To follow more of the things I find online, you can follow @amysampleward on Twitter (which is just a blog and resource feed), or find me on Delicious (for all kinds of bookmarks).

• Have you accepted online technology as your organizational savior? – Small Act – “When your leadership has Shiny Object Syndrome, you’ll often come to work to find newspaper clippings on your desk or links in your email all about the Next Big Thing. There will be a note attached that says, “Let’s do this!” You’ll sigh inwardly, instantly thinking of a dozen reasons why it probably won’t work or why you lack the time and energy to give it the best shot possible (mainly because you’re probably still wrestling with the previous Shiny Object du jour), but you’ve fought and lost enough battles of this type to know that you might as well suck it up and do what they’re asking. The problem with Shiny Object Syndrome is that it operates on the assumption that because something is “popular” (like, say, Foursquare), then simply using it will guarantee success for your organization. This isn’t always the case. In fact, it rarely is.”
• 10 Non-Profits Leveraging Pinterest for Social Good – “There’s no question that Pinterest is the hottest social network right now. From your friends and family to celebrities, athletes and designers, everyone’s pinning visually interesting content. But did you know that non-profit organizations are pinning, too?” Have you tried Pinterest? Do you think it would be valuable for your organization or a waste of time?
• Forget Generation Y: 18- to 34-Year-Olds Are Now ‘Generation C’ – Interesting inforgraphic about the “Connected Generation” – what do you think? “It’s hardly news that young adults are the most digitally connected, but now Nielsen has come up with a new name for this group based on their common behaviors: “Generation C.” The C stands for “connected,” and the group comprises Americans between 18 and 34 — who are defined by their digital connectivity, Nielsen and NM Incite’s U.S. Digital Consumer Report says. They consume media, socialize and share experiences through devices more than other age groups.”
• Infographic: Do people still trust the news during election season? – Very interesting new infographic helping dissect data from a national poll examining whether or not Americans trust the media during political peaks. “The survey revealed the dramatic lack of trust Americans hold for sources of election news of all mediums. Of the six media types explored in the survey (cable news stations, network news, newspapers, talk radio, internet news sites, and blogs and social media), ‘traditional’ news outlets scored highest in terms of perceived credibility compared to newer and less traditional mediums…”
• Business competitiveness is defined by social innovation | Guardian Sustainable Business | guardian.co.uk – “There are few companies that can afford to not label themselves as green and something similar is happening to the word social. From corporate social responsibility to social business to social investment, previously limited to charitable activities and workers’ rights, social is on the march to becoming the new green. As with any label, ubiquity is as much a measure of success as a sign of abuse. And as with green we have to smarten up and learn to ask the right questions. For social impact some judge by good intention, while others measure by human development indicators or complicated calculations on social rates of return.”
• Spring of Code – “The OccupyLondon tech team is pleased to invite Occupiers and friends from the Open Source software community all around the world to participate in the biggest series of global Occupy code sprints yet, the Spring of Code.”

As Beth shared in your post:

“I love my iPhone,but I don’t want to support a company that is so nonprofit unfriendly.   Since none of these in-App donation challenges apply to the Android – as soon as my contract is up, I’m getting an Android.     But, since I have a few more months on my contract,  I’ve left a comment on this post asking Apple to reconsider its policy.  If you think having the ability to make in-App donations through iPhones without hefty fees or hassle – please send Steve Jobs a message now by signing this online petition.”

What do you think? Did you sign the petition – why or why not? Would love to hear from you!

Debra discusses the various tools available but focuses in on “tribes” – a concept most attributed to Seth Godin – emphasizing that crowdfunding (“using the collective funds of a group of people to raise money for a venture, organizaiton, or cause”) is most successful when you have already discovered/identified and connected with the natural leaders within your community and supported them to campaign or fundraise on your behalf.  This is not something I disagree with completely, but when it comes to crowdfunding, I think it’s a “chicken or the egg” discussion.

The Chicken

We have many different platforms where individuals can create campaigns or fundraising appeals that benefit themselves, registered organizations/charities, or groups and clubs. And people are doing it – raising money, promoting campaigns, leveraging the power of online social networks to spread and distribute their message, appeal and influence.

The Egg

We also have organizations spending time finding the latest new tools and ensuring their organization is listed in the bucket of possible organizations to benefit.  Ensuring that regardless of which platform an inspired individual or group prefers to use, they will be able to find and select that organization to benefit.

The Debate

So, which comes first? Which is the one to follow? It’s the inevitable, enduring debate that they are so tied together we can argue til we are blue in the face without getting very far.

