Does Millions of Followers Mean You’re Changing the World?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 08:33AM
Marketing guru Seth Godin is a very smart guy – obviously. But one of his recent posts about nonprofits (“The Problem with Non”) is pretty far off base and might lead nonprofits into some wrongheaded actions.
Godin’s post starts out on solid ground when he notes that most nonprofits are averse to change. That’s undeniable, though certainly not a problem that’s limited to nonprofits. Senior Management typically fears unknown territory, particularly when it comes to communications and fundraising via technology. Whether managing a fundraising department for a nonprofit or an online marketing campaign for a Fortune 500 company, Senior Management tends to be comfortable with routines, formulas, metrics and what they know works.
Then Godin goes a step further and says that fear of taking risks is holding nonprofits back from growing their base and achieving their mission. I was actually still with him at this point, and I eagerly forged ahead into his piece. But then Godin started slamming nonprofits for their lack of success at using social media. That’s when it hit me, that Godin is wrong about how he defines success. Here’s why.
Godin asks, why aren’t nonprofits listed in the top 100 most followed on Twitter, especially since social 
networks don’t cost a dime? Is Godin really suggesting that nonprofits should try to compete against major celebrities on Twitter like Oprah who reaches millions of viewers every day with her talk show, magazine and website? Or compete against Ashton Kutcher, who graces the covers of major magazines and had his own TV show on MTV? Let’s not even discuss Ashton’s adoring fans all over the world.
In addition to competing against A-list celebrities and brands like CNN or Time Magazine that make up the top 100 people/brands on Twitter, is Twitter (or Facebook for that matter) even the right social network for every nonprofit? It’s shocking to hear, I know. But Geoff Livingston, who heads up Social Media at CRT/tanaka, agrees. In his “Gear up for Giving” series, Livingston said that nonprofits should not always take a traditional social media approach and jump on the Facebook and Twitter bandwagon -- or what he calls the “McDonalds” of social media -- but rather they should be more strategic, given their resources.
The very first question nonprofits need to answer is what are you trying to communicate about your mission? What are your goals? Depending on your audience, your members or potential members could be more active on niche communities that people have set up on Ning or other social networks, said Livingston. Furthermore, there is a lot of noise on Twitter and Facebook, which can make it even more challenging for a nonprofit with limited resources to truly get their message out. In short, using Twitter’s top 100 followers as a metric for success just sets up nonprofits for failure and frustration.
Consider also that, whereas social networks are technically free to join, staff time equals money. Most nonprofits don’t have the luxury of hiring social media staff or consultants to manage their online brand and social networking. Since nonprofit staffs have limited resources and wear many hats, I advise organizations to select a couple of social networks to have a presence on, then listen, follow and engage.
Finally Godin mentions great organizations like Charity:Water as an example of a nonprofit that has raised millions of dollars and helped many people by embracing social media. But it’s actually not that simple, as I learned by checking Charity:Water’s website and annual report. For example, while it’s true that Charity:Water raised $5.5 million dollars in contributions last year, it was not raised via social media. Rather, Charity:Water’s Founder, Scott Harrison, has tirelessly used his savvy marketing background in the entertainment and fashion industry to connect with celebrities such as Adrian Grenier of Entourage and Model Jessica Stam to participate in high profile fundraisers sponsored by Elle and Nautica, and to launch strong cause marketing campaigns. According to Charity:Water’s press kit, in 2008, Sax Fifth Avenue raised $540K during an in-store event, and retailer Brighton raised $740K through a jewelry line, employee and customer donations.
Harrison has also used his organization’s own email list to encourage people to donate their birthday money as part of their September Campaign and/or by holding friend-raising drives (using the nifty friend-raising tool that Charity:Water had built) outside of Facebook. Last year, Charity Water’s September Campaign raised over $1 million dollars. This year they have raised $300K+ to date, according to their website.
In 2009, Charity:Water has raised over $650K via social media, said Harrison. Approximately $250K was raised through the groundbreaking Twestival event conceived by fans of the organization, which brought together Twitter communities from all over the world for fun parties in February 2009. Charity:Water has probably been the most successful organization to raise money via social media this year but they are certainly not raising millions from it.
While nonprofits definitely need to embrace change and adapt to the ever-changing world of tech and communications if they want to continue to grow and dare I say exist in ten years, they need to do it strategically. They also need to set realistic benchmarks, measure data and have tangible outcomes. Just touting millions of fans on Facebook or Twitter doesn’t mean you are changing the world.
You should follow Frogloop on Twitter here
Receive monthly updates
Reader Comments (8)
People aren't going to subscribe to your twitter feed if you're just promoting your own stuff. Learning to let complimentary messages in will help all non-profits overcome the Obama Organizing Effect (i.e: being expected to work 25/8/367 to produce a list of millions of activists with below the bare minimum of staff members) and help make better headway than if we all pretend we're the only ones on Twitter or Facebook promoting a particular outcome.
