im-media-te impact by Brian Reich

05:58 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Need motivation to change the status quo?

Do we need more motivation to change the status quo than being told that the status quo isn't going to change?

Trendwatching, one of the leading global trend firms, released its "10 Crucial Consumer Trends for 2010" today.  Their first big trend for the coming year is entitled "Business As Usual" and suggests we lower our expectations for change.  They write:

In 2010, prepare for ‘business as unusual’. For the first time, there’s a global understanding, if not a feeling of urgency that sustainability, in every possible meaning of the word, is the only way forward. How that should or shouldn’t impact consumer societies is of course still part of a raging debate, but at least there is a debate.

Meanwhile, in mature consumer societies, companies will have to do more than just embrace the notion of being a good corporate citizen. To truly prosper, they will have to ‘move with the culture’. This may mean displaying greater transparency and honesty, or having conversations as opposed to one-way advertising, or championing collaboration instead of an us-them mentality. Or, it could be intrinsically about generosity versus greed, or being a bit edgy and daring as opposed to safe and bland.

Really? We shouldn't expect to change things - even in our hyper-connected, everyone-can-launch-a-movement, technology-enabled society?  What a bummer!  I suppose we could take their advice and subscribe to a slow, painful year of seeing organizations of all types fail to change and meet our expectations.  Or, we could redouble our efforts and say, to whoever will listen, through every means at our disposal - buying power, political action, media commentary, and more - that we are going to stand for slow change and more business as usual.

The world has to change if we decide to change it, right?

Its not all doom and gloom. The Trendwatching folks write "one only needs to look at the Googles of this world to get a feel for ' business as unusual'. So not surprisingly, the other nine trends in this briefing all touch on doing things differently, driven by changing consumer preferences and desires. Time to study and learn from those brands that you think are already mirroring today's more diverse, chaotic, networked society, and then outdo them."

I'm not satisfied. Let's shoot for 10 out of 10.

02:06 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

What's Wrong With the Analysis of "What's Wrong With Charitable Giving-and How to Fix It"

Pablo Eisenberg, a Senior fellow in the Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership at Georgetown Public Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., penned a terrific op-ed in The Wall Street Journal Tuesday entitled "What's Wrong With Charitable Giving--and How to Fix It." But his analysis of the challenges facing the nonprofit and charitable community and his suggestions for how to fix the system didn't go far enough.

Mr. Eisenberg is absolutely right when he says "Much of current philanthropic giving, by foundations and individuals, neither meets the needs of our charitable organizations nor addresses some of our most urgent public needs." And his nine recommendations, including increasing payouts and general operating support, adopting rolling grant-making, and reaching out to local groups and under-served regions, are sound. But even these significant changes in the way the nonprofit and charitable community operates won't fix the problems. Why not? Because they are mostly surface level suggestions. They assume that the nonprofit and charitable community is functioning properly, or could function more effectively, save for a few problems in approach and perspective.

My take: if we are going to have a vibrant, sustainable, and (most importantly) impactful philanthropic community, the very nature, focus, and function of nonprofits and charities needs to change. The space has lost its way. To get back on track we need a total reset.

Back in August I wrote a post entitled "Its not (just) the economy, stupid," about the many reasons, beyond the economic slowdown, that nonprofit and charitable organizations were having trouble raising money. Let me offer a few related points here:

1) There are too many nonprofit organizations. There are more than a million registered nonprofit organizations in the United States, and tens of thousands of new nonprofits are created every year. They are all competing for the same dollars and in many cases fighting to serve the same need. I believe in the free market, and a vibrant community of organizations all working to address serious issues will spur new ideas and innovation in how to serve the public. But there is such a thing as too much. There are simple too many nonprofits, too many messages, too many options, and not enough success. More money won't solve that problem, it will only make it worse. We need to take a good, hard look at all the organizations out there and make some choices about which ones are truly effective and worthy of continuing to operate. We need to find the groups that are operating successfully and figure out how to apply their expertise to other areas that are struggling. We need the organizations who are focused in the same areas to collaborate and work collectively to make progress. And we need to get rid of the egos--the people who run organizations more often than not get in the way. So ask yourself: is your organization having a real, meaningful measurable impact? And are you helping advance the whole community with your work? If not, please step aside and let someone else use the limited resources we have more effectively.

