stop talking and start doing, something else will come along and they'll have to start much of it all over again.  What will that be?  I don't know exactly, but I suspect it will be mobile.  If you're not looking at how to make an app for iPhone, Blackberry, Android, and other new technologies, you're missing the boat.  We're moving around with our technology today and charities can learn to move with people or get left behind.

Kindle editions of books are now outselling print books. The new tablet from Apple is rumoured to be close to a laptop in terms of functionality, but portable enough to compete with ebook readers.  Unlike social media and other surfing type activities, ebook technologies involve an activity where people are spending time focusing and absorbing.  How can charities take advantage of that?  I don't know - but I bet the charities who try to find the answer (and test a few things) will do really well.

Are your staff mobile?  Are they tweeting or posting fun things on facebook as they drive around and meet donors, attend events, or deliver your programs?  Can they work from home if there's a snow storm or their transportation is delayed or cancelled?  Alot of great work is happening outside of your office - people work, socialize, live and engage online while they are on the move.  Is your charity on the move with them... or is it laying back and hoping that people look up and notice it.  Do you really think they'll notice you amidst the millions of charities who are also hanging around waiting to be noticed? 

This isn't about changing the core of who and what charities are. We still have to deliver meaningful well crafted messages and build relationships, as Ken Burnett points out in his most recent blog. However, you can't build a relationship with someone who doesn't know you exist. And people won't know you exist if you're sitting in your office hoping they notice you. Get mobile and join the world where it lives... out there ===>

P.S. In case Ken happens to read this, I apologize in advance for my horrendous grammar and punctuation (and possibly a type-o or two). Sorry Ken!

P.P.S. If you'd like to make an iPhone app and you don't have much money or the tech skills to do it? Beth Kanter just posted a great deal for an easy iPhone app maker here. Go get it!

With the increasing popularity of social media, we are now being inundated with people calling themselves "Social Media Experts". 

Give. Me. A. Break!

What makes you a social media expert? I've asked several people to show me how they've raised quantifiable & significant sums of money via social media. Nobody has been able to show me this across multiple organizations in any consistent manner. 

If you're an expert, you should be able to show me that you've applied your knowledge in a way that will allow others to use your skills and knowledge and achieve similar results to your past results. Certainly there are a few people who have enjoyed success in fundraising or in generating campaigns with significant ROI in some areas.  But for the most part, these social media experts can't show any real consistency in the performance across the various campaigns and/or industries. 

It's not the technology - it's how people engage with the technology!

This recent article on "Digital Anthropology" from CNN, touches on the real issue.  So much time is put into the technology part of social media.  We spend all kinds of resources studying how communities interacted yesterday with the technology that is available at that time.  That may be helpful for your social media efforts - but it may also be detrimental.

At it's core social media is all about the people who USE the media.  You can create a community and expect that it will be used in a specific way, but once the people arrive and begin interacting, they are the ones who decide how they want to use it and how it best suits their preferences, needs and enjoyment. What people did yesterday isn't always a great predictor of how they will act today - when the influences impacting their lives change daily. I am NOT suggesting that we shouldn't attempt to learn from the past.  By all accounts, we can and do repeat our behaviours fairly reliably when things remain mostly the same.  However, the online world has the ability to change more frequently and quickly.

Predicting the Unpredictable

We know that when people gather enmasse - anything can happen.  Look at the recent Iran Elections.  Who would've expected the people of Iran to use Twitter as their way of bypassing the media blackout?  Who would've  expected that all the major news organizations would be relying on Twitter to share the news?

In recent talks with colleagues and peers, I've repeatedly stated that the best (and perhaps most important) social media strategy includes having a single individual responsible for the strategy and who is also personally engaged and communicating on your various social media platforms. Why?  Because whatever you plan to happen, may well not happen.  You have no idea what people are going to want and need from your organization until people begin using it. 

You can plan and guide their interaction with you - but you need to be able to change course, if they start telling you they want something else.  You need to respond. You need adapt. You need to recognize that social media is whatever the people using it want it to be.  It's not what you want it to be. 