If your organization isn’t listed, then of course no one is going to be fundraising for you. But just because you’re listed on every possible platform, doesn’t mean you’ll get a single penny.

My response is always the “middle road” of sorts:

1. find the platforms that are most aligned with your work and activities and the places your community uses most
2. ensure that your organization is listed on those platforms for anyone that wants to find you
3. create a space on your website for people looking to create personal projects or campaigns in your benefit: give them the materials, logos, content/copy and all the appropriate links and instructions on how to select your organization and create a campaign on their preferred platform
4. remind your community that you’re there and highlight the stories of those that do use crowdfunding to benefit you (no better way to talk about yourself than by telling the story of those who did something for you!)

What do you think? Is it really a chicken or the egg debate? How has your organization tackled the issue?  If you have ever created a fundraising campaign yourself to benefit an organization, how did you choose who to benefit? Would love to hear your thoughts!

Context for the event from Rory Cellan-Jones:  Prevailing ethos of the web has been libertarian, optimistic about the potential of the internet to be a medium of free expression and break down barriers.  That ethos continued until the last three years or so with issues in Burma, Iran, and China.  We’ve seen potential for those unsympathetic to the cause to use the technology too – a bit of an arms race created.  Technology is amoral – it doesn’t care. In Iran we’ve seen it used to get out information and resist censorship but have also seen it used by the government to alter a mobile phone system and monitoring calls.

Tweets and highlights from this event on Twitter at #AITech

Panelists include:

• Susan Pointer, Google’s Director of Public Policy & Government Relations
• Andrew Keen (via video), author of Cult of the Amateur: How the Internet is killing our culture
• Kevin Anderson, blogs editor of the Guardian
• Annabelle Sreberny, Professor of Global Media and Communication, School of Oriental and African Studies (with special interest in Iran, bloggers & social media)
• Rory Cellan-Jones, Technology Correspondent for the BBC, is chairing.

Susan Pointer: declaring an interest as a passionate advocate of the potential of internet technology. When it comes to the potential to underpin human rights, for me the question is not technology good for human rights but is the access to information, the ability to connect with people online, to use online tools to mobilize offline activities, to question wisdom, and shine a light of transparency – it’s a useful tool for promoting and underpinning human rights. So, the answer is yes as a tool. The access to information drives knowledge. The technology itself is not intrinsically good -at Google we are advocates for free expression on the internet and free access for all; the technology istelf is and should be a neutral platform for this. it does not itself dictate who does the communicating or how we assess the communications. Nor does it require that we leave our human faculties at the on switch – the internet democratizes the channels.  Rather than ask if the tool is perfect or not, we should work together to make it a perfect tool, keep the internet platform healthy.

Andrew Keen: I would never argue that technology is against human rights. When it comes to the internet, you can of course find lots of examples where twitter or facebook or email have been used by governments or corporations or regimes. But, the tools of the digital revolution are used by those against the regime but are equally used by those in the regimes.  Because of the natural of the internet, where traditional intermediaries have been done away with, it’s increasingly easy for regimes to use this supposed democratized media for their own.  I haven’t seen that much proof that internet has changed [post the Obama election]. Changes come through people and culture and not through technology. I’m not arguing that it is bad, but the internet isn’t necessarily good for human rights.

Annabelle Sreberny: Communication technologies have been good for human rights since we created the alphabet. These are tools that can perhaps accelerate the speed of information and the number of people involved, but it’s always had the potential for change. Politics is communications by another name. Communication technologies have always been used for political change, especially with Iran. 1905-1911, people were publishing in exile, printing and sharing over the boarder, etc. in Tehran. 1975 revolution used leaflets and cassette tapes helped mobilize and push the revolution. Youtube and facebook are just the new tools for political change. Western audiences came to know Iran through the 2009 election, the internet had been the place where you could find politics happening inside Iran when in person it was very hard there.  For example, the internet was important because it was difficult to organize offline. Given the difficulties of face to face politics and public space control, many of the people 30 and under stay home where they can be online and be free. They are inventing it for themselves. One thing that internet technologies can do is the bringing together across boundaries – so, the diaspora are slowly invited back into politics. Which causes a lot of Iranian politics to take place outside of the country.  This is politics – we need the good and the bad; the cyber army, the 10,000 bloggers claimed to be trained by the national guard, etc.  In Iran the regime hasn’t yet shown itself to be as savvy as the green movement.

