I think nonprofits should wait or rather don’t jump in deeply with a heavy time investment quite yet. Take an ROI approach to the amount of time that is being spent, especially if you haven’t really built up, engaged, and developed relationships with people via your social networks in other places.
Don’t just do an ROI analysis with your social time. Your time might be best spent on incorporating multi-channel best practices. Do you need to redesign your web site, incorporate SEO, or beef up your CRM and email strategy. As John Haydon said later in the thread, ”Don’t buy the Persian rug if your roof has a hole in it” and then wrote this post.
That’s not to say that taking a small amount of time to learn the platform, get the lay of the land, imagine the possibilities without investing a lot of time. Connect with professional colleagues and talk shop. I call this the “Andy Warhol” approach – 15 minutes a day. Then you will be at least be familiar with it when Google + launches Brand presence.
It is also useful to do a little audience research or consult secondary studies. The Pew recently did this study on online habits. As you can see from the graph above, Pew found:
Email and search form the core of online communication and online information gathering, respectively. And they have done so for nearly a decade, even as new platforms, broadband and mobile devices continue to reshape the way Americans use the internet and web. Perhaps the most significant change over that time is that both activities have become more habitual.
As part of my work this year as Visiting Scholar at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, I’m designing and delivering peer training sessions for grantees all around the theme of social media, learning, and measurement. This year I’m more of a guide on the side and helping to surface the knowledge and experience in the room. This approach produces rich learning. This week I did a social media training for a cluster of the foundation’s sustainable agriculture grantees. Here’s some notes on what I learned integrated social media campaigns as well as the process that prompted these insights.
1. Spectragram
Spectragram is a facilitation technique I learned from Allen Gunner at Aspiration. You have people line up in the room based on whether they agree or disagree with a statement. This is an easy way to get people moving around and wake up, especially if your session is at the end of the day. More importantly, it unpacks any skepticism or opposing points of view about the topic you’ll be addressing in the peer learning. It is a good idea to include a fun question appropriate to the audience to illustrate the technique. We used: I love grass-fed beef
I used the following statements given that I had a mix of staff members – from executive directors, social media managers, and policy/program directors.
You can explain complex issues like cap and trade in 140 characters
Policymakers do not pay attention to messaging that comes through social media channels
These statements prompted some rich insights. I learned that you can’t explain complex, wonky policy positions in 140 characters, but you could communicate or let people know the policy paper exists with a punchy statement and pointer to the paper.
2. Living Case Study
I use a “Living Case Study” technique — it is less formal that your traditional case study because it covers a work in progress and shares lessons learned as well as successes. Often, they’re messy, but vibrant and all about real time learning. While the traditional case study is tidy, packaged, and finished – the living case study is open to input, questions, reflections and most of all empowerment of peers. Erika Croxton from Grist and Daniela Aceves from Roots of Change agreed to each share a living case study.
I worked with both to prepare an ignite style presentation that shared a specific campaign or project that incorporated social media. Both answered the same set of reflective questions, carefully crafted to extract wisdom. The ignite style presentation is brief – no more than 7 minutes and forces a particular discipline on being visual, brief, and engaging. Following the presentation, I provided feedback on best practices and how to extend them – then asked questions to kick off a group discussion.
Here’s some of the insights generated in the session.
Ladder of Engagement
Grist shared a simplified version of their ladder of engagement of how they move people from passive to active participation. Having a well-thought out ladder of engagement (or marketing funnel or more recently “a decision journey“) is critical to the success of a communications campaign that integrates social media. This helps your organization think through messaging and tactics to get people to the next stage on the ladder and identify key metrics to measure how effective those tactics are.
Experimenting to Expand Capacity
The Grist living case study illustrated how they started off with agile pilots just to test the waters – in this case – how to effectively use Twitter hashtags to drive traffic and discussion on their site. They measured and learned from the first pilot which was rapid implementation. The next pilot, they became more intentional in strategy – still using listen, learn, and adapt approach. What I found most interesting, is how they used measurement to expand capacity. Prior to having a dedicated person working on social media, they integrated social media into all staff job descriptions and tracked how a small amount of time invested could get results. This gave them the confidence to invest in a dedicated staff.