2) Service the Cause, Not Solving It. In my experience, most nonprofits and charities focus their energy on growing and sustaining their organizations and not so much on improving the way they do business or deliver their services. Making improvements to the system--how groups are funded, what systems they must follow, etc--will help. Having a watchdog will call attention to the issues. But operational changes can't provide the fundamental reset that is needed. Organizations are serving their causes instead of solving their causes in large part because the people who are running these organizations don't know any other way. The audiences who support them believe that their contributions are making a difference. We recognize and reward short term progress and not long term change and we have to stop. When we demand immediate outcomes, instead of demonstrating the patience it takes to shift how a society operates and people behave, we undermine our own efforts to improve our society. The whole system for addressing serious issues is flawed, and every day we move a little further away from having a real impact.

What is needed? First, a fundamental shift in the way we think about serving issues, recognizing how people get and share information, what motivates their behavior, and how it can be applied to what plagues our society. Second, a commitment--in dollars, but also in energy, and time, and perspective--so we can set long-term, ambitious, and meaningful, measurable goals for change on the big issue (and the small ones) and ensure we meet those goals over time. No more trying to change the world on a day-to-day basis... we have to look ahead. (NOTE: Mr. Eisenberg talks about funding over a multi-year period, but even if that money was made available, few, if any organizations have demonstrated their ability to maintain the talent and focus over that time to get the job done).

3) Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better. The Internet has empowered audiences in new and powerful ways. Technology gives each of us direct control over our information and the choices about how we spend our time and focus our energy. And we can use these tools to help organizations and address causes in ways that go well beyond donating. As a result, we simply don't believe--and probably for good reasons--that the institutions that once offered the guidance, support, and direction for how to address the issues facing our society know best. We can do it on our own, we don't need them. Moreover, most nonprofit organizations haven't embraced these new and different ways to engage and mobilize their audiences. Nonprofits invest much of their focus and energy on directing action behind a single, centralized agenda, instead of expanding their reach and looking for the best way to tap into the community (online and offline) to help address issues. They send a message that the public isn't truly important to the process.

Put another way... everything about how we communicate, get and share information, engage each other--online and offline--has changed because of the role that technology and the Internet play in our lives. Information moves faster, people are more closely connected, and the expectations we all have for where we will donate, who will we trust, and what kind of relationship and support we want from an organization, is changing. That means how organizations operate, educate, engage, and look at directing supporters and donors to take action must change as well.

We can use the tools that are now widely available online to conduct campaigns, and send notices, raise awareness of issues or solicit funds, and do so more efficiently and cost effectively than ever before. But, that doesn't mean that work should take priority over developing relationships and providing value to our audiences. We have prioritized telling a quick story that suggests progress over investing in long-term impact that both changes the world and drives people towards deeper commitments to organizations. We have become too accustomed to measuring success based on the size or popularity of an organization and not the value that the audience, who we rely on for support and donations, places on the work that groups are doing. As long as groups continue to focus on these wrong efforts, or blame the economy for its larger issues, nonprofits will continue to struggle.

Few people understand that and nobody--in any sector--has figured out exactly what it means. Nonprofits and charities aren't looking at the long term implications that technology and the Internet are having on society--they are struggling just to figure out how to design an effective Web site or use Twitter to make some easy cash. There are few, if any, larger organizations looking at these shifts at a level that all in the nonprofit and charitable community will benefit from either. The game is different, the rules need to be rewritten. And until the nonprofit and charitable community, and those who support and benefit from it, understands that everything has changed as a result of the impact of technology and the Internet, everything else is window dressing.

I have said before, and I will say it again here--there are lots of incredible nonprofit organizations, focused on serving a particular community in need or addressing an important cause, and doing so efficiently and/or with an innovative approach that drives real, meaningful, measurable impact. And there are people, in the nonprofit community, or coming from outside, looking at ways to apply their knowledge and expertise to solve some of society's most challenging problems. They are beginning to change things. But, for every person inside the nonprofit community who thinks differently, there are hundreds of corporations pumping money into a cause for the sole benefit of improving their brand, and reinforcing what doesn't work. For every organization that has shaken up its leadership, re-structured its team, begun to experiment with new, and different ways of tackling big issues, there are tens-of-thousands of other groups who are still stuck in a model that (maybe) worked twenty years ago, with little interest in, or hope of changing, and little prospect of having a meaningful, measurable impact on our society.