Kevin Anderson: I think in terms of human rights and damage of censorship the internet has been a net good.  Without social media, we wouldn’t have been able to provide the kind of information that was available. It would have been a blackout of information but suddenly there’s a way to get it out. The Guardian had an injunction to gather all the names of the people who were killed and detained and that’s something that would have never been possible without the internet. I think what we are learning is that increasing the freedom of information isn’t all that’s needed to free those living under extremist regimes.  People point to Obama but it was actually a perfect marriage of the internet and traditional pounding on doors. The internet can be problematic – some of the debates can become quite divisive online instead of cohesion. I think underlying slacktivism isn’t enough – you can’t just turn your profile green.  Just as the Guardian used crowdsourcing to get the names of those detained, the government is using crowdsourcing too. Security is going to be increasingly one of the things that internet activists have to learn. Today, a China official said the internet is a new battlefield without gun powder. The incident with Google in China has made aware the increasing militarization of the internet – targeted attacks against corporations and activists and that’s the most worrying development.  These are sophisticated attacks and as the regimes become more sophisticated in espionage methods, people engaged in human rights will have to live in a new threat environment.

Questions:

Isn’t there plenty of evidence that technology is actually bringing information to societies in a way that was not possible 20 or 30 years ago?  Isn’t accelerating the process by which people can take on governments?

Andrew Keen: The wall in Berlin was open by accident by a guard, so you could argue that the internet is a distribution of knowledge so that would have never happened. The internet is actually a really effective tool for maintaining regimes.  So, this organization of knowledge could actually be a good thing for demoralizing government.  The more knowledge there is in the world, the easier it is to spy or look into the knowledge.  Let’s not delude ourselves that the opposition are Luddites.

We always thought of the internet as a free space with free spirits, anarchic, but it’s actually becoming dominated by a few corporate players, like Google. It has said a lot about it’s commitment to freedom of expression and so on, but it’s first duty is to it’s shareholders just like any other corporation.  Given that, how profound is Google’s commitment ever going to be to human rights?

Susan Pointer: First, Google’s size – we live or die by the trust users have in our services. We have no contract, tie-in, etc. – most all of our services are free.  Those users are free to choose whether to use our services or elsewhere. We retain their loyalty by providing services they want to use and having protections in place that they trust. It’s very different than your traditional model. Without a doubt, every user is important to our business but every user has the choice. Do we want to keep you? Of course, so we have to keep innovating, providing exciting services and that’s what drives. We support an open and competitive environment that is based on user buy in. In terms of our commitment to online freedom of expression, from the beginning our motto has been to do no evil – it means we are committed to providing as much access as possible.

Even in China?

Susan Pointer: We took the decision as a very complex – google.cn  It was not an alternative to the normal site. We found that there were users in China couldn’t access the .com site so it was created to give them access.

There was no commercial imperative behind that?

Susan Pointer: It was absolutely based on what would provide the most access to our users there. What that means  is that in order to set up the .cn site we had to be compliant with Chinese law. Which meant self censorship of the results. We would do that, we would not provide access to the .com site so you could still get results there, and on the .cn site we would provide a message when censorship was happening so the user would see when results were being withheld. In light of our investigations of attacks on the human rights activists, we have taken the point that we are no longer comfortable self censoring results and are pursing how we can provide results without censorship with China which could mean we have to discontinue use there.

Historically, people have used all kinds of methods to fight for human rights. Is there evidence that these tools are making the fight easier?

Annabelle Sreberny: The arguments would have to focus on the speed and the numbers of people involved. It’s about scale. They work like memes, the speed people react and join in.

Slacktivist term, is there not a danger that 20 or 30 years ago there was far more intensity because easy technology wasn’t there. You had to get face to face with people.

Kevin Anderson: I think it’s a bit of both. The idea that social media completely transplants face to face – one of the difficulties is that it isn’t an either or. I think there are people who say “yes, there are people who have said I’ve changed my avatar green…” One of the things with Dean’s campaign initially was that they had huge amounts of online activism but had problems turning that into real life work. It can be broad but shallow. The power of the Obama campaign was translating online activity to real world impact. Translating a click into someone on the streets is the step it takes.

People have seen technologies for a force for good and bad – in Iran you have to say that there was a unique set of circumstances. Before the election you had a population that had migrated to the internet, a government who had let them have that space. After the election that space exploded and the government was slow to catch up. But now they are catching up, with the cyber army and beyond. The question is how can we make it a force for good?