How To Convince Policy Directors
One question we got from the group was from Jimmy Daukas from the American Farmland Trust, “How do you get people who work on the program or policy side of the organization to be excited about social media and willing to experiment?” He was willing to do this brief interview about how to convince someone like him – the managing director who works on the policy side – to be open to social media. His take: More conversation between the communications and policy staff about the potential of social media to get results, especially hearing case studies from other organizations.
Building Networks of Partners
Roots of Change talked about how they always work with other organizational partners to cross fertilize or build movements around their policy change ideas. This is a hallmark of Networked Nonprofits. One of the ways they are doing this with the above video about the food movement. You’ll see a list of partnering organizations on the end. They’ve had several versions of this video created – each with a group of different partners. Working with partners extends their work in a networked way – that ends up being efficient. And by customizing the last few frames of the video, they can inexpensively re-purpose materials to encourage a networked approach.
A/B Testing
Roots of Change worked with Change>org to implement this petition. They discovered that Change.org was not just a platform, but there was a community of activists standing ready to spread their campaign. They used the landing page as a hotbed for A/B testing – analyzing what worked best to get conversion — images, less or more text, placement of “sign petition” button and so forth. They learned that images are really key for conversion. More detailed suggestions for A/B testing with images here.
Leadership and Social Media: Reverse Mentoring, Empowering Millennials, and CEO Tweets
The presenter for Roots of Change was Daniela Aceves, a millennial who is responsible for the social media at her organization. Often, we hear from Millennials who are working inside of nonprofits that they aren’t empowered. In this case, Roots of Change executive director Michael Dimock has done an admirable job empowering younger staff and reverse mentoring. (If you want a terrific example of how an executive director can use Twitter, check out Michael’s Twitter stream for a well-curated stream of food policy information. Also, check out Bruce Lesley from First Focus, a child advocacy organization, who has also mastered the art of curating and sharing quality links related to the organization’s mission.
3. Reflections
Being a “Guide on the Side” versus “Sage on the Stage” produces richer, more engaging peer learning. Some questions for all of you:
What’s your ladder of engagement for integrated communications campaigns? How do you measure each rung along the ladder?
Have you used measurement to make the case for building social media capacity?
How does your organization use A/B testing to improve conversion rates?
If your organization works on policy, how have you convinced leadership (or not) to embrace social media?
Update: Melanie Janin of BSR writes about why sharing a messy case study is important. Here’s why it is important to share it as you go:
Others have been there, done that. Learn from others who have faced the same challenges. If you ask for help to solve a particular challenge that’s keeping you up at night, you just might get it.
Social media loves social inquiry. Pose your challenges publicly through social media channels. Start a blog tracking your sustainability efforts. See who responds and engages. They might just become your next biggest advocate—or most loyal consumer.
True leaders have the guts to reach out and engage. As we explored in our recent BSR Report, leadership today is no longer equated with top-down, didactic messaging and communications. Include multiple voices into your platform for impact and change. The more you share, the more you stand to gain from the perspective of others.
It’s a great book, but the idea of filter bubbles is crushing for those of us who believe that an open web is a vital part of a democratic society. The filter bubble is the personalization of the web for users done by companies like Facebook and Google to sell us more stuff. They use enormous amounts of our own data to bring us searches and news feeds they think we want with ads specifically geared towards those interests. Here’s how Eli describes it in his book: “More and more, your computer monitor is a kind of one-way mirror, reflecting your own interest while algorithmic observers watch what you click.”
What I didn’t know, what floored me, was that they are only bringing us information in our searches and news feeds they think we want. It is not an open, unfiltered search for “environmental justice” it is a search based on my past searches and interests. Again, in Eli’s words, this means, “You can get stuck in a static, ever-narrowing version of yourself-an endless you-loop.” This is depressing news for advocates and their causes, which need to broaden their networks to new networks to be successful. Much of the network building that happens online is not even intentional, it’s the online serendipity that is similar to what happens when you meet someone online at the supermarket or sit next to them on an airplane. But the filter bubble reduces the opportunities for online serendipity, we just keep bumping into the people, organizations, ideas that we already know.
One question raised is how does a nonprofit working on issues that might not be popular find a way to rally activists?
It made me wonder how online activists and nonprofits might use some of online ads on Facebook (and possibly Google + if brand presence goes in that direction) which is a form of personalization on the web to broaden their networks and be open to serendipity? It takes having an organizational mindset that is open to experimentation.
