Monday, October 24, 2011
Five Investments You Can Skip
Stanford Social Innovation Review: It seems like every week a new report is released calling for nonprofits to adopt a practice or increase investment in yet another area of their organization. The list of things a nonprofit must do to be effective is now miles long and ridiculous. As a leader of one of the largest capacity-building organizations in the country, I want to let you in on a little secret. You can ignore nearly all these findings and best practices.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
In our current fast-paced media world, I was surprised to see Social Media as one of the items on this list. Although it is something that can be skipped, it is usually so highly valued. It seems to be a matter of pride in being more and more involved with social media, and I am usually not at all surprised when I see a "Follow us on Twitter!" button on a company's website. While it may be considered an investment that can be skipped, I wonder how much it would really affect someone to have and run something like this. Like most things, I'm sure it varies, but I personally love when companies branch out to social media, and I don't think this sort of thing should be on a list of "skippable" investments.
Like Brooke, I was surprised to see certain technological aspects, such as websites, on this list. The internet is such a huge portion of how information is gathered today. If I were looking into supporting a nonprofit organization, I would almost certainly want to visit their website to find out more information. This isn't to say that a Facebook page wouldn't suffice, but it would feel less legitimate than visiting an actual website. I do believe that many starting organizations overplan - if there's one thing I've been learning recently it's that not much happens quite as you expect it will. So, yes, a guideline is necessary, but trying to set every small detail in stone may end up backfiring.
This guy's a nut job. While I'll concede there MAY be justifications for his opinions streamlining many of the nonprofits out there, this bulleted article is considerably less than useful as is.
Don't use volunteers? How is a company who likely can't afford a fulltime staff supposed to get along without the help of volunteers?
I THINK his intention is force nonprofits to think for themselves and what their companies REALLY need rather than relying on consultants who have less invested in a company's success to tell them what to do. And while that's a great INTENTION, I don't think he explains himself enough.
I think that this is very interesting. I was also surprised at first to see social media on this list but after I thought about it I realized that it makes sense. There are so many pages on Facebook. I know that I for one do not use it to find local businesses and if a business is not getting that many hits on a page than the time and effort it takes them to maintain the page is not worth it. I also think that the overall message is one that I personally should think about more. Do I need it or “should” I do it.
I disagree with much of this article. I was surprised to see websites axed from this list. If I am looking for a non profit the first place I go is the web. Their website should be a plethora of information about the non profit's mission and business. A facebook page just doesn't have a professional feel to it. I know many non-profits which could not survive without their volunteers. Some are community theaters. One non profit that specifically comes to mind is a riding academy for challenged children. Volunteers take care of the horses day to day needs, lead the horse the child rides and walk beside the child to be sure he is safe. Volunteers also transport horses in their trailers which allows the non profit to eliminate costs of travel and vehicles. The author also compares social media to a fad. I do not think that is true. I think social media has already begun to change the way people buy products or patronize businesses, non-profit or profit. I don't think that simply saying "like" my page on facebook is the correct way to use the media, but it is a start. Instead, I think it is a way to truly communicate with the public. I have at least once gone to a show because one of my friends mentioned it on a social media page saying that the "understudy was amazing! Don't be afraid to go this weekend." I am more likely to believe this friend than a random reviewer. I have also spent my money on something else when someone I trusted told me a performance was not up to par. These days, thousands of people can be told the good or the bad things about a non profit with the click of a mouse. Social media can be misused, but it cannot be ignored.
While this article raises some good points about areas that smaller companies do not necessarily need to put money into, I think things like having a good social media footprint and a polished website are the areas on this list that actually might be worth putting money into. Given how the world seems to work these days, there's a better then likely chance that the first impressions that person looking into your organization will be from a web perspective.
It's suggesting skipping websites, perhaps using Facebook instead, but also avoiding social media. A lot of advertisements now encourage us to go to Facebook dot com slash something, and it is true that this is a much simpler form and it's convenient that people are already familiar with it for basic information. For actually using fans and keeping people up to date, it's funny that even large companies now haven't quite figured out how to use social media.
This author works for Taproot, an organization with 20 people on the board and a mission statement, so it's weird that he's suggesting nixing those when it still sounds like a bad idea.
While I understand that the author is trying to get the point across that non-profit organizations may want to reconsider what they really need as apposed to what they "should" have, I don't think his suggestions here have full merit. He even contradicts himself by saying that you don't need a website because a facebook page will suffice, but goes on to say that social media is a waste of time and energy. I disagree completely with not needing a website. If you seriously want to have your company accessible to the public, a website is the number one way of doing it. It creates an easy and fast way to get your information out.
Its clear that websites and social media are critical to a nonprofit organization so I thought I would comment on another ridiculous aspect: voiding volunteers. This article is.... interesting. Not to invest in volunteers? That sounds a little absurd. You're investing nothing into them... and they only produce progress/profit. Through the article as a whole it seems to me that he has almost eliminates every way of spreading the word of an organization effectively in our society..
I don't think that using social networking is too bad of an idea for non-profits. Though I wouldn't say it is extremely effective, it's usually a very simple and public way to advertise what you need to.
Although I don't pay attention to companies on social networking sites, that doesn't mean that others won't. I rarely look at "pages" on facebook, but I know that other people do.
This article raises a great point. It seems like a lot of the things we use to simplify our lives only end up getting in the way. With corporate settings in particular, this can be problematic and decrease efficiency drastically. It's similar to the trend we see of people calling meetings without anything to discuss; a productive idea from the get go but not enough content to make it worth the effort.
I agree with this article in the area of non profits spending too much money and time on social media. I think there are many companies in the commercial world that also waste their time on social media. In general the people you are getting in your social networks are the people who are already part of your fan base, so you aren't really bringing in much revenue that way. Also, I don't believe there are that many people who are active enough in social media to really let the companies earn back their money.
Of course these are generalizations, and the author admits his suggestions aren't applicable in every situation. However, he makes some great points. Lighter, nimbler administration to make the process more efficiently. I can't count the number of non-profits that have a link to Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr on their websites. But I mean honestly, how many people are actually building valuable connections based on social media? As a consumer, I've very rarely been influenced by social media to go see a show, or do something. Stop wasting your employees' time by making them generate content for it.
Five investments you can skip..."if you are a small non-profit" I believe that the author is trying to tell smaller/newer organizations a few tips to the tread, but he doesn't make that clear. I feel that in a larger organization all five of these investments are vital to the success or the business. If the author is speaking of only small companies then these might be tips that they would want to accept. Marketing your company is great, but stay within the resources that you have.
Post a Comment