We won't make any progress until that ratio/balance changes, in a big way.

The challenges that nonprofits have had in convincing people that they are worthy of support, and sustaining that support, have been brewing for a while. We haven't made enough progress on the major issues plaguing our society in a while either--certainly not the kind of progress we are capable of, given the tools we have available, the interest and commitment from the global population, and the obvious need and desire for change.

Dumping more money into a bad system won't fix anything. Making some operational changes won't alter the DNA of the nonprofit and charitable space. We need to address the core identity of the nonprofit and charitable community issues first. Only then, with a total reset of how these groups operate, will we figure everything else out.

09:50 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

CNN's Model For Success (and what we should learn from it)

The big news out of the TV ratings report this week is that CNN is in fourth place -- last place.  That's right, the 24-hour cable news giant is floundering in the eyes of the viewers.  But CNN isn't concerned.  In fact, the big cheese at CNN, Jon Klein, said that ratings don't matter as much as you think.  Here is an excerpt from his comments on a call with staff yesterday:

Yes, our ratings in prime were down in October. Remember - we are a 24hr network - not a 3hr network. We are also just one network in a group that attracts hundreds of millions of viewers a month. Media writers might not understand that. Our competitors don't either. Despite the bad press we don't lose sight of OUR business. We, CNN/U.S., still attracts millions and millions of viewers a month, more than our closest competitors. Writers don't talk about our users -- we are on air and on line, globally -- rather they break it down to one part of the day.

 

What is Jon Klein's plan?  Simple - do great work.  Here is how he framed it:

Excellent journalism is what we are focused on. We refuse to do the things that might get us a quick number or cater to the extremes that would alienate our core viewers. It's important to work at it every day - it's our mission. It's the key to our growth. If we are outstanding ALL the time (and we are getting better and better at it) we will have an impact over time.

Now, I would argue that CNN isn't anywhere close to achieving that standard of excellence - with all their 'breaking news' alerts and 'expert' contributors. The news that they produce isn't any better than what the rest of the struggling media is producing. In fact, when CNN released its iPhone application a few weeks back, I refused to pay the $1.99 because I didn't think that the value of what they were offering was worth even that much. I do, and will pay, a lot for news and information -- but it has to be high value.  CNN hasn't proven to me that they can offer that yet.

Still, at least publicly, Jon Klein's view of how CNN can succeed - both as journalists, and financially - is different. Its refreshing to hear a news leader taking a long(er) term view, having both the confidence, and presumably the backing of their financial masters, that setting a course for excellence will pay off in the end.  They still have to do the work, and stay that course.  They still have to demonstrate to news consumers like me that their offering is worth my investment of time and money.  And they have to find a way to sustain that, to be patient even as the criticism of their approach persists.

Good luck, CNN.

12:32 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

The trouble with innovation

Innovation is important. Necessary. Critical to success.  We've all heard it.  Innovative or die. We here it all the time. 

There is a lot of new talk of late about how innovation can fix the economy, save education, solve the healthcare crisis, and more. Very smart people argue that innovation is the core of a successful company.  Books and cover stories about innovation are making the rounds like never before.

But there is a problem with innovation.  Its hard.  I mean really hard.  To do something innovative once, let alone innovating, you have to be smart, and engaged, and connected, and have enough free time to really focus on making changes and having an impact.  Do you have that kind of freedom in your day?

Innovation doesn't just happen.  You don't see something on your walk to work in the morning and then translate that into a radical change in your business model, or a new future for journalism before lunch.  In many cases, the true innovation that occurs happens over years or even generations -- you can't throw a new org chart together or a creative new tagline and have the work you do change.

I know innovation is important. I push my clients, and everyone project I am involved with, to think differently and change the way they are operating. I think our society is changing, rapidly, and innovation is a matter of survival today. 

But I also recognize that not everybody is innovative, or can innovate.  Some aren't in the right role, so their ideas aren't heard (not their fault, but still an impediment to change). Some don't have the time to focus.  Some don't have the access to information or the tools to help communicate or demonstrate the innovations that are needed.  None of those are intended as judgments on the intelligence or commitment of the people in the world today.  Rather, I am just trying to note that all the talk about innovation doesn't necessarily jive with the reality of how we operate.

