Stanford Social Innovation Review

Dear Amy,

I liked this interview, because I think it speaks to a race and technology gap which has often bothered me about Web 2.0. I work in an organization that primarily serves African Americans in Oregon. When we want to get the word out about our events, we use various community email lists and community newspapers, we don’t just put a notice on our website, facebook, linkedin and twitter and call it good. No. That’s not where the majority of the people who come to our events are looking. The majority of African Americans in Portland are not hyper connected. We want to be there when they get there, but they’re not there yet. This is why I am going to do a workshop on New Media at our upcoming Career Fair.

This attitude represents a shift which I think is needed, an even less hierarchical look at new media, something that is based on a collaborative model of leadership. Instead of Web 1.0, (Here is my brochure) and Web 2.0 (we will get the most wired users and get the most friends and then we will be successful)  I like the idea of having connections between individuals and organizations be the highest good that comes out of a Web 2.0 strategy. As a fund development professional, I feel that giving people opportunities to connect around your organization will lead to more good feeling about your organization, in addition to the stories you can tell about the services that you provide.

Can we call this Web 2.1?

»» Posted by: Mazarine on February 6, 2009 04:56 PM

This is so timely. As you know I am deep in the trenches at call2action where we are shaping tools for individuals AND organizations around online video. There is a constant tension between empowering the users and answering to nonprofits that I find fascinating. We have a library of videos that can be added to by anyone. We have a list of actions that also can be added to by anyone. And our main goal is for people to match them up and spread the word so that finally message and action can be united as they are shared around the web. Now I might use a video made by some dude in Wichita to illustrate need for an action being posted by charity:water. And vice versa. The response has been everything from an enthusiastic Alleluia to an emphatic Hell No! Creating tools to satisfy both mindframes is an interesting task…
Something else that stood out to me is how precisely local a global organization can get- those 15 members who live in Radford County can be connected to each other. So funny. We had to have the internet and the global village to get back to rallying the 15 people in the little town with the same interests.
Be well,
Maha
http://blog.call2action.com

»» Posted by: Maha on February 9, 2009 03:17 PM

Hi Amy,

Thanks for the interview. Clay’s discussion of the ACLU provides a strong example of an organization that would seem to benefit from a shift to a more network-centric model of activism. Your reframing of the question works well: “What can the relationships between our members do for our community?”

Still, there are other models for successfully engaging individuals/communities. Celebrated nonprofits like MapLight do nothing (as far as i know) to connect their members. Should they? WalkScore (created by a for-profit) serves a nice, modest function, without building communities. Alex Steffen often mentions the environmental benefits of Netflix. Zipcar also uses the Net smartly.

Perhaps i seem to have strayed off topic, yet i think that these examples highlight aspects of the changing roles of nonprofits. The ACLU, NRDC, United Way and so on - the big membership nonprofits - could potentially benefit greatly from, and create greater value with, a network-centric approach. Yet, as someone who works at a smaller nonprofit, with project-specific clients, i feel that other approaches exist as well. How might my organization utilize the Net to create value? The possibilities are endless.

Here are two approaches we are trying. One is called OCEAN. We utilize the Net for QAQC on a big data gathering project that brings fishermen’s local knowledge into the process of designating marine protected areas off the coast of California. (http://www.ecotrust.org/ocean) A second is called FoodHub. We seek to create an online wholesale marketplace for regional foods in the Pacific Northwest. (http://www.ecotrust.org/foodhub/) The first project has won a lot of recognition (a Mellon Award for Technology Collaboration); the second is an idea that has attracted interest for years but has never, as far as i know, been implemented in North America with strong success. (eFresh is a Dutch startup that recently landed big funding for a similar platform: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/08/dutch-startup-efreshcom-raises-54-million-from-rabobank/)

One theme running through these examples is that the hard line between for- and non-profit is blurring. (Paul Hawken made this observation at his 2007 Long Now talk.) That’s part of the changing roles.

One last note. As i was reading your post and listening to Clay, i couldn’t help but reflect on another recent piece, an article in the Journal of Philanthropy: Americans Are Passionate About Social Causes, But Few Take Action Based on Their Beliefs, Study Finds (http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/7054/americans-are-passionate-about-social-causes-but-few-take-action-based-on-their-beliefs-study-finds). The study says that -63% represents, “The difference between those Americans who say the environment is personally important to them, and those who have donated time to environmental causes in the past year.”

I was thinking about this study in the context of the changing roles of nonprofits. There are certainly a lot of social causes for which volunteerism is essential, and i am cheered by Obama’s call to service. But, for environmental efforts, i wonder if this question is as relevant as it was once perceived to be.

Individual acts like planting a community garden or choosing a bike over a car are both important and gratifying. Local activism like the recent opportunity in Portland, Ore. to attend a City Hall meeting on proposed green building regulations don’t necessarily involve volunteering for a nonprofit. And savvy new groups like Focus the Nation are promoting a network-centric approach, less about donating time than about becoming an organizer.

Roles certainly are evolving. It is an exciting, challenging era for nonprofits - and for all of us.

»» Posted by: Howard Silverman on February 11, 2009 09:58 AM

Mazarine -

Thanks for your terrific example!  I think your situation is a great lens to use when considering this conversation.  Yes, the world is more and more digitally connected every day, but that doesn’t mean the messages only need to go out online or even in just a few places online.  People are still spread out and connect to each other in various ways.  How does your organization work to connect the online and offline messages to each other (so that when the transition from offline connection to online connection with the organization takes place, the message is consistent and valuable)? 

I think you make a great statement here: ” I like the idea of having connections between individuals and organizations be the highest good that comes out of a Web 2.0 strategy.”

Thanks again for contributing to this!

»» Posted by: Amy Sample Ward on February 23, 2009 05:09 AM

Maha -

Thanks for joining in!  Your point about geographically connected groups really only coming together online is a very interesting one and one that is covered in some fascinating case studies in Here Comes Everybody.  What is interesting about online communities, is not that they are are or aren’t geographically dispersed, but that the process of organizing and mobilizing in cut to a fraction.  When you don’t have to rely on bringing people together in one room to make decisions, strategize and motivate, you are already way down the pipeline to making change happen.

What do you think are the most important dynamics in the “constant tension between empowering the users and answering to nonprofits” that you see with your organization?

Thanks again!

»» Posted by: Amy Sample Ward on February 23, 2009 05:14 AM

Howard -

Thanks so much for joining in here as well as contributing to the Net2 Think Tank this month!

I love the issues you reference when you say, “as someone who works at a smaller nonprofit, with project-specific clients, i feel that other approaches exist as well. How might my organization utilize the Net to create value?”  What I think about here is that, regardless of whether your organization really has a network or community or not (as you reference organizations that don’t), there are still groups of people coming together “out there” that could benefit from information, research, support, or other provided value from your organization.  Even if your community isn’t on your website or blog or facebook group, there is still a community related to the work and cause that your organization is focused on.  And, as you say, we need to be asking that kind of value the organization can provide that community.

Roles certainly are evolving; I agree!  I’m very excited to see how the “networked nonprofit” manifests.

Thanks again for your thoughtful contribution here!

»» Posted by: Amy Sample Ward on February 23, 2009 05:20 AM