You use the term slacktivism about people in the west – the point that needs to be made is that internet lets people participate in the activism without the fear, true there is the other side of the coin…

Kevin Anderson: The point I’m making is that politics is communications but it is also a number of other actions, especially when you are dealing with regimes that have been successful at staying in power. You have to use all the tools of politics to make that change. While freedom of communications is key, there are a number of other steps. As regimes get more sophisticated, like we see China exporting some of it’s internet controlling tools elsewhere (like Iran), the methods have to get more sophisticated. If you show support you are lazy – no. But there has to be a number of people taking actions in the real world, too.

Annabelle Sreberny: Mousy solidarity – how easy it is to click on a petition, and so on.  Why the sense of solidarity? Because we don’t ave politics like this – it feels good to be part of it. We feel like we can participate.

Our attention span is ever shorter, time is relative.

Kevin Anderson: If it’s going to be that transient 24-hour news cycle, that sustained action is key. Once the novelty wears off, breaking through the media cycle is difficult. In Iran, it’s quite clear, this is a long sustained struggle and isn’t something that’s going to happen quickly. You had more democratic and open societies with the Velvet and the Orange revolutions. With the Chinese, the point they made was that we have to control information otherwise there will be chaos.

Susan Pointer: It was the immediacy that played the role in creating interest in Iran. Had that information come out weeks later it would have been restricted to academics and others pouring over the information. It’s important to sustain that information and interest. The discussion about membership of an organization and what it means to be active: lots of people would have joined a group or gone to a meeting without contributing. The power of showing numbers online can be more powerful than showing up online. We need to look at how membership and participation are defined. Where does the pressure come from on an international exposure. How we defend the nature of the internet: it makes institutions and governments nervous. We need to be as vigilant in our spaces as internationally to keep it without gatekeepers and screeners. That’s what will keep it a source of immediacy.

The deision making process by Google – with Iran it can seem clear. What kind of process does Google go through to make those decisions?

Susan Pointer: Once we created google.cn we had to meet compliance. In general terms, I spend a lot of my time with issues where access to our services are restricted and we work to fix it. The open access to our services – it shouldn’t matter where in the world you are, you should be able to access services.

Is the speed and scale of internet communications a bug as well as a feature?

Kevin Anderson: My experience online is largely positive. The places where i see the most animosity is news sites. And that’s not the internet to me.

There’s debate between those who say you should be able to say/do anything and those that say other people’s human rights are at risk in that situation.

Kevin Anderson: I can only speak for myself but I wouldn’t say anything online that I wouldn’t say face to face. It’s said that it is still so new we haven’t created social mores for it. I remember when the AOL newbies came on and we thought they were ruining the internet… if you are saying things you think would turn you red if you were saying them outloud, then you probably shouldn’t say them.

Climate change and climate gate – what are the social media implications?

Kevin Anderson: as a journalist, yes, we want to present all sides but do we present all sides as if they are valid? At the Guardian our editorial decision is very different than at the BBC. We can take a stand. I believe strongly in objectivity but it can be a difficult thing in fractious debates like this. It might be a bit beyond this debate.

If corporations are immoral – one of the reasons we expect corporations to be moral is because Google wears morals on the sleeve, etc. Where does the openness of information infringe on human rights (like Google Buzz – there was no consent for followers, etc.)?

Susan Pointer: mission, people, leadership and so on decide who a company is. I chose Google because I felt that it made good decisions. It’s easy to disassociate ourselves though. One thing I would say from our perspective is we follow through from the way we communicate, some would argue we are too open but I think that’s part of the process to engage with users. Buzz is one where we thought we had the controls in place but the options that were there could have been better with visibility – and we responded immediately.  We do have the ongoing discussion with our users. Privacy comes down to individuals having choice, transparency and control. Transparency in the human rights space is interesting – we want the option to be anonymous but we also want to know who is saying something.

Google’s business depends on knowing more and more about users – behavioral advertising. Isn’t that going to be difficult to walk that line? You have to make bigger profits and that lies in knowing more about your users.

Susan Pointer: Majority of our advertising is contextual – the search you made and the content on the page. We hold IP addresses, and not users. You can also opt out permanently of being associated with certain things. In settings, users can have the option to opt out, or opt in to certain things.

Annabelle Sreberny: So much of the content from Iran was user generated content sent to the media – what’s happened to that? Why should we be working for free for large media? Facebook is increasingly hard to excavate. People put content online that they want to share but you can’t get to it. What happens to the content we are putting up there?

Do you think access to technology will be acknowledge as a basic human right like water and shelter? Is it trivializing human rights by associating the internet with it?