If innovation isn't for everyone, but the future of our society depends - at least in part - on true innovation occuring, what options are we left with?  Let me suggest two quickly:

1) We need to redefine innovation.  Rather than glorifying the big idea or the creative new presentation, we should look at innovation as more of an incremental shift in behavior, attitude, and action.  You don't have to radically change a whole community or measure a huge impact to claim innovation.  One tiny shift in how someone goes about their day that you helped to drive could be a sign of innovation. One change in the way an organization operates is a sign of innovation.  One example of a positive outcome, even if its just a one-time example, is a sign that innovation is possible. Add those up, you'll have big changes, massive shifts. Look past the little things and you'll find yourself falling short of your goals.

2) We need to focus our efforts in more places.  Innovation, it seems, is always reserved for something huge - a whole industry, a way of life. We've seen innovations in green technology, in hos hospitals manage disease, in the way people ensure there is enough clean water around the world for the people who need it. What about the innovations that happened at home, around your office, in your community. That way of keeping your to-do list, so you can manage more items or free of some brain space to help a colleague... that's an innovation that has huge potential for impact.  A word change on a form that you have to fill out to request a stop sign from your local city government... that's an innovation that might save lives or begin a transformation of an entire neighborhood.  Point is, we all have the potential to be innovative, if we look at the every-day, ordinary, mundane things in our lives and look at how they might be improved or changed.

Innovation is important. Necessary. Critical to success.  We have all heard it, and we will continue to hear about it.  I hope that the way we think about innovation, however, will change.

01:18 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Why Google Wave Will Fail

I should note at the top of this post that I have not received an invitation for Google Wave.  I haven't seen the platform in action - other than a few screen shots that various bloggers and media have shared.  I haven't spoken to anyone directly about Google Wave or its functionality yet.  But even without any of that direct, first-hand knowledge of what Google Wave is designed to do, I know it will fail.

Why? Because the expectations that Google has set (or that have been set for them by the public) are way too high.  The promise is that Google Wave will redefine online communications.  It will replace email. It will elevate our ability to connect to eachother, and for the community to have an impact on society - whether its solving serious social issues, fixing journalism, or whatever. I suspect that if I said Google Wave can eliminate nuclear weapons, heal the sick, AND make Jay Leno funny, people would believe me. 

You know what... it can't be that powerful.  When you set expectations that high, there is nowhere to go but down.

Two thoughts:

First, Google Wave can't redefine online communications is because no single tool, or set of tools, has that kind of power.  Technology facilitates communications, it doesn't define it. We define communications.  People do.  We look for information that is relevant, timely and compelling to us and our lives.  We look for experiences that are interesting or valuable for us to be a part of.  We buy (or borrow, or steal) stuff that we value.  But technology -- that just makes it easier to get information, experiences, and stuff.  So while the tools are helpful, and new, robust, powerful sets of tools like those that are promised with Google Wave will certainly impact the way people get and share information with each other, you can't assign the responsibility for changing communications to a set of tools.

Second, Google Wave can't redefine online communications because nothing has that kind of power any more.  Back in the day when access to information was controlled by a few institutions, and the public's options were limited, major shifts were possible.  Today, when everyone has the ability to be their own media company - to create, consume and share information as they see fit, big changes are virtually impossible to come by.  We don't all follow the same information patterns.  We don't demonstrate the same habits.  We don't use the same tools.  And even in the cases where there are millions upon millions of people using the same channel or platform (like Facebook), all those users have different expectations and use the tools in different ways.  Google Wave may attact a lot of interest, and people may choose to use these news tools at the expense of some of the existing ones that are available, but it won't be a massive shift that everyone begins to follow.  There is no way.

The world is changing, quickly and dramatically.  Technology and the internet play a big role in that.  But the technology is not what drives change in our society.  And Google Wave, at the end of the day, is just another set of tools.  It will be exciting and valuable, I am sure, but we should (and they should) lower our expectations a bit about what it will do in our society.

09:14 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

The People Formerly Known As the Audience

Our society has changed - dramatically - over the past few decades.  We talk about it all the time in the context of business (flattening), government and politics (opening) and community (connecting). 

What about media and arts?

