Have a look at this post on the TechSoup Blog by Layal Rabat who gives an overview her perception of events as they unfolded during EFC Foundation Week. It helps to illustrate how the internet has made it much easier to follow events through social media such as Twitter, YouTube, Flickr and Facebook. Read more on the TechSoup Blog …
Daniel Ben-Horin (Founder and Co-CEO, TechSoup Global)
This post comes from Daniel Ben-Horin (Founder and Co-CEO, TechSoup Global). Originally published on the Tactical Philanthropy Blog.
This is a condensed version of a panel presentation I gave at the European Foundation Center conference in early June. The panel topic was: “Social Media: Threat or Menace?” No, I made that up. The panel was called, Social media: A fad or the future?
I decided to take a personal tone. People of a certain age, and/or a certain techno-anxiety level feel a lot of pressure to ‘operationalize’ social media in the nonprofit and philanthropic worlds. Nothing much good comes of this, and one of the worst things that can occur is a kind of passive-resistance, or not so passive. People block what they can’t understand. Or make poor decisions. Read more …
The audience was about 80 ‘early adoptors’, actual or would-be, from European philanthropies across the continent.
1. Social media is not a ‘tool’.
Social media is about choosing whether or not to operate in a different way in the world, a way of looking at innovation, collaboration and communication that can’t be left at the office overnight. That doesn’t mean that if you tweet at work, you have to keep tweeting compulsively at home! But either you are truly excited by the possibilities and embrace them, or you are rolling a stone uphill.
2. Social media mileage will vary.
Most of my friends think that the values of social media and of effective philanthropy — values of transparency, innovation and collaboration—merge to form a completely compelling unified proposition.
But communications cultures vary and the social media norms of the States are by no means universal. What is most important, I think, is distinguishing between the personal and institutional stance toward social media. On a personal level, can you explore social media in an open enough way to discover if it meets any intrinsic needs of yours?
On the institutional level, it is true that since philanthropy is a key player in the public sphere, you should indeed, on some institutional level, join the conversation. But if you don’t find yourself engaged personally, find people you trust and who do enjoy the process and allow them truly guide your social media practice.
The good news is “you can stumble if you’re humble,” which is a phrase I didn’t coin but really like. You can make mistakes, accept correction, do better next time and, in the process, achieve your goals… as long as you do it in plain view.
3. Social media flattens.
A cat can look at a king, as the saying goes. There’s not much point in standing on ceremony 140 characters at a time; it is a waste to take a command and control mentality into the social media arena. The opportunity here is to push out ideas in real time and see how the marketplace of ideas responds. The opportunity is to respond in real time to others’ ideas… ”others” whom you don’t necessarily know. The opportunity is to observe and interact with others as they interact with each other.
The social media context encourages mass participation by lowering the barrier to entry. This results in a scenario where there is much more signal and much more noise. What does happen, amidst all the noise, is that the people who contribute the greatest perceived value are able to grow their network of followers without the permission of a single entity (editor). It is very democratic, very much including the messy parts of democracy.
4. Collaboration, innovation and noise
No one is forced to follow anyone or friend anyone. Think of the numbers in context. What does it mean to have 200,000 Twitter followers? Are they the kind of followers who follow a thousand other Twitterers (which is the same as following no one at all)? And, always, come back to what do you yourself enjoy and find meaningful in interacting with others using new tools.
Configuring your social media practice to your interests and personality is a dynamic process; at the beginning, it feels overwhelming but soon you find your way. As the popular metaphor goes, social media is a rushing river; your words, wise or foolish, will disappear (only to be resurrected when you run for the Senate). What will truly build and what may last are relationships and ideas.
When Facebook and Twitter came along, email — my palette! — became passé on a certain level. So when I entered the new waters, I did so grudgingly and instrumentally. It took me a while to see that (a) I could have fun by just being myself; (b) lots of people I care about—personally and professionally—are in the new waters; (c ) If I just relax and trust that I have something to offer, it all works.