In an odd moment of serendipity, I found this post from e-politics that included a case study on how Facebook ads defeated a Florida Ballot Initiative. The “Vote NO on 8” campaign sought to defeat a November 2010 ballot proposition that would have led to larger K-12 class sizes in Florida public schools. The campaign focused on the importance of small classes in children’s learning and teacher effectiveness.
The campaign had a very small budget and needed to maximize the effectiveness of its marketing to persuade voters to vote no on the proposition. The backers also knew at the outset that they wanted to find a new model for voter communication. The first goal of the Facebook Ads campaign was to use Facebook as a market research tool to hone the messages identified by a baseline poll specifically for each micro-audience of targeted voters in Florida and for each demographic group. The learnings from this market research would be used across all other media buys. The second goal was to saturate Facebook users in Florida with targeted messages in the month prior to the election. The third, and most important goal, was to measure the impact of the online ad program to assess its viability as a new model for voter persuasion.
The case study explains the different ways they tested messaging and visuals – and used the feedback loops to refine their messages. The results: they served up 75 million impressions and they won the initiative.
Some nonprofits have experimented with social advertising as part their communications strategy and Google AdWords. A while back I did a blog post about the Ocean Conservancy experiment with Facebook Ads. Recently, I also heard reports of nonprofits using Facebook ads as part of their page recruitment, promote offline events, and social fundraising campaigns.
All of these approaches take an organizational mindset that embraces experimentation. So a few best practices here for experiments that work for testing social platform ads or any other low-risk experiment in social media for that matter:
Design experiments so they involve some incremental changes of existing work routines
Design experiments so they are not a time suck
Try as much as possible to avoid having experiments be “extra credit,” but a part of the work flow
Articulate learning questions on the front end, identify metrics/data to collect to answer questions
Spend time extracting lessons learned and design principles at the end
Incorporate ‘rinse and repeat” of experiments over time
Has your organization experimented with online ads? How did you design your pilot? What did you learn?
Yesterday, I blogged about the ”Valid Metrics Framework” from the AMEC that provides a suggested guide post for selecting the right metrics to measure social media in the context of an integrated communications campaign. The framework uses actions and results across a continuum that based on the marketing funnel or AIDA framework. The stages include: awareness, understanding, interest/consideration, support/preferences, and action. In the discussion in the blog comments, there was a question about whether a linear framework is the best choice and a reference to “The Consumer Decision Journey”
The traditional marketing metaphor for many years has been a Funnel. It assumes that consumers start with a large number of products or brands in mind and methodically limit their choices until they’ve decided which one to purchase. After purchase, their relationship is focused on using the product.
Scaffolding by depth of relationship is a familiar framework for many nonprofits – whether it is donors or activists using the ”Ladder of Engagement.” It has been applied to specific social media channels – for example Twitter Ladder or Facebook Ladder or to describes different levels of engagement across channels. Colleagues Sean Power and Alistair Croll have a funnel and analytics to measure online community engagement called “Communilytics. ” These frameworks show the process for becoming an activist or donor as linear one – going from name recognition to advocate.
But we know the media landscape has changed dramatically over the past decade and now we’re faced with so many choices and too much information as Steve Rubel points out in this presentation. What he is talking about is “transmedia storytelling” a term coined by Henry Jenkins. There are others that have looked at this: Gary Hayes Transmedia Storytelling model or Lini Srivastava’s Transmedia Activism model. Rubel describes the new the media landscape with four distinct areas: traditional media, “Tradigital” media (blogs), Owned Media (brand website), and Social Media/Networks (Facebooks, Twitter which are increasing being consumed on the go), although consumers do not make a distinction.
Is the marketing funnel the right metaphor in age of information overload and a cluttered media landscape?
Source: Branding in a Digital Age - HBR
I was intrigued to see this visual – showing the different loops. In the Networked Nonprofit, we have a chapter called “Learning Loops” that attempted to illustrate a less linear process. New research shows that rather than systematically narrowing their choices, consumers add and subtract brands from a group under consideration during an extended evaluation phase. After purchase, they often enter into an open-ended relationship with the brand, sharing their experience with it online.
This may not change what you measure or using a grid - but it certainly has implications for your strategy and tactics – especially around engagement and content – but how nonprofits build and maintain relationships with donors.
Is your strategy and measurement for integrated communications campaigns based on the right metaphor?