Kevin Anderson: Yes. Technology – internet is about communications. We already have universal access provisions for things like telephones. Technology infuses my life. What we are seeing now is not that people don’t have access but choose not to have it. Why do people exclude themselves and what are the resasons? Especially in a technologically advanced country, that becomes a bigger issue.

Susan Pointer: When we are talking about technology we are taking it from the point that you have access to it. We have to consider the fact that in many places of the world people still don’t have access. We aren’t just talking about changing governments but giving citizens access to information at all.

Should Amnesty be fighting for the right to access the internet?

Annabelle Sreberny: Article 19 – the fundamental mission. THe right to community is all about access. Thinking about the right to communicate opens up many interesting issues.

Is there any indication that Amnesty is doing better now with technology?

Amnesty Rep: You can argue yes. If you look at Amnesty’s history, 49 years ago people wrote letters to get people out of prison. Once we had fax machines, we started having urgent actions to send a fax. Now we coax people to send emails. Technology gives us new ways to do things.

I would imagine a letter or a bag of letters 20 years ago was possibly more effective than a million emails today.

Amnesty Rep: It explains why we’ve never given up on letters. To some extent you can delete your inbox really quickly than you can get rid of a bag of letters. But it also means we can get information quickly and from everywhere quickly.

What technology means for people who are experiencing a crisis who don’t have access – don’t make it onto twitter, don’t make the news cycle?  Like Sri Lanka where pictures weren’t getting out.

Annabelle Sreberny: There were also huge demonstrations elsewhere pulling in the diaspora.  They play a role in alerting the media in other places. We can fall into the trap that one technology takes over from all others. Other technologies are still around. With the diaspora, you just need to get enough people to pay attention that they can spur the media.

—–

Venessa Miemis discusses “How to be a Woman in a Man’s World” – picking up initially on a recent post from Clay Shirky, titled “A Rant About Women.”  Shirky’s post, or rant, claims women “aren’t just bad at behaving like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks. They are bad at behaving like self-promoting narcissists, anti-social obsessives, or pompous blowhards, even a little bit, even temporarily, even when it would be in their best interests to do so.”  Some of this sentiment has been shared before in the blogosphere, especially in the conversations (debates?) about the lack of women on the presenting line up at conferences or other high-profile settings (especially in the tech sector).

In response to the comment danah boyd left on Clay’s post, Venessa poses the question: “What are the expectations for women (or what should they be) as we progress into an increasingly interdependent global society?”

Venessa ends her post with this great passage:

I think we’re seeing a shift in the values we find commendable in society, and it’s not about men or women being better. It’s about being co-designers of a healthy, equitable society. It’s about keeping an eye on the big picture, and trying to live up to a standard that’s captures the essence of what it means to be human. And I don’t think that’s going to be accomplished through acting like anti-social obsessives or pompous blowhards. It’s going to be through empathy, altruism, and collaboration.

You can read the full post, How to be a Woman in a Man’s World, here.

My comment to Venessa:

Hi Venessa –

I have been blogging for a few years (professionally – personal blogs for many years) and have reached enough people that I do feel I have a community of readers, though no where near your 30,000.  When I tried to contact Clay I received a response within the hour.  But unlike any of your methods, I emailed him.  I have never gotten a response from him on Twitter or elsewhere. And reading your introduction about your trials of making contact despite all your other accomplishments and accolades juxtaposed with mine, made me think:

Maybe I simply went where he was, or where he was comfortable, or where he wanted to connect.

As I read the rest of your post (incredibly thought-provoking!), I started to think about how my reaction to the first part, actually came back to me over and over again.

Maybe it’s because I’m a “Millennial” and we have as a generation rethought or redesigned so many aspects of public and “private” identity, but I think less about if the person I am trying to connect with, the community I am trying to serve (I work in the nonprofit sector), or the audience I’m trying to reach is a man or a woman, or if they are arrogant or shy.  I ask myself where do they want to go? How do they want me to connect with them?

This could very easily turn into a post of its own and maybe I’ll write something up – but, mostly, thank you for continuing to explore in this public place and inviting us to explore with you.

I know that my focus probably starts to wander from where Venessa originally intended the meat of her post to focus, but I’m curious what you think.

Is it really about gender?

Or is it about place, process, voice, or something else?  Looking forward to your ideas!

The piece is reposted below:

Have we replicated our offline social dynamics and barriers online? I believe we have, and so does Danah Boyd.  As profiled in the New York Observer, Danah talked to the data uncovered in her four years of research on new media use in a presentation at the Personal Democracy Forum.  If we truly are reproducing our offline social divides online, then it’s further proof that the central part of your social media strategy needs to be focused on your audience.