Social media and philanthropy share this: They are, at the core, about people. The SM field is advancing so rapidly in response to whatever people want to do, trivial or profound.
So, as philanthropists, what do you want to do and how do you want to do it?
Keep an open mind.
Punch at your own weight.
Buzz Schmidt, Founder & Chair, GuideStar International
By Buzz Schmidt, Founder & Chair, GuideStar International
European Foundation Week Session: Philanthropy as the common platform for cross-country dialogue – Russia Donors Forum and United Way of Russia
This workshop, led by Russian Donors Forum and the United Way of Russia, addressed the role of foundations in cross-country dialogue from four distinct perspectives. Carsten Lenk of the Robert Bosch Stiftung described that foundation’s long interest in bilateral dialogue using examples of their German/Polish and German/Russian initiatives. Typically youth-oriented, these common learning strategies are more typical of the traditional approach. Anna Piotrovskaya, of the Dmitry Zimin Dynasty Foundation in Moscow, described that foundation’s focus on science education and awareness on the part of Russian youth. While cross-country dialogue is not the principal objective of this foundation, it is very involved in initiatives that have dialogue implications, such as encouraging development of science labs in Russia by leading non-Russian scientists and science roundtables that bring leading scientists to Russia in an serious forum for exchange while it educates a more general Russian audience.
Thomas Weihe, Victor Pinchuk Foundation, described the fascinating work that his foundation (and its charismatic leader, Pinchuk) are doing to expose the next generation of Ukrainian youth to the 21st century. Through programs in health, education, modern art and global issues, the foundation very consciously brings modern influences, thinkers and systems to the attention of young Ukrainians as well as current political leadership. Steve Greimann of the UW Hungary spoke about UW International’s cross-border collaborations among the national UWs. He expressed some disappointment about their success to date, especially given the potential.
Many of the audience questions dealt with the intersection of new technologies and the emerging modes of communications in social networks and the more traditional forms of cross-border dialogue. Is this new language of Twitter and Facebook, common now to a generation, a “game changer”? Will the availability of social media change strategies or even leapfrog more traditional approaches.
Implications for TechSoup Global: Global dialogue is happening at many levels, some formal, but increasingly more informal. Helping foundations recognize the opportunity to utilize social media opportunities to enhance, lever or replace their current initiatives may be a focus of attention for a TSG article, webinar or website knowledge module.
The Directory of Social Change (DSC) and GuideStar International (GSI) today announced that ownership of www.guidestar.org.uk, the free public website, and GuideStar Data Services, a community interest company providing bespoke information, has been transferred from GSI to DSC. This combines the most detailed repository of information about charities and the voluntary sector with the largest publisher of information for those who work in it. Read the Press Release.
DSC CEO Debra Tyler says:
“The potential here is immense. Today an entity was created which can refresh and strengthen our vital sector at a crucial time. We are excited about how GDS’ unique service supports our mission of connecting people, and working towards social change. Together we can improve everyone’s understanding of what charities are and do in 2010, including politicians and policy makers, academics and the wider public.
“DSC’s vision is an independent voluntary sector at the heart of social change, and GuideStar provides more tools to make this happen. This unique factual resource will expand and deepen our knowledge. Together we will get more of the right information to the people who need it so that charities can be more effective in achieving their ambitions. There will be a programme of new services rolled out in the coming months, starting with one to help funders make more informed grantmaking decisions.”
DSC’s Chair, Nick Seddon, says:
“We are excited about this new venture. DSC has extensive experience and expertise, and GuideStar will enable us to analyse and share both specialised and general information for and about the sector. It fits perfectly with our charitable objects: we believe we will be able to improve everyone’s understanding of the sector, we will be able to increase our impact as an organisation, and we will be able to increase our contribution to civil society.”