The National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture's has convened a discussion at their National Conference in Boston entitled: "The People Formerly Known As the Audience.'  The focus is on how social media and other democratic technologies have shifted our thinking about the relationships between producers, consumers, and distributors of media and art.  My initial thought is that while the audience used to consume media and art; now we are in the middle of it.  The production, promotion, consumption, and creation of media and art is happening more, and faster than ever before.  And the impact of the media and art that is emerging, through technology and the internet or as a result of it, is having a significant impact on our culture and our society.

Ahead of the conversation later today, let me throw out five thoughts:

1) Big things are afoot. The public is more engaged than ever before, more capable of collecting and sharing information with a wider audience – for free – than at any point in our history.  This drives greater interest in media and art and the creation of a more diverse and interesting culture.  This isn't simply about having more people sharing stories, showing off their talent, building a following because the barriers to entry are lower.  This isn't just about finding hidden talent far down the long tail of media and elevating them to the status of super celebrity because the institutional structures that once controlled everything are breaking down.  The impact of technology and the internet on media and arts is profound.  This is the beginning of a shift that will redefine every aspect of our culture and our society.

2) Think bigger. We must resist the desire to define or contain this new, emerging culture too quickly, to focus our attention on finding ways to marketing and monetize it above all. We should be thinking bigger.  What is the potential for technology and the internet to redefine our culture, and what say do we want to have in that?  What must be change, or adapt, within our society to support media and arts flourishing in the future. Gone are the days when the majority of the population would sit for hours to read a newspaper from cover to cover or tune in to watch a show on television. Our information experiences have changed and our focus and goals in terms of media and art should change as well. The idea that we will find a mass audience for anything, frankly, no longer exists.  So instead, what can we do with small, dedicated, passionate audiences?  How can media and art connect communities and individuals, bring together disparate ideas?  If we aren't careful, media and art are at risk of following the same patterns that the news industry has followed -- becoming commoditized, and losing some of its value.  But if we think bigger, we can elevate media and art to a role where it influences how we think, act, and perceive everything.

3) Lots of stories to tell. The news media is missing out on a huge opportunity.  We should make sure our society doesn't miss out on the same opportunity.  You see, there are an infinite number of stories about how technology and the internet are impacting media and art, about the media and art that are being created with new technologies, or that are emerging because these new tools and channels exist.  No single publication, channel or service has the ability to cover the full range of media and arts happenings – so they don’t, leaving huge gaps in what is covered. Even though the marketplace for media and art has expanded, the long tail has flourished, the media is still picking and choosing what they want to popularize and promote.  Not finding the stories that interest them most, the audience is forced to look to other sources (increasingly blogs and other alternative news sites) to receive what they consider a complete and instantly current information experience. But those who pay attention to media and art still spend too much time lamenting the lack of coverage, criticizing the news media for not doing a sufficient job.  Instead, we should be seizing the opportunity to create that coverage, to tell those stories, and to elevate the discussion to the level we (and the rest of the audience) desire.

4) More! The very idea of art and culture, of media in general, should be bigger – more voices, more access to information, more collaboration. Our culture is obsessed with the business of media, that work of a handful of dominant companies or providers.  But, fueled by technology, we all have the ability to learn or discuss whatever we believe is relevant, to produce and distribute information so that it reaches audiences any time, any place, with a more diverse (and deeply invested) audience, and through any device.  Instead of a few companies, distributors, creators, or similar, there should be millions.  Everyone is a gatekeeper and a storyteller now.  Every person with a blog or cell-phone-enabled camera can create media.  Every person with a computer and an internet connection can demonstrate their creativity to the world.  It is happening every day.  But we spend too much time trying to contain media and art, to define it and channel it.  Instead, we should be looking to support and enhance it, to create more and better media and art.

5) Know the new audience. It is easy to forget what life is like for people who don't spend all their time online, buried in newspapers, reviewing blog posts, creating media.  There are reasons why people engage with organizations, with issues, why they spend time watching, listening, reading and experience various forms of media and types of art.  There are reasons why people log on to the various platforms we build and buy the products we sell. The reasons are personal, they are poweful, and they must be understood if you want to understand the potential for media and arts in the future.  We spend so much time talking about business models and monetization strategies.  We obsess about the most effective and compelling ways to push information.  But how much time do we really spend listening to, and hearing from, the audience - what they want, what they value, and how we can help?  You must know the audience if you want to reach them - because what tools they use, when, and how will define that.  You must know the audience if you want to create something they will help to promote or share - because the benefit they receive or the relationship they have with their community will define that.  It is easy to forget.  But it is also easy to watch and understand, and then adapt what are you doing to meet the audience's needs.