The organizations who have successful social media programs, will be the ones who thoughtfully respond to the needs and preferences of their audience/s - quickly, respectful and enthusiastically. 

How can anyone be an expert in what hasn't happened yet? 

It certainly helps to be aware of what has worked and failed for others - but don't depend on it too much.  Be aware, but, don't be tied to it and don't expect that because it worked well yesterday, it will work great tomorrow (for you or any other organization).

Nothing will be the same tomorrow.  It will be a new day. Attitudes may be different. The weather can change. The economy could boom (or bust). The people may change! Someone will have a baby. Someone will lose someone they love. The technology could change.

Your Social Media Expert is going to be the person who knows your people best and who can have an honest and open dialogue with all of those people as the world around us all changes day to day. 

It's about relationships folks... 

If your Social Media Expert doesn't have a relationship with your people, what exactly are they an expert in?  And how on earth are they going to help you, if they don't have a relationship with the people who want to speak with you? 

Recently Michael J. Fox announced that his Michael J Fox Foundation now has charitable tax exempt status in Canada.  Now I like Michael Fox.  He seems a nice guy.  But did we really need yet another charity in Canada?  Particularly one that isn't employing Canadians?

Last I checked we have somewhere in excess of 84,000 charities in Canada. So many of them are doing the same things or addressing similar causes. Why can't charities work together more?  Does the city of Toronto need 5+ cat rescue charities? Do we need umpteen dog rescues for each and every breed? Wouldn't we be better off pooling administration, volunteers and growing, cooperating and coordinating between each other?  How many charity water related orgs do we have?

To be fair, there are some important differences in what these charities and how they do it - but why couldn't charities organize themselves to do this unique work under shared parent organizational structures?

Saturation & Population

With 33 million people in Canada and 84K charities, we're exhausting people and (I think) confusing people.  Corporations would've merged and acquired - but I think charities get too caught up in "doing it their way" to recognize the benefits of working together.  Perhaps this is one of the flaws of the existing charitable status process in Canada.  With less 50% of charities earning revenues of 30K or less, I have to wonder if we could be doing a better job by pooling resources, expertise, administration and talent.

I don't have the answer to making this happen and which charities should and should not combine their efforts, but it seems to me that some great causes aren't achieving their full potential because we're not ensuring our best efforts are working together for the good of those causes.

Words YOU Should Use

Those of us who have taken marketing, PR and/or advertising courses, will recall the term "power words". We've seen how using the correct words and phrases can sell products, get people elected and change perceptions.

Dan Zarrella has done a great job of looking at what words, phrases, punctuation and parts of speech will get you "retweeted".  We'll get a look at the full report tomorrow.  For today, check out Dan Macsai's summary: 9 most effective ways to get retweeted. 

Big surprises for me?

1. The utter distaste we seem to have for TinyURL's
2. Help - seems to work well here, which is contrary to what we're told is effective in direct response.
3. Higher Reading Levels & more punctuation = more RT's. Again contrary to our DM teaching, which would tell us to be as simplistic as possible.

Not so surprising for me are the words that continue to resonate... You, Please, How To, Free etc.

How will you 'retweet' this story, based on this article?

Ken Burnett Made Me Think - Damnit!

Recently, Ken Burnett wrote a blog prompting us to think more about what we write on Twitter.  I thought his provocative blog overlooked some key points, so being the shy, unassuming kind of person I am, I wrote to him to share my thoughts. Ken posted an excellent summary of our exchange here.

I highly recommend you read both of the above links.  It gave me much pause for thought, not only about my personal and professional use of Twitter, but also about human behaviour, media and the recent trends we're seeing around the world.

I Like Gibberish!

I really do.  I enjoy seeing inside people's lives.  And lets be honest here... so does much of the world! Take a look at Reality TV. Whether it's Big Brother, The Biggest Loser, The Bachelor/Bachelorette and the list goes on and on. People are watching this stuff in droves. Twitter lacks the drama (for the most part) that is often provided on Reality TV, but it's real and people can connect and peek into each others lives in some way. I wonder if the same thing that drives the masses to watch that kind of TV, is also behind Twitter behaviour?

