You've seen "social media" paired with "not profit" a lot lately, but usually in the context of Facebook's and Twitter's valuations. Nobody writes about social media and the real non-profits - the ones that are that way by design, not by design flaw.
If you think it's hard selling actual products and services during a recession, imagine what it's like to be a non-profit, whose donation machines rely largely on people and corporations willing to pay actual cash for - I won't say "nothing," but I will say "nothing tangible."
Non-profits are tapping into corporate sponsors with a truncated value proposition: "Donate to us, and then you can tell whoever you want that you've donated to us." Yes, the non-profits provide some sponsorship exposure and promotions, but they're not in the media business. It's really up to their sponsors to tout their support of a non-profit's cause, and generate goodwill from their own customers in the process. You can position it as a privilege for those who have donated, but in this economy it's going to be perceived as a burden.
It shouldn't be. I think non-profits actually should be in the media business. How? There are thousands of blogs and small websites published by people who support each non-profit's cause, with varying enthusiasm. They have a unique opportunity to cobble these sites together into a vertical advertising network designed largely (maybe even solely) to support their corporate sponsors.
Building a vertical ad network can be done on a shoestring budget, and by one person. And the result is that non-profits would be able to deliver on behalf of their corporate partners millions of brand impressions per month, all within the context of the cause they champion. Even more importantly, these websites are more than pixels on a screen - they represent individuals. People who share their beliefs and can be mobilized to act as ambassadors on their behalf, or on the behalf of their sponsors.
Most vertical ad networks reward participating publishers with a revenue share, but in the case of non-profits I think recognition would go much further than reward. And if reward is necessary, it need not be monetary, and it need not be the same value as the media the participating site generated. An exclusive $8 t-shirt might be warmly received in exchange for $500 worth of media generated on a supporter's blog.
Is this the right solution for every non-profit?
Dunno. But the better question is whether what worked last year is likely to work again in 2009.
E-venting.net launched in the fall of 2006 as a catalog of advice largely for PR firms, speakers bureaus and trade marketers to aid them in their efforts at landing speaking gigs and getting the most out of them. I was uniquely qualified to offer this perspective, programming and producing events for the Interactive Advertising Bureau, MediaPost, IAB Canada, WOMMA, Sympatico/MSN and others. Over the course of about 3 years, I put over 500 speakers on stage, and also ran the marketing programs that put about 20,000 butts in seats.
That was plenty of conference work for me, and I have since moved away from the events business.
These days I focus mostly on marketing strategy and strategic communications. My bio and resume here will give you all the details if you're interested. It's a very different job, though only one or two short shuffle-steps away from where I was. Whether I'm identifying which topics are worthy of on-stage discussion at a conference, or writing a by-lined article for publication in an industry trade, or consulting on strategic communications, or building out a vertical ad network, the objective is always the same - to connect communities around content.
How, exactly, I'll cover all this is a work in progress. But it's what I'm thinking about, and what I'm making my living at, so is what I'll be writing about here.
Hope it's of some use to you.
I'm more than just a geek. I'm actually two geeks - an Events geek and a Social Media geek. So when Freewebs asked me to produce a conference for them on Widget Marketing, I happily accepted, and WidgetCon was born.
You've seen widgets - they're those little mini-applications that are all over the social media web: slide shows, games, music playlists, YouTube players, etc. All these are widgets. You probably have some on your own blog.
WidgetCon is about how advertisers can use widgets as a new type of media. Which is interesting and all, and I'm doing the programming for it. But what's more interesting (at least to this audience I trow) is the widget we created for the conference:
Introducing the world's first Conference Registration Widget:
Here's what it does:
We put the WidgetCon Widget into a WidgetCon website, but it's also distributed all over the web. And that's its magic, really - distributed content. Wherever it shows up online - on this blog, on speakers' blogs, on ad agencies' corporate intranets, whatever - the entire conference has a presence there, not just an ad banner and a link. It tells a pretty complete picture of what the event looks like, invites interactivity, and encourages participation. And because the event is on Widget Marketing, it's naturally an ideal proof-of-concept of the show topic.
But it's also something I can see show producers getting behind no matter what their focus is.
So try it - monkey around with it, turn it over in your head, even put it on your own sites if you want by simply clicking on the "Get This!" button. Would love to hear your thoughts.