The danger in under-resourced organizations feeling bullied into opening twitter accounts and facebook causes is that they will not be kept up. A facebook page with no updates and only a handful of 'fans' can be worse than no facebook page at all. Better to be too cool to go to the party than to go and be the butt of all the jokes.
Yet Seth Godin did no research into nonprofits' use of social media, and the "evidence" he used to indict the industry was based on an idea (get lots of friends!) that would be poor advice not only for nonprofits but for the corporate world Seth is supposedly an expert in -- and an idea *he himself argued against*, as Allyson mentioned in an email:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0h0LlCu8Ks
He even made the claim that social media tools are "free" and therefore "don't tell me it's about a lack of resources." (Because, no doubt, Ashton and Oprah and CNN have no more resources or cultural cachet to help them along than your average grassroots nonprofit.)
I confess that I tire quickly of "marketing experts" who believe they have a special insight into building social change movements solely as a result of their ability to convince people they need to buy stuff. No doubt there are some lessons nonprofits could learn, but the sheer arrogance of marketers who have no experience -- none -- in trying to organize people around anything deeper than a hamburger, thinking that they should deign to offer their wisdom to nonprofits is staggering.
*This is a person who has no comment feature on his blog criticizing nonprofits' use of social media!*
Seth says the nonprofits to which he gives money -- and remember, he's the expert here! -- disappoint him by their lack of a web 2.0 approach. So why doesn't Seth Godin, master of web 2.0, know any nonprofits working and excelling in social media -- or even know how to find them?
More to the point, why didn't he talk to any of the dozens of writers and bloggers in the nonprofit field? If reaching out through bloggers or Twitter or Facebook or, you know, *doing a Google search for nonprofits+social media* was too much for him, he could have picked up a tired old print copy of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which has like *an entire section dedicated to this very subject.* http://philanthropy.com/technology/ It seems Seth Godin figured Seth Godin's knowledge was all the information he needed.
He may have been right about institutions fearing change -- after all, that's pretty much the norm in *any* industry, you know, *anywhere* -- but such an assertion seems neither profound nor helpful. (Maybe the real motivation for his fact-free post had more to do with nonprofits disinterest in signing up for Squidoo, and making him money, as suggested on Beth's Blog: http://tinyurl.com/nyne9p )
Seth's post came off not only as arrogant but as ignorant. He doesn't know much about nonprofits or social change, and made no attempt to learn. More troublingly, he seemed to be a little fuzzy on how to use social media effectively in the first place. Since he had no knowledge and no experience, he could offer no real advice as to what to do -- "be more like Britney Spears," I guess.
That he somehow stumbled into one correct point -- institutions fear change! -- doesn't make the rest of his rant any more compelling to me.
Yep, institutionalism is a problem.
Nope, Seth Godin had nothing useful or interesting to say about it.
As a side note / vent, non-profits that build by consensus like to think of themselves as democratic and inclusive, when in reality, they're simply allowing anyone with a loud mouth to hold the organization hostage. IMHO, this is incredibly destructive. It's the new organizations that haven't quite learned this culture of inclusive-faux-democracy that allow a few people to make big choices. I think this is a part of what Seth pushes for and on this point I agree with him.
Seth is a bit of a drama queen though, which is why he makes for great reading. I was at some of those meetings, not sure which one he's referring to in his post, and when I was there, it wasn't that the meetings devolved into endless lists of why they couldn't do anything.
The meetings I attended mostly were consumed with staff trying to do the responsible thing of keeping the money coming in while stretching themselves to take risks. When non-profits live on these razor thin budgets though, one minor set back can mean a program and staff getting cut.
This leads me to my main grip, which is, get specific man! Dig in a bit, maybe volunteer and work on the inside, to get a feel for what the challenges are. This is not easy stuff to figure out. The theory is great + helpful sometimes, but the real work and the real heroes in my mind are the staff on the inside that are actually trying to make this stuff work. They're often working in dysfunctional environments, with a ton of demands, and I think what they really need is more tangible ideas and examples of things to try. What does it mean to flip the funnel?
What exactly can we do right now? And how do we know this is a good direction that's producing results? As soon as you scratch the surface and start talking about the real world, it's not so easy to figure this stuff out.
interesting post. Thank you very much. The only part where I disagree is the bit about Ning. I generally advise our National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies against creating a new social network and encourage them to be where the people they want to reach already are. In most countries that does mean Facebook.
I like your MacDonald's-metaphor - and I'll try t use it against you :-) Imagine, you want to get people to change their behavior, e.g. eat better. Would you be better served at setting up a stand in some random location, hoping that people will show up? Or wouldn't it be better to set up that stand right in front of (or even inside) the MacDonald's.
I just think that the costs of having to get people to join an additional social network - and the added costs of getting people to come back and keep that network alive - normally don't justify the benefits of having control over all elements of the network. I agree with you that non-profits should explore existing social networks beyond Facebook and Twitter but I think most organizations would be badly advised to start their own.