I Am NOT Just a Gibberish Junkie... Honest!

While I will admit to watching The Bachelorette and Gene Simmons Family Jewels, I'm also a huge fan of keeping informed by reading & watching various news sources, as well as a variety of trade magazines, books, blogs etc.  Twitter, in its own way lets me have access to both of these - great content and lglorious gibberish.  But what's the right balance?  Reality TV is a guilty pleasure. It's something you whisper quietly to people you trust not to judge you when you say... "I like that show". Unless of course you say so in your blog!

How Much Should I Tweet?

According to several sources that  I've looked up on the web, the optimal number of tweets per day is about 10 - 20 tweets. Here's one link.  MrTweet tells me that I tweet an average of 15 per day.  So I'm optimal right?  Well... no.  For some I tweet too much.  Is that good or bad? I guess it depends on who it bothers and who enjoys it. And is it the quantity or the quality?  For some the conversational and sometimes inane tweets I share are "gibberish".  For others they are fun, friendly and allow them to get to know me better.  It really depends on what your followers are looking for.  If you have a lot of followers with different expectations and goals, then it becomes increasingly difficult to please everyone.

What's A Twitterer To Do?

I don't know. I could make multiple accounts.  Currently I tweet from @laurie_pringle and @alscanada.  Many of the folks who follow me on ALS Canada, also follow me on my personal account.  Should I create yet another just for friends and buddies who might enjoy the more gibberish stuff I post?   I don't think so.  I really do believe that eliminating that aspect of the twitter experience makes twitter dull and lifeless.  Not to mention, managing 3 accounts isn't something I want to do right now, at least not for the sole purpose of separating out personal tweets.

My Current Thinking

So here's my current, but subject to change, thinking.  I'm going to give a moments pause to my tweets before I post them.  I'll ask myself the following:

• How much have I tweeted today?
• Is this better sent via Direct Message?
• Is it likely to be fun, interesting, helpful, or even minimally notable to anyone?
• What do the people who follow me care about and expect from me?

Some of these are hard to answer and it may or may not change the way I tweet, but at least I'm thinking. I still believe we're getting too caught up in some old "best practices" that aren't helpful or applicable to social media. It's really easy to ignore a tweet that I don't care about and I'd rather have more to ignore, if it means I enjoy more great fun and great content. However, some of those best practices are bloody good and even helpful to our goals and efforts in social media, whether they be personal or professional.

Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear!

My father bought me a sign for my desk that said that when I was 10.  That goes to show you how our character traits are established long before we hit adulthood :)

So I'm going take a lesson from my Dad - about 30 years later. And I'm going to think a bit more, before I tweet. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, changes in my twitter experience and if change occurs, how it impacts my twitter experience and the experience of those who follow me and ALS Canada.

Have a tremendous Tuesday!

P.S. I should also add a big thanks to Ken Burnett.  I was a bit hesitant to email him (but far too stubborn not to) due to his notoriety. He is fun and very gracious. Not quite the ominous figure I thought I might find.  Thank you Ken!

I was pleasantly surprised this week to discover that this blog was included in a listing of 100 Incredible Philanthropy Blogs.

Not only am I very grateful to be included on this list, I'm also delighted to find that amongst several blogs I already follow, this listing has pointed me to several new blogs that I will add to my regular reading list. 

Take a moment to check it out and you may also find some great new thinking and resources about the charitable sector and philanthropy.

One more quick shout out to Donnie Claudino and his new venture: Cause to Market Canada.  Donnie has just launched his Cause to Market Canada blog. No doubt you'll find some great cause related marketing stuff as he gets up and running.   Feel free to follow him on Twitter @DonnieClaudino.

As the world changes at an exponential pace - it's critical that the non profit industry thinks and moves in new ways.  Staying informed is the best way to stay ahead. 

Happy Saturday!