So it's officially 'Holiday Season' again, the time of year when the call to do-some-good-in-the world is a little louder and more frequent than usual. But this year to me feels a little different - like more people are listening, and accepting the invitation. Maybe it's just me and a case of Yellow VW Beetle Syndrome (once you notice one, you suddenly see them everywhere), but it seems like a bigger movement than ever this season.
I could list a dozen examples, but will refer specifically to what Shop.org is doing with Cyber Monday. They coined the term a couple of years ago to designate the online equivalent of 'Black Friday' - the day after Thanksgiving that officially kicks off holiday shopping, and on which retailers move from the red to the black for the year. Cyber Monday is the following Monday - Today - and is the day that traditionally posts huge online shopping numbers. Largely a PR initiative, Cyber Monday was created to call some attention to the rise in e-commerce and certainly to position it among shoppers as a stress-free alternative to mall madness.
But what's interesting this year is that Shop.org has coupled the initiative with a cause. CyberMonday.com is an online mall created by Shop.org which features deals by over 400 retailers. Shop.org receives a commission for everything sold through the mall, and the commissions all drop straight into the Ray M. Greenly Scholarship Fund. Ray worked at Shop.org until a battle with cancer ultimately claimed his life. The scholarship was set up in his memory, and funds students embarking on Interactive Marketing and E-Commerce careers.
Shop.org is a former client of mine, so when Scott Siverman (Shop.org Executive Director) asked me to mention the initiative here, naturally I wanted to comply. Apologies if it's off-topic a bit, but I'll try to tie it back here:
Congratulations. You were invited, accepted or otherwise negotiated for a speaking role at an upcoming conference. Obviously, you're going to do some preparation to make sure you know the topic and are prepared to make the most of your stage time. But to take full advantage of the opportunity speakers need to realize that what the audience in their sessions hear them say is just a fraction of the value they can gain from an event. Here's how to take a wide-angle view of your next gig in order to squeeze as much value as possible out of it:
On September 11, 2001 I had just begun running Events for Jupiter Media Metrix, after working with the company for a couple of years as an analyst. The first show scheduled that I was responsible for was on Web Technologies in San Francisco, on September 12, 2001.
Danny Lewin, Founder and CTO of Akamai Technologies, was the keynote for that conference. He was on board one of the planes from Boston that struck the World Trade Center.
I never met Danny but think of him a lot, especially in September. I'm thinking about him today.
---
The Daniel Lewis Science Scholarship Fund now exists to provide scholarships to students pursuing degrees in science. Contributions in Danny's name can be made at:
Hale and Dorr Capital Management LLC
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
---
I came to a discouraging conclusion yesterday when talking to one of my clients about marketing their conferences. They want to stay on the high road and be known for having the best content in their industry. In fact, the main reason they hired me was to achieve for them exactly that - Rule by Content.
The trouble is, I can't give it to them. My principal job with show producers is to help them create the best possible content at their shows, and use this superior content as a meaningful point of differentiation against competitors. And I'm unable to do it.
I'm not one for shirking responsibilities, but I don't think my failure is entirely my fault. I think you can't win on content. Why? Because there is nothing unique about one show's content over another. Sure, sessions can have more interesting titles and precise panel composition, and program directors can use feedback forms vigilantly to weed out poor speakers and re-engage stars. But there's nothing you can labor and sweat over that your rival can't simply copy, and quickly. I've programmed shows with 4-tracks and 20+ sessions in two months. If I'm nimble and connected (which I am), I can skim the cream off any show out there and stir it into mine. And launch before the shows I'm poaching from.
I don't do this, of course. But the way conferences within an industry work with and against each other almost ensures that the content is about the same. You see, programmers select their speakers and content from a few different sources:
But all of these sources draw from finite and duplicated pools of potential speakers. Any company sponsoring your show (2) is also sponsoring your competitors' shows, and buying their way as speakers into all of them. For many companies, it's cheaper and more reliable than a PR firm retainer. And your past experience (3) is comprised of who you've seen speak and speak well at your shows. Think they got to be good speakers only speaking at your shows? Even speaker proposals (1), which are often the best source for finding speakers and companies not heavily on the circuit can backfire. When they submit to your show, you can be sure that the exact same proposal (or a near copy) is going to rival programmers. Believing that you're the only one who sees the potential in this speaker or company or topic is to underestimate your competitors, which is foolish. If you invite them in, know that your rivals will too.
