Continuing on last week's discussion about Causes leaving MySpace, TechSoup's own Amy has written an interesting guest post on Sean Stannard-Stockton's Tactical Philanthropy blog. Amy discusses the Causes fallout as well as Ideablob's sudden disappearance. She gets at some of the big questions nonprofits should be asking about the tools we're using. It's definitely worth the read.

We can count our Twitter followers or how many people have commented on our blog post, or could have counted the number of supporters on Causes or voters on Ideablob, but that doesn’t mean we connect with them. Now that Causes removed itself, its content, and any related data from MySpace, organizations cannot connect with their supporters who were using Causes. Ideablob participants are locked out from seeing any comments or feedback on their ideas. The fact that access to data, whether it’s supporters’ email addresses, tracking actions taken, or anything else, is instantly gone should be a big alert bell to those working in a "networked" way via social media to grow their community. To connect with supporters, organizations and individuals working on projects will need to be sure that data gets back to them. How are you encouraging your supporters all over the web to connect with you directly? For example, when you post a message (whether it’s on Twitter, Facebook, or even Change.org) telling your supporters that you’re ramping up for some big news, a new project or something else, include a link where they can sign up with you to be on the email/announcement list. When supporters sign a petition or take action on your organization’s behalf in social media platforms, include "thank you" and "learn more" links wherever possible that link to ways to connect directly with your organization, ensuring the contact information is in your database, not just Facebook’s.

• Read more

Here's a photo of a directional antenna that can transmit Wi-Fi Internet several miles. Anyone can build one with materials from a hardware store; you can even download the blueprint online for free. Over the past 18 months or so, the antennas have been appearing around Jalalabad, a former Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan. Of the ways in which it differs from a traditional wireless access point, the most profound is that it lacks an electronics company logo. It wasn't created by a government either, but it could become the new symbol of infrastructure rebuilding in Afghanistan and around the world.

The organization behind the antennas is Fab Lab, an international network of community workshops. Fab Lab helps residents install the antennas and, even more importantly, learn how to use them. These may not be the most sophisticated antennas, but they work. They're inexpensive and easy to repair, qualities more important in Afghanistan than a good warranty.

Originally an MIT project with a modest National Science Foundation grant, Fab Labs are becoming important resources in some of the most troubled communities on the planet. Individuals can come to Fab Labs to pick up computer and production skills in order to make themselves more employable or start their own businesses. Through projects like the Wi-Fi antennas, Fab Labs empower citizens to play an active role in building and rebuilding their communities. In this great TED Talk, Neil Gershenfeld summarizes the history of Fab Lab and suggests that the labs are democratizing technology by turning consumers into creators. I've been aware of Fab Lab for a few months now and I'm enamored.

In Afghanistan, the lab is actually part of a growing network of loosely-affiliated organizations and individuals taking a do-it-yourself approach to rebuilding. These people make up in creativity what they lack in institutional funding. Take, for example, the Taj, the only bar in Eastern Afghanistan (apparently a tiki bar, no less). A natural gathering point for military people, contractors, and NGOs, the Taj is an obvious place for people who might not otherwise meet to trade information. Dave Warner had the idea to set up a simple 1 TB hard drive in the bar for storing and sharing data. Now, the "Beer for Data" program has grown into a major source of information and collaboration for NGOs. In this talk, Warner explains how the program made it possible for a worldwide network of NGOs and activists to work together to monitor Afghanistan's 2009 election.

Vinay Gupta asked activist Smari McCarthy about Fab Lab, Beer for Data, and other innovations in an excellent long interview earlier this year. A question that comes up again and again is why these sorts of projects can't find more funding (Fab Lab Jalalabad's monthly expenses are a mere $1500). McCarthy posits that governments won't support Fab Lab because it makes too much sense, a joke with more than a hint of truth.

I find it inspiring to read about organizations doing profoundly important work with next to no budget. Technology in particular is an area in which it's sometimes hard to see past the price tag. But some projects don't require a grant or a large tech allotment; sometimes you just need a good idea and a trip to the hardware store.

Check out this short interview Kim Hart of The Hill conducted with TechSoup CEO Marnie Webb. Marnie's been in Washington this week talking about how best to leverage the new broadband stimulus grants on behalf of underserved populations.