In my last blog, I promised to discuss my thoughts on Mashable's Summer of Social Good. I may be stirring up a hornets nest, but it's OK, I have an EpiPen!

On June 20th's Mark Phillips from Blue Frog, wrote a blog on Mashable's Summer of Social Good. I agree, in large part with Mark's comments. However, I think there's something more missing that Mark didn't address.

Where's the passion?

Where's the connection?

Where's the beef?

Summer of Social Good has some of the most well connected social media personalities, combined with some of the largest and most well known charities in the world and the results are lackluster at best. here's what I think is missing, in addition to Mark's excellent suggestions:

Passion!

I don't get the sense that any one at Mashable really cares about these causes. I don't see any real passion for any of the causes. Perhaps I'm wrong? Perhaps because there are 4 different charities, with no real connection to social media or technology, it's just not obvious? 

Consistency 

There's no consistency in the message. Again, with 4 different causes, it's difficult to create consistency. We do have a social media for social good message - but none of these charities have an obvious connection to that topic, so it seems disjointed and lacks any real impact.  What do these organizations have to do with Mashable? Why should we care? Why does Mashable care? What is the uniting factor here? 

Connection

As I understand it, these charities were chosen for their broad appeal to Mashable's readers, followers and fans. They are familiar brands and causes. Everyone knows them and understands them. Familiarity isn't enough. It certainly doesn't mean people will give. It's easy for people on the web to point to a familiar charity and cause and say "yep that's important, I care about that", but that doesn't necessarily translate into action.

Inspiration

People give when they're inspired. They are most often inspired by someone who is passionate about a cause and who has a genuine desire to share their passion. There's no obvious passion, consistency or connection between these causes and Mashable. People don't appear to be feeling inspired. Why does this matter to Mashable? How is it relevant to them? Why do they personally care? Why are they so inspired by their charity partners that they want to inspire us? 

My Vision:

Rather than just critique, I'd like to suggest what I think might be a potentially outstanding alternative for the Summer of Social Good campaign. (full disclosure - I work for the ALS Society of Canada)

• Pick 1 cause - ALS (aka Lou Gehrig's Disease)
• Pick 4 or 5 ALS charities in different countries. (social media is global, make the initiative global)
• Coordinate and integrate the messaging, goals, tasks and strategy amongst all the participating charities and the Mashable team.

This provides an incredible direct link that people who use social media can understand and connect with.  They use social media every single day for their own socializing. They're passionate about it. They understand social media relationships. It's a topic that fits with Mashable's content and passions.

People with ALS would be delighted to get involved and communicate on facebook, twitter and other platforms. Just as we get to know each other and make "friends" through our social network activities, people following the Summer of Social Good campaign would have a direct connection to the people that are asking them to help find a cure.

Relationships would be built. Connections would be made and people would experience their ability to make a difference through social media. What a concept!

ALS organizations struggle for media coverage. It's not "sexy".  I know that our organization would gladly provide support and work with all partners to ensure an integrated campaign that inspires, educates, informs and raises funds.

This is the basic formula that Mashable needs to create a meaningful movement: Passion, consistency, connection, and inspiration.

You can't fake these key ingredients, but when you have them, you can inspire the world... and thus far, the Summer of Social Good is uninspired and just doesn't feel like it fits. If Mashable can embrace a cause that has these key ingredients and then adds Mark Phillips' excellent ideas, they'll have an enormously successful Summer of Social Good.

I'm beginning to feel like my blog on this topic is becoming as repetitive as The Agitator's many sarcastic blogs on the Direct Mail is Dead topic. Perhaps if I say this 10 different ways, someone will hear it. Then again maybe not... but what the hell, I'm going to keep trying.

Twitter is NOT Direct Response

Let me repeat this. Twitter is NOT Direct Response! Don't treat it like direct response. It's not your cash cow. It's not your space to raise big dollars. There will be SOME charities who are well suited to running a good twitter campaign on Twitter and raise some direct dollars.  However, most charities won't be able to log on to their twitter account, ask for money and receive it. It doesn't work that way.