That's it for me.  How do you think technology and the internet are changing media and arts?

04:12 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Forcing Social Innovation

The White House has created an Office of Social Innovation, and a $50 million Social Innovation Fund, to "identify the most promising, results-oriented non-profit programs and expand their reach throughout the country." As the White House blog explained in early July:

"This is a dramatically different way for the government to do business--and it reflects the President's new governing approach--finding and scaling the best social innovations; partnering with those who are leading change in their communities; and creating a policy environment for all these innovations to thrive."

I wonder if this 'dramatically different way for the government to do business' is really unique, or even dramatically different enough, that it will drive the kinds of innovative solutions and approaches to addressing social issues that our society desperately needs. I am not so sure.

The concept of social innovation may be new to our government, but it is far from new. There are already hundreds (thousands!) of nonprofits, foundations, businesses and individuals pursuing innovative new ways of addressing social issues, as well as dozens of colleges and universities offering programs focused on educating and training people in this arena, and countless conferences, media, and blogs analyzing and commenting on their efforts. There are some very innovative things that have come out of this movement already, like the applications of microfinancing that have helped create and shape economic opportunities around the globe. But there is also the risk, now that the concept has gained some mainstream attention, that the rate of innovation will slow--or stop.

My fear is that the Social Innovation Fund will support the same old innovations--the same groups, the same individuals - who have helped to get us to this point. My fear is that the Social Innovation Fund won't really drive new innovation, but instead will simply add more support to existing projects, or push funding to people who are already a part of this movement and contributing to its success.

I don't want to suggest that the groups, individuals and projects that have already established themselves in the social innovation space aren't deserving of, or in need of, recognition and support. They are deserving, and recognition from the White House for their important work is important. But, there is more that the Social Innovation Fund could do.

There are opportunities for the Social Innovation Fund to help root out new innovations and foster different thinking. Instead of promoting projects that already exist, the Social Innovation Fund can create new opportunities and help to introduce people that are not well known, or even known at all. Perhaps most importantly, the Social Innovation Fund has the potential to turn everyday citizens into social innovators, to identify issues that are in desperate need of new thinking and challenge our communities to help solve them. Put another way, they can force social innovation to happen.

How do you force social innovation?

• You provide guidance, so that the energy and commitment around social innovation is focused on issues or towards challenges that are most critical. There are too many issues and needs, the social innovation community will never stay focused--but the White House can decide where the funding will have the greatest impact. Pick an issue, one per year (or two, or three - but keep it limited) and direct all the funding and support to address those challenges.
• You seek out and invite people to participate, instead of letting the audience define itself. There are plenty of people who have self-identified and committed themselves to this work--and we know they are willing to be involved already. Truly new ideas and approaches will come from people who aren't currently involved, especially people who have never seen themselves as social entrepreneurs or innovators at all. Go out and find people, draft them, take people whose interests lie elsewhere and direct them to re-apply their expertise and perspectives towards these issues.
• You keep pushing and demanding for more and better solutions, never satisfied that an idea has been fully explored, the right voices have been found, and the issues fully addressed. It has become all too easy, too common for successful organizations to fall into a pattern, to get lazy, to focus on maintaining their work instead of innovating continuously and looking for new solutions (serving the cause instead of solving the cause). Instead of funding organizations, fund projects and ideas. Fund people. Use the money to make things happen, not support things that are already happening.

The Office of Social Innovation will succeed. The money that has been committed to supporting different approaches and ideas will have an impact. New innovations--or at least innovations that were not known widely--will gain some new traction because of this effort. Will it go far enough? Will the Office of Social Innovation be able to "identify the most promising, results-oriented non-profit programs and expand their reach throughout the country" or will they end up helping to elevate organizations that have already proven their worth, but haven't demonstrated (yet, perhaps) their ability to go further?

My hope is they force social innovation, as perhaps only they can, and we can look back on the other side of this wonderful experiment with a whole new set of opportunities to explore--and fight about how to support.