... Webb admits she is naive to the ways of Washington. As she meets with non-governmental organizations and agency officials, she has to stress that she is not looking for financial help. TechSoup did not apply for any money in the first round of stimulus grants. She's thought of talking to the staff of her district's representative, who happens to be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but she knows she'll have a hard time getting an audience.

"I have to say, 'No really, I'm not asking for money - this is not a sneaky way of asking for more funds,'" she said over coffee this morning.

Webb says she essentially wants to offer TechSoup's services to help stretch the $7 billion in stimulus grant money as far as it will go.

• Read more

Update: Here's a followup post with some more thoughts on the nonprofit community's relationship with social networking tools.

There's been a lot of discussion over the past week about Causes leaving MySpace and becoming a Facebook-only application. In a sense, the news isn't that surprising (being a for-profit company, Causes must focus on platforms generating the most commercial interest), but it's raised a lot of questions about how closely the nonprofit community aligns itself with commercial tools.

My colleague Amy wrote in a Stanford Social Innovation Review column, "The debate around social media and the Internet in general as a leveling force is still heated from all sides. Yes you can claim that anyone has the power to blog, but that's really only the people who have access to the tools and the time and the empowerment. The access debate aside, the removal of Causes from MySpace where there are active communities of supporters means 'equal opportunity activism' is defined by only certain communities." If nonprofits have the goal of making more resources available to more people, what happens when the tools we're using seem to undermine those goals? Amy points out danah boyd's much-discussed research on the socioeconomic and racial differences between MySpace and Facebook users. Justin Massa goes so far as to call the move redlining: "Causes' justification sounds an awful lot like what financial institutions and the real estate industry used to say about poor and minority neighborhoods."

Marshall at ReadWriteWeb snaps:

Causes co-founder Sean Parker poses sitting with crossed legs in his photo on the company profile page; his mission statement begins with the words "According to the historical Buddha..." It's hard to imagine a beneficent religious figure that would ditch MySpace for Facebook, isn't it? Perhaps "the historical Buddha" would choose to pull up stakes from the 11th most popular website in the world if the people were too shallow and go to the hip social network where the money-raising action is.

• Read more

Jeff Brooks has a new article this week at FundRaising Success: Easier Said Than Done: Abstract Art or Fundraising? He starts by summarizing a few nonprofit advertisements from the past few years. The pattern quickly becomes clear: some of the ads look cool, but none of them make an explicit call to action. They replace clear marketing with symbolism.

Abstract expressionism is an acquired taste. It takes some commitment to appreciate its beauty. It sometimes draws comments like, "A monkey could paint that!" For the record, I'm a fan of abstract expressionism. There's a vast qualitative difference between one of Pollock's splatter paintings and the work of a monkey. Maybe that's why it annoys me to watch as certain ad agencies try to recreate the magic of abstract expressionism in their work for nonprofit organizations. It's not going well. I think the monkeys might do better.

The topic has been a hobby of Jeff's for awhile. For years, he's been writing a series of posts on what he calls stupid nonprofit ads. It's likely that you've heard about some of these. DDB Brazil sparked controversy in September with a misguided September 11-themed ad campaign for the World Wildlife Fund. WWF disowned the ad, but not before DDB had submitted it for ad industry awards. In Australia, a fight-fire-with-fire approach to size discrimination rose more than a few eyebrows, and some people point to One Laptop Per Child's John Lennon endorsement as a culprit in its sales decline.

Earlier this year, we took a look at the US Air Force's social media policy. I still think that not only is a social media policy for employees increasingly becoming a legal necessity for your nonprofit, but it might also be the most important thing you can do for your marketing and PR.

Here's another one to check out. Timo Luege has just finished putting together a social media policy for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), and he's posted the policy on his blog (via). Of course, the IFRC is a huge conglomeration of individual Red Cross and Red Crescent chapters around the world, spanning a multitude of social and political mores. How do you craft a policy that's applicable to every IFRC employee (or, for that matter, not downright objectionable)? "I realize that the parts about 'neutrality' and 'keeping your manager in the loop' might sound very restrictive to some people," Timo writes, "especially those from democratic countries." He goes on to explain that the IFRC code of conduct is actually more restrictive than the social media policy. Rather than squelching employees' freedom of expression, the policy actually empowers them to communicate thoughtfully on behalf of their employers. That empowerment means setting clear boundaries. From the policy:

The IFRC believes that sharing of information and experiences benefits the whole humanitarian community and ultimately the beneficiaries we serve. Feel free to share and discuss your experiences in e.g. vaccination campaigns, field communication, building of transitional shelters etc. If IFRC staff is perceived to be knowledgeable and helpful this will reflect positively on you and on the organization.