At Zoetica, we’ve been working on a peer learning project with arts organizations called “Leveraging Social Media” based on the social media lab. There are two cohort groups, one working on strategic use of a single channel and a more advanced group working on an integrated strategy. With both, the process begins with setting SMART objectives and Kami Huyse points out why this is important.
Using SMART objectives for nonprofit communications strategies is not new idea. Spitfire’s useful SMART chart planning tool has been used by many nonprofits and was adapted for social media for nonprofits by NTEN’s WeAreMedia project several years ago.
SMART Objectives are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely objectives. The Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit Advocacy Campaign guide points out they come in three flavors:
Tactical: Tools and Techniques Results: Money, time, or other tangible tesult that can be converted Capacity: People, content, work flow, learning
The process includes beginning with identifying intent. Next, make it specific by adding a number, percentage, increase/decrease and a date. Some nonprofits find it hard to do because it takes hitting the pause button. Also, there may be a feeling that one is getting “graded” if they don’t make the deadline or hit the target number. SMART objectives can be revised along the way.
Some struggle to find an attainable number. Benchmarking comparing your organization’s past performance to itself or doing a formal or informal analysis of peer organizations can help. It also helps to break down your goal into monthly or quarterly benchmarks.
It is also important to think about what specific metrics are needed to measure along the way. Often, there is too much data collected and not enough sense-making of it. Many organizations think more data is better. It is best to concentrate on the one or two data points that will help guide improvements and demonstrate results. With social media as with communications strategies, the data points are those that will help measure: awareness, attitudes, actions, or behavior change.
Finally, allocating time for a reflection about what worked, what didn’t based on an analysis of the data is critical. Many nonprofits have not institutionalized this approach. Unfortunately, there is a goldmine of learning lost about lead to success or how to improve results next time around.
Here’s a summary of 25 SMART social media objectives from Leveraging Social Media project with arts organizations.
Results
Increase website traffic by 25% by adding social media content starting posting by November 1, 2012.
Acquire 100 new donors through Facebook Causes by June 30, 2012
Increase email list sign ups through social media channels by 500 names by June 30, 2012
Increase the number of gallery visitors who purchase (in person or online) by 20% by June 30, 2012
Increase online and print mentions by 25% by June 30, 2012
Increase enrollment in classes and workshops by 50% by June 30, 2012
Increase exhibition visitors by 15% by June 30, 2012
Tactical
Increase audience connections through Facebook to 1000 by June 1, 2012.
Increase our month to month Post Feedback on Facebook by 25% on average.
Increase mentions by 20% on Twitter before, during, and after performances for 2011
Increase likes and comments with fans on Facebook to 3 comments per post by June 30, 2012
Increase views on YouTube Channel by 50% by January, 2012
Increase number of retweets and @replies on Twitter by 20% by September, 30, 2011
Recruit 40 organizations to join our LinkedIn organization page by June 30, 2012
Increase web site traffic from Facebook by 20% by September 30, 2012
Utilize Facebook to increase Festival attendance and online program views by 5% by September 2011
Identify top 25 influencers on Twitter to build relationships to help blog, repost, and spread the word about online program by September, 30, 2012
Increase the age/ethnicity/gender/income/geographic of Facebook fans by 20% by June 30, 2012
Capacity
Create video trailers for all productions garnering an average of 100 views per trailer for the 2011-2012 programs.
Integrate social media across organization staff and departments to use it reach goals by 2012
Conduct an audience survey to determine where to expand, grow, and diversify social media presence for 2012
Create one video per month to tell stories about the impact of our organization by January, 2012.
Recruit 40 organization
Staff members in membership, fundraising, communications, and marketing departments will use social media tools to engage audiences on Facebook page 3 times per week.
Conduct surveys at the end of every class and workshop to gather important audience social media usage data and experience with program by June 2012
Enhance visual storytelling capacity and diversify type of content shared with a goal increasing videos by 10%, photos by 20% photographic and text that stimulates comments by 20% by August 1, 2012
Create a presence and support active fans on social fundraisings Jumo, Crowdrise, and Change.org by September 30, 2012
Create a system to collect, aggregate, and share user generated content on social media by audiences by September 30, 2012
What if we stepped away from the process of checking off items on our to do list, and spent a little bit of time charting impact of our nonprofit’s social media use? What if we made sure the process for identifying SMART objectives included capacity building, measurement, and reflection?
What is your organization’s SMART social media objectives? How did you determine it? How will you measure them along the way?
Recent Comments