“MySpace has become the ghetto of the digital landscape,” Ms. Boyd explained to the crowd. And many of us in these social environments, she said, “have gotten into the habit of crossing the street like we always do to avoid the riff-raff.” – NYO

You’ve probably heard of Facebook; you may even have set up a group or a fan page there for your organization.  But did you do that because you heard of Facebook in the news, or from a friend? Did you choose Facebook because you evaluated your existing community as well as the audience you wanted to bring into your community, and they were already using Facebook?  Did you consider MySpace? or Orkut? or Bebo? Maybe you’ve never heard of those platforms, but for some large demographics they are the hot spots online, not Facebook.

Let’s step back a minute and consider why a nonprofit or social benefit group wants to include social networking as part of a social media strategy.  Why would your organization want to have a presence on a social network?

• Go where the community already is!  Don’t expect the community to come to you, or even find you, online. Instead, go where they have already set up shop.
• Make your calls to action part of the routine!  Creating calls to action that match the community and can be accomplished, or promoted, in the same space will increase the overall participation you can garner.
• Join the community!  Don’t just come to the party and start asking questions or push calls to action; instead, actually join the community, answer questions, share links or information (even ones that aren’t related to your work but you may just know!), and be a genuine part of the ecosystem.

“The fact that digital migration is revealing the same social patterns as urban white flight should send warning signals to all of us,” she said. “It should scare the hell out of us.” – NYO

Choosing the platform or platforms to concentrate your efforts online is crucial.  You may hear about Facebook, but if your audience is on MySpace, it doesn’t matter how much time and energy you put in.  They won’t be there to find you.  When evaluating your community, some of the most influential items to consider regarding social networks include:

• Age: Facebook users can skew older than MySpace; many organizations in the UK have had great success joining the ecosystem on Bebo to extend the opportunity for teens to reach out for social services in a private way.
• Actions: What kinds of “actions” do you want your community members to be able to do? Each platform offer unique functionality and it may not match what your community members want to do with/for you.
• Data: Is your work reliant on certain data (whether for eligibility, age, etc.) that you will need validate, or at least advertise? Each platform displays profile information in different ways and you will need to check your settings and profile customization to ensure you are disclosing what you need, and offering opportunities to connect outside of the public messages.
• Goals: What are your goals for the inclusion of social networking in your social media strategy?  Be sure you don’t get caught up only on functionality that’s new and cool; remember why you’re there.

Danah’s research shines a bright light on an issue many activists and organizations have been concerned about ever since the media hype around Facebook VS MySpace rose as a loud voice in the conversation about social media use.  The issues our social service agencies and social benefit organizations are dealing with offline, in local communities, are showing up online.  It’s imperative that we recognize the social divides permeating online social networks and carefully consider how we craft our online strategies to truly reach and serve our communities.

What do you think? Has your organization had experience reaching your core constituents in an online social network? How did you identify the best place to concentrate your efforts?  What lessons have you learned?

You can download Danah’s dissertation here.

1. It’s not safe! What about the BU Craigslist killer?
2. What if our biggest rival pretends to be us online?
3. Social media means a lot of work and we don’t have the staff time to do that.
4. There is no place in our organization for social media.
5. People will attack us online with negative critique.

Read the answers to those questions and more of the story on Debra’s blog here.

And remember… the best comeback line is the truth, and the truth is that if you aren’t online, joining the conversation with your community members, supporters, and doubters, and engaging with the larger sector, then it doesn’t matter how great you think your branding is or how much you know your audience, because there is a quickly moving and building conversation about your work and your sector happening without you.  The only form of control you have over your message and your organization is to join the conversation that’s already happening.  Really.

This is a question for nonprofit organizations that use Twitter for outreach, fundraising, and advocacy campaigns:  do you factor your organization’s Twitter follow cost into your campaign strategy? Also, do you consider the follow cost before you start following another tweeter?

She raises a ton of issues and ideas for me and I wish I could launch into all of them right now!  Some of them include:

• Calculating cost (read: time) of maintaining conversations on Twitter
• How to leverage aggregation tools for listening so you don’t have to “listen” or read every Tweet that comes through
• Balancing your stream (both in content and frequency) so that your “cost” isn’t too high

And the list goes on.  I’d love to hear what you think about the cost or burden or even reward of following more and more people on Twitter.  What do you think?