• Read more

If you're in the Bay Area November 18-20, come check out Aspiration's 2009 Nonprofit Software Development Summit in Oakland. This is the third time Aspiration has hosted this event, and by the look of the session list, there will be no shortage of great discussions.

The conference isn't only for programmers. According to Aspiration, "The event will target a range of audiences, including users who know what they still need developed, developers writing code to support nonprofit needs, integrators deploying tools for nonprofit and social justice organizations, and individuals who just care about seeing better technology developed to address the broad range of issues we face as a global community."

Here's an idea from our friend Laura at Idealware: what if you measured any communications method by whether it would have more or less impact than spending the same amount of time calling donors on the phone?

…You could spend that time simply calling donors and constituents at random, to thank them, or to ask them a quick set of questions (how did they like the services they used? what do you do well? not so well?). If you've never done this, it can be pretty magical. Often people are amazed that you've called, happy to talk, and have useful insights. It gives you a great sense as to who your constituents actually are and what they care about. And not coincidentally, my experience is that it fosters great new connections. People want to volunteer, wanted to ask you something, and, not coincidentally, donate at considerably higher rates after. Nothing starts a conversation like, well, an actual conversation.

I love the way Laura articulates this. When we adopt social media strategies, we often tell ourselves that it's not just about donations, it's about starting a conversation. There are plenty good reasons why it's important to keep conversations going with supporters, but are Twitter and Facebook always the best way? If your goal is to have a conversation, then why not pick up the phone and have one?

This is not to say that there's no place for social media; rather, I think that the phone test can actually help you articulate the purpose of any communications tactic, be it a fundraising letter, a donor event, a print ad, or a Facebook page. If you can clearly identify who the target audience is for a particular effort and what action you want that audience to take, you can put together the right campaign for achieving that goal. It might be a letter, an email blast, or a social media campaign, and it might be a phone call.

Here's an interesting post by Jeff Atwood about solid-state hard drives (thanks David!). SSDs have been around in various forms for a long time, but only in recent years have manufacturers started seriously marketing them to consumers as an alternative to traditional hard drives. In early 2008, both Apple and Dell started shipping high-end laptops with SSDs only; others have followed suit since then. As Kevin points out in Should You Upgrade to Windows 7?, Windows 7 improves performance for solid-state drives markedly over XP and Vista.

A drive with no moving parts should be faster, more energy efficient, and less susceptible to failure, right? In theory, yes, but the reality might be more complicated. From Atwood's article:

I was an early solid state (SSD) drive adopter with my last laptop purchase, and it was a profound disappointment. Those first and second generation SSD drives turned out to be slower than their magnetic equivalents, despite the eager promises of vendors. On top of that, they were incredibly expensive, and of limited capacity. Running Windows Vista on an early 32 gigabyte SSD was an exercise in pain and frustration on so many levels. What's not to love? A lot.

• Read more

This week, TechSoup published a new article on site analytics and privacy issues, Site Statistics and User Privacy for Nonprofit Websites. It's a complex issue with some strong feelings attached; there's much more to say than we could include in the article, but we hope it can serve as a starting point to help you make decisions about your nonprofit's website. Check out the article and share your thoughts in the TechSoup forums.

Internet privacy, particularly with respect to advertising, has been a big topic in the news lately. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) is introducing a bill next month that would force all U.S.-based websites to explain how users' data is being used and allow visitors to opt out of behavioral targeting campaigns (a few months ago, Boucher proposed a less-popular opt-in regulation).

Predictably, the advertising industry is responding negatively. "How many consumers want to pay $1,000 a month to have access to the Internet?" asked Matthew Wise of Q Interactive in a recent debate. "The reason they don't have to is because of advertising." If that argument sounds eerily familiar to you, it's because it's been voiced by the telecommunications industry throughout the net neutrality debate.