11:44 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Knowing (Your Audience) Is Half The Battle

I am in Seattle this week for Casual Connect, what the Casual Gaming Association (who hosts the event) calls 'the most anticipated conference for the casual games industry in the United States."  Among other things, I am here to try and understand more about what drives casual gaming behavior -- why people play, how gaming fits into their lives, and where else that knowledge might be applicable.

There is lots of good research available about casual games.  For example, one overview of the industry provided by the Casual Gaming Association reported:

• More than 200 million people worldwide play casual games via the Internet.
• Casual games appeal to people of all ages, gender and nationalities.
• A majority of those who purchase casual games re over 30 and female.
• Casual games are usually played for a short period of time, from five minutes to 20 minutes – though it’s common for people to play for hours.

In other words, almost everyone is playing casual games - and playing a lot.  But why are they playing and what about the casual gaming experience ?

In one session I attended yesterday, the CEO of FutureAds (which operates GameVance.com and PlaySushi.com, two popular casual gaming sites for 'men, who skew younger" and 'women, who skew older" respectively) offered some new research that noted "consumer spending on paid online and console games was sharply cut, while the amount of time spent playing online casual games games accelerated dramatically." The research also noted "gamers show a strong preference for online portals or hubs that aggregate games, where hardcore and casual games can be easily accessed," and that "the data suggests that gaming will follow the path of all media, whether newspapers, music or film: the inevitable migration to the more efficient, cost-effective, consumer-friendly online model."

The assumption, of course, is that the economy is driving these changes. But what about the user?  The research is designed to help game producers and advertisers make money, not necessarily create a better experience for the consumer (though obviously those two things are closely related).   What is missing is the direct input from the audience, the explanation of context about why these shifts are occurring.  What exists is a disconnect between the people who make games and promote opportunities online and the audience they seek to engage.

If you didn't know the statistics, didn't read any research, and all you did was attend Casual Connect, you would the casual gaming audience was mostly male, young, largely white, pretty well-educated and earning enough money to carry fancy technology and dress well.  That's because everyone in attendance at the conference, the people who design and program casual games, launch gaming platforms and similar, are mostly male, between the age of 25 and 45, white, pretty well-educated, carrying fancy technology, and dressed well.  There are a few women here, but not many.  There are a few boomers here, but you can count them on one hand. 

My assumption has always been that the people who are making and promoting games would look and act like the people they are selling too -- because that would make it easier to align the product with the audience.  That assumption is clearly wrong.  But it also explains why there is so much room for improvement in the casual gaming space.

Consider, for example, the panel that I attended yesterday called "What Women Really Want."  Women represent 60% of all gamers, as many as 150 million players in a month.  And of that audience, roughly one-third are between the ages of 25-45 (according to Nielsen research).  So, a discussion featuring six women, all 35+ years old, and all hardcore casual gamers, was bound to yield some good insights.

What did they say?

• These women play games first thing in the morning - they go online, play a game before first cup of coffee.  They go online throughout the day.  In fact, some of them admitted (or bragged) that they played between three and seven hours EACH DAY. 
• They play mostly to compete and win -- a trophy, a badge or money. One woman said "Any time you can win anything, a girl is going to want it."  And virtual goods are just as good as real money.
• Entertainment is the top priority, and finding something that I can play with my kids or grandkids is a bonus.
• Bright colors and good graphics attract their attention -- one said "We don't want some Atari kind of game."
• Timed games are really important... you can't walk away.  But if you give people an opportunity to pause the game, to get another cup of coffee or put in a load of laundry, they'll take that opportunity and get distracted.
• These women are playing more right now (during the recession) for a variety of reasons: it helps with income, people are going out less to save money and that means more time and a need to fill that time -- games fill that need; and it provides a good emotional lift and sense of accomplishment when other things aren't going well.
• Playing games helps to establish relationships with people.  One woman regularly visits a bar called 'gamers lounge' where they have computer terminals to play while socializing.
• Some play because its part of their identity. A woman on the panel noted "I don't think playing games says anything about me other than that I play games -- its part of me as a whole.  Others said "I hope they think of me as a strategic thinker, shows I am able to mult-task, that I am inquisitive."
• These women don't just play for free, they spend anywhere from $65 per month on up, especially when they get a direct benefit out of it.  One woman made clear that if a few extra dollars was needed to earn a bigger reward, there would be no question that she would make that investment.