I'm almost using "speakers" to be synonomous with "content"' and that's not entirely fair. They're very different to the people who attend the shows and diligently sit through the sessions. But the vast majority of people who learn about your show through your marketing will equate content with speakers. If they've seen that list of speakers before, they're likely to believe it's the same old thing they've heard before. It's rare when you hear a conferee remark, "Oh, she's speaking in that session? I saw her at a show last month. She was great. I'll go see her again." Instead it's, "Nah, already know what she has to say. I'm gonna go into the lobby and make some calls."
I've thought for a long time on this next point, and it's almost too simplistic to be true, but I believe it:
The only meaningful point of differentation a conference can achieve is through networking. Everything else is the absence of a negative.
When I was a Marketing Manager at a Fortune 500 company about 10 years ago, I was proud to be able to tell my then-boss that I was working towards my MBA part-time. Satisfied but unimpressed he remarked, "an MBA is the absence of a negative." What he meant was that you didn't get points for having one, but you'd lose points if you didn't. It was a cost of doing business in marketing departments then.
I don't mean to discourage everyone who toils and tears over all aspects of show production - operations, programming, sponsorship sales, vendor liaison, and on and on. I've done it all and I know these functions are important. But only inasmuch as they don't give the audience a reason not to come back. Nobody will rave about your show if they're sped quickly and efficiently through registration, but if they have to wait 30 minutes to get their badge it will color their whole experience. And I've never seen a response on a feedback form inquiring into the attendees' favorite things about the conferece, "The chairs in the general session were super comfy!" But make someone who spent $1100 stand in the back because you over sold (or under set) and you may have lost them for good.
Sadly, I believe the same thing holds true with content. If it's the same pool of speakers on similar topics, how can it not?
But there is a perception that content at one show is better than another, and here's how that happens, and what you can do to put your content's best foot forward:
So you see why I think the networking is the most important part. But it shouldn't be separate from the content, as it usually is. It's not the 45-minute break in the exhibit hall, or the cocktail party in the club that's so loud and social that you feel like a jackass by even asking someone, "So how do you handle your Hoozie-Ubb situation?"
The other point I'd make about networking is that it's a quality game, not quantity. If 200 of my peers are at a conference, mixed in with 800 people who aren't, I suppose I can find someone like-minded, though it's no guarantee. But if I have lunch next to one person who has a really provocative point of view and inspires my work in some way, then the conference is worth it.
I believe the show producer's objective is to facilitate that serendipitous meeting, not obviate the need for it.
My friend Rob Leathern over at AnalystBlog.com is needling Plaxo for a press release that promotes their speaking role at an upcoming conference.
I agree with Rob that it's a crummy topic for a press release. It's certainly not anything any member of the press would be interested in, and seems to belie a gross misunderstanding of trade marketing vehicles - particularly for a Web 2.0 company like Plaxo. In fact, it's almost as if the CEO came out of his office and proudly declared, "I'm speaking at a conference!" to which his assistant snidely remarked, "I'll alert the media." And then did just that.
But...
As foolish as it makes Plaxo's PR department look, the conference producer - Supernova - is likely thrilled with their efforts. If each speaker at a conference promotes their role through their own channels - whether Press Releases or blogs or client / prospect newsletters - it can create a veritable groundswell of mindshare for the show itself, boosting Search Engine results, building relevance for the show's brand and assets, increasing the authority for everything related to the show. This translates into more attendees, happier sponsors, greater coverage of the event itself, and on and on.
So if you're speaking at a conference and you want to be invited to speak at additional conferences, by all means talk about it, blog about it, shout it from the rooftops in every way short of issuing a clumsy press release about it (Rob's right - the reputation liability isn't worth the payoff, which is tiny) - knowing that your primary audience is not your audience, but the show producers themselves.
I'll even go a step further and say that while promoting your involvement at a conference today makes you a more valuable speaker/partner, it's going to quickly become the cost of doing business in the conference biz, and failing to do so in the very near future could get a speaker blackballed.
UPDATE 6/28/06:
Tim Bourquin over at New Media and Tradeshow Startup just called my attention to his post from yesterday, where he rants a bit about what NOT to do if you're a prospective speaker. It's definitely worth a read. Subscribe to Tim's blog (like I just did) so you don't get this day-old second-hand perspective from me.