Look at Mashable's Summer of Social Good. These guys are some of the foremost experts on social media. Thus far, they've raise just over $8000.00 to be split between 4 charities. These are large well known charities, partnering with some of the most well connected social media personalities around. It's not doing well. And there's a good reason for that - which I'll discuss in a later blog.

Do you want to be monetized?

Lets look at this more closely shall we? Would you send out a Direct Mail to your donors and ask them how we can monetize them? Charity and not for profit professionals are posting on Twitter and social networking sites all over the place asking how to monetize their supporters. Guess whose seeing that? Your supporters!

Do you approach your major donors, corporate sponsors, volunteers or any other constituency and ask them how you can monetize them? NO - you'd alienate them immediately! 

Nobody wants to be "monetized" as an individual. How many conferences, courses, seminars etc. have you attended that review the motivations for giving? Have any of them said - people are dying to be monetized?  NO!

Engage, Inspire, & Empower Champions!

Twitter and social media is the place where your supporters hang out. It's a social space, like a local pub, a community gathering place or anywhere else that people congregate to laugh, talk, share stories, information and otherwise be.... social!

Do you remember Herb Tarlek, the corny, cheesy, sales guy everyone hated on WKRP in Cincinnati?  When you wander into social media spaces and ask about monetizing your supporters you become Herb.

People can smell a Herb Tarlek 10 miles away. Do NOT become a Herb! The corporate world moved away from the Herb Tarlek approach decades ago.  And the charitable and not for profit world appears to moving close to it.

Stop it - now! Stop talking about "monetizing social media" on social media. Your donors are there. Your clients are there. Your supporters, champions and friends are there. How much respect are you showing for these people when you refer to them in these terms?

Personally, I'm not giving to any charity who asks me for money without getting to know me. And they can all get to know me on social media. It doesn't take much. Send me some information, retweet something I've said, laugh at a funny link i've posted. COMMUNICATE WITH ME. 

STFU About Monetizing People

Just so I am clear.  People aren't cash cows. Nobody likes to be considered solely as a dollar figure.

See this guy to the left? Charities are looking more like greedy Mr. Burns than charities. When you talk about monetizing Twitter (or any other social media) you're talking about monetizing PEOPLE!

We're supposed to care about our supporters. We have missions that usually include spreading awareness about our cause and raising funds to help us achieve our mission. If we share information, listen to people. communicate WITH them, EARN their respect, admiration, and trust, they will be inspired to act and become champions. It's not a short term "ask and receive" proposition.  If you really want to monetize people - get out of the charitable sector and become one of those multilevel marketing folks.

Waiting it out

Do you expect an acquisition mailing to be immediately profitable? Do you expect a newly launched Major Gift program to be immediately profitable? Do you launch any kind of business or charitable venture (except perhaps an event, which I would argue is often not at all profitable) to be immediately profitable? NO! Anything we do that is worth doing tends require initial investment, hard work, effort, relationship building and much more before it produces results. 

If you're sitting back and waiting for someone to create a magic "monetization" template, you will miss the boat forever. The organizations who succeed at this aren't doing it over night. They've jumped in and invested and learned how it fits and works for them. They invested in people.

Back To Basics: Love Your People!

If you love your people and you treat them like the good people they are... If you take genuine pleasure in communicating with them on social networks - you're ahead of the game. There are many things you can do to maximize your IMPACT on social networks. Many ways to inspire, engage and empower champions and emerging champions - but before that happens, you have to respect them and love them.

Step one in demonstrating your genuine appreciation for people - is to stop talking about them in terms of monetization.  Have I said this often enough yet?

I'll share more steps later - but lets see how many of you can observe step one for awhile, before we go further.

So in short - today's lesson is:

1. Social media isn't a thing - it is people.
2. People are nice and want to be inspired and help.
3. People don't want to be monetized and get really pissed when you talk that way about them.
4. If you view people as "monetization" you suck and your charity will suffer.
5. If you love people, respect people and treat them like people - you rock and your charity will thrive.

Thank you and have a great day!