Buzz Schmidt, founder of GuideStar and CEO of GuideStar International, says:
“We have long admired DSC for its commitment to fostering an independent charity sector in the UK and its work as connector, facilitator and cheer leader for the many thousands of small and medium sized charities that are the life blood of the sector throughout the country. We are confident that DSC is the right home for www.guidestar.org.uk and GDS and that it will wholeheartedly advance GuideStar’s mission to promote greater public understanding of the work of charities.”
Alliance Magazine has started its first online discussion on the subject of Civil Society vs Markets – a False Dichotomy? The forum aims to give people a venue to voice different perspectives on the issue of whether market concepts can increase the effectiveness of civil society. Tris Lumley, Head of Strategy at New Philanthropy Capital and David Bonbright, the Founder and CEO of Keystone start off the debate with 2 articles on the subject. If you are interested you can also air your view on the Alliance website! Alliance hopes the discussion will help to reconcile views on both ends of the spectrum and aid better understanding of whether a CSO’s work is best assessed by fully taking into account the organisation’s overall purpose or mission.
The calls for more effective use of foreign aid resources continue to grow louder and in response to this the AidData team (a coalition of The PLAID team at the College of William and Mary, Brigham Young University and Development Gateway) is getting ready to launch AidData.org, the first ever online database of information on development and aid activities. Currently, the Aid Database has information on more than 850,000 development activities financed by approximately 70 countries and multilateral institutions from 1946 to 2009, and information on $1.8 trillion in development assistance has been added to the existing sum of $2.3 trillion in the database. AidData has been based on the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) but will also provide information on donors that do not fit the OECD definition of Official Development Assistance (ODA) and are not captured by OECD’s CRS.
AidData will be formally launched at the Aid Transparency and Development Finance Conference hosted at University College in Oxford, UK on 22-25 March 2010. The database will go a long way in helping governments, donors, CSOs and the public see the bigger picture of aid with the expectation that this will help build a greater understanding of what makes aid effective.
The International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), working closely with AidData, also seeks to increase the transparency of aid resources and is bringing together donors, developing country governments, CSOs and others who use aid information to agree common information standards, which will be applied to how aid is reported. GuideStar International is a member of IATI’s Technical Advisory Group and is advocating the need for good quality, publicly available information on CSOs to aid development effectiveness.
The nature of volunteering is adapting as technology changes. People are volunteering via the internet and their mobiles now. But what are the implications of this for the charitable sector? Who will be the volunteers, what will they volunteer, what countries will they come from and what, if any will be the labour and tax law implications? Those are questions that have complicated answers. However, mobile and internet volunteering will require CSOs to make their aims more transparent to potential, current and future volunteers. Failure to do so will jeopardize the extent to which this type of volunteering is seen as legitimately for public benefit and can negatively affect the way the sector is perceived. CSOs must reveal why the service is needed and to what end. On the other hand, while the way in which this technology is used by CSOs is important for the sector, so is the way in which it is used by governments, not only for law enforcement, but also for tasks like the identification of civil society activists. It is worth having a look at a presentation by the Extraordinaries called Minds for Sale: A review and critique of crowdsourced labor markets, which discusses the implications of this for nonprofits, businesses and government. It looks at the usefulness of crowdsourced labour markets but also gives a valuable critique. The Extraordinaries create opportunities for people to do micro-tasks for organizations, causes or people they’re passionate about via a mobile phone or web browser, in a few minutes of spare time. Another organisation that is using the internet in a great way to encourage volunteering and create work for marginalised people is Samasource. This organisation sources data, testing, transcripting and research tasks for people in developing countries.
Is the institutional role of CSOs in the aid effectiveness agenda truly recognised? Should donors and government provide a more enabling environment for CSOs to improve their efficiency? Shouldn’t CSOs be viewed as more than simply an avenue for the delivery of services? These are some of the questions addressed in the paper entitled “The Missing Piece of the Puzzle: The institutional importance of CSOs in the development effectiveness agenda” as it seeks to explain why such information must be included in any analysis of development effectiveness.
