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.

This week, Slate has a cute article on the lines public radio stations use to get pledge drive donations. If you listen to public radio, these will all have a familiar ring, particularly around this time of year:

The New York Jets would never let fans into the big game for free and then request donations as they leave the stadium. Public radio gives away its product and then asks listeners to pay once they're hooked, like the mythical schoolyard drug slinger. The strategy here is to remind listeners how much they rely on public radio (rely is probably the most oft-repeated word during these campaigns) and to ask them to put a price on their dependence. Most stations play it straight — "Think about how much you use WAMU and how you would quantify that in terms of your budget if you received a bill only a couple of times a year." Sometimes, however, this tactic can feel overbearing — and off-putting. When a host throws out a virtual bill ("WNYC pays over $5 million a year for NPR News and the BBC"), I want to send it back unpaid.

The one that drives me crazy, both as a public radio fan and as a member of the nonprofit community, is the "help us stop this dreaded pledge drive!" approach. Shouldn't our fundraisers be a cherished event for donors to look forward to every year?

Today on Beth Kanter's oft-fascinating blog, there's a discussion on social media and arts organizations. This is a topic that's near to my heart. Many galleries, theatres, opera companies, and orchestras are sporting slick new ad campaigns in an attempt to attract younger audiences. The results are sometimes a little embarrassing, as they seem to assume that twenty-somethings don't know anything about the arts or even particularly like them. The problem isn't that young people don't like ballet; it's that we can't afford it.

Of course, social media is a huge part of attracting a new audience, but Beth suggests that it's best thought of as a long-term investment. Beth asked the San Francisco symphony via Twitter if they see social media campaigns directly impacting ticket sales. Not really, they said, but it does foster long-term relationships and education. They use Twitter to reach people who appreciate the symphony but might not attend regularly. I think this is a much more mature and intelligent approach to garnering new audiences than "Look kids! We're cool!"–style ad campaigns.

One wonderfully effective social media campaign is Anaheim Ballet's YouTube channel, which combines performance footage with clips from classes, rehearsals, and goofing off. You just need to look at the comments to see that these videos are reaching the young and uninitiated en masse. It's the third most popular nonprofit channel on YouTube (well ahead of many heavy hitters), and I think that's largely because of the amateurism of the videos. It doesn't look like a big-money ad campaign posing as a YouTube channel; it just looks like a really good YouTube channel.

As a part of Blog Action Day 2009, bloggers around the world are being asked to think and write about climate change.

I often have to hold back a cringe when I hear discussion of climate change and other environmental issues. It's not that I don't try to do my part: I haven't owned a car in five years, I walk nearly everywhere I go, and I buy mostly locally-grown food. But I have trouble shaking the feeling that compared to the massive governmental and infrastructural decisions ostensibly made on my behalf, these meager steps do little more than help me feel smug. I have a lot of trouble reconciling the U.S. corporate sector's apparent embrace of environmental talking points with our conspicuous absence from the Kyoto Protocol.

This December, the United Nations will host a conference on climate change. Many outcomes and non-outcomes could result, but the goal is to establish a new climate change agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. Right now, there's something of a stand-off happening between richer and poorer countries, and many feel that the United States is giving the rest of the world the difficult choice between no agreement and an agreement that would be economically ruinous for the developing world.

Here's a fantastic blog post at NTEN from Network for Good's Rebecca Higman and Katya Andresen (we've linked to Katya's excellent blog numerous times in the past). Rebecca and Katya try to pin down the seemingly erratic behavior of online donors and offer some lessons on how we can develop longer relationships with Internet supporters.

Imagine a scenario when a check arrives in the mail as a result of a direct mail campaign. That supporter may receive a hand-written thank-you note back via mail. Perhaps even a phone call. And, of course, the donor database is updated immediately!

What about an online donor? Is his or her name ever retrieved from the online report? Is he or she added to a direct mail list? What about the thank-you? Is it sent back via Facebook or email, or will there be a snail-mail letter on the way?

It seems there's a bit of a discrepancy.

They go on to suggest that for follow-up communications with an online donor, you should defer to the donor's medium of choice. "Would you add a direct mail donor to your email list and remove her from your direct mail list? Probably not. If a supporter donates online through a nonprofit website or social network like Facebook, that supporter should be thanked online through that same medium." I would add that not only should the thank-you note arrive in Facebook instead of snail mail, but it shouldn't sound like a snail mail letter either: it should have the personal tone of an online exchange.

Earlier this summer, we talked about the Adobe MAX Awards, an awards program that recognizes multimedia achievements in the for-profit, nonprofit, and government sectors. We were particularly excited about this year's awards, as Adobe added a Social Responsibility category.

Well, the finalists are in, and now it's time to vote! Be sure to check out all of the social responsibility finalists; they all look intriguing. If you already recognize one of the finalists, that's because METRAC's Finding Zoe was honored last year in our Show Your Impact contest.

Voting is open only through Tuesday, October 6, at 12 p.m. Pacific time, so cast your vote now. And don't forget that donated products from Adobe are available at TechSoup Stock.