I am highlighting all this for two reasons:

1) Based on the questions asked by the audience and the discussions I overheard after the session, I was surprised by how little the game developers, platform marketers and similar knew about their audience and their motivations and behaviors around gaming.  Additionally, many of the marketers in the group seemed quick to dismiss the details that the women on the panel had shared, suggesting instead that they (the marketers) would be able to compel them to play their games or sign up for their platforms regardless.  Knowing is half the battle folks - listening to what the audience wants and really understanding why they are doing something is so important.  Choosing to ignore that information is dangerous, and arrogant -- and you do so at your own peril.

2) Listening to the women on the panel speak, I gained some additional perspective on how people see games -- and marketing, and entertainment, and media, and everything else - in the context of their lives.  Obviously, how I lead my life and how I use technology and engage media, is going to be different than how a 35+ year old woman does.  But beyond that, recognizing how different my life is from many of the people that I am trying to reach with my work, and on behalf of my clients, is necessary.  At least two women on the panel found their way into casual gaming after suffering some medical issues that kept them in their home and forced them to find new ways to pass the time.  All of the women who have kids balance their responsibilities as a mother with their time playing games, in many cases stealing a few minutes to play gems because its the only relaxation they get during the day.  The social capital, and income, that these women earn by playing games is not only meaningful to their lives, in some cases it is a matter of survival -- its literally what gets them connected to other people and out of bed in the morning.  I don't have any significant health issues (knock on wood), I am gainfully employed and able to support my family with my income (knock on wood).  I get to consume media and play games for fun, because I want to, to help expand my learning.  I would certainly operate differently if I couldn't play games or be online, but I don't think its a matter of survival. 

Its easy for me, and people who market, and sell, and work in the technology and media space, to forget what life for people who aren't in our industry is like.  Its can be difficult.  I can be sad. There are reasons why people engage the organizations we promote, platforms we build, and products we sell, and most of the time it has nothing to do with the fact that we told a good story or offered an interesting rebate.  The reasons are personal, they are poweful, and they must be understood if we want to be succesful - and contribute something back to the world at the same time.  If we do our jobs right, and make games, or create media, or provide experiences that people enjoy, not only will be successful, we can give something of value back to our audience.

Let's see what I learn during day 2.

09:45 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Advanced Citizenship

When I talk with groups about how technology and the internet are changing society, the working title of my presentation is: "What You Are Doing Isn't Working Anymore -- Why Everything We Know Needs to Change."  I believe that technology and the internet have fundamentally changed how people get and share information and that as a result, everything else has changed as well.  There is a lot of discussion about how our media consumption habits have changed, with newspapers struggling and people starting to watch their favorite shows online instead of through their television.  But, we should also be looking at the changes that are underway in how we learn, how we talk to each other, what role we expect to play in the groups we are involved with, and everything else.  Again, everything is changing.

When I talk about everything changing, I am not just talking about functional change -- the fact that almost everyone owns a cell phone or people spend a lot more time shopping online than they used to, the rise of social networks, the speed at which information moves, or the lack of time we have to process everything.  Those are important data points, evidence of the change that we are seeing. What I am talking about is how our expectation are changing, in terms of the information we spend time with (or want to spend time with), the access we hope to have (to people, or anything else), the level of participation we might demand or our willingness to collaborate on things we used do alone, and of course our increased awareness of the need for something to have a real, meaningful, measurable impact to warrant our attention.

Unfortunately, while many people recognize that the world is changing, and that what we are doing isn't working anymore, few are willing to embrace what that means in terms of how they need to communciate and operate. When I tell people that their marketing isn't as successful as it used to be, heads nod, but nothing changes.  When I suggest to people that their audience (be they customers, or voters, or donors, or readers) won't engage in the same ways as before, people scribble notes, but they don't put into practice any of the things they need to adapt.

Do you know why nothing changes? Because change is hard. Its difficult for people to change course.  Its difficult for people to look past the short-term metrics and instead focus on long-term impact.  And I understand that.  And when things are difficult, we tend not to do them.

Whenever I hear that change is difficult, I think of a speech that the (fictional) President of the United States (played by Michael Douglas in the moving The American President) gave.  Here is an excerpt:

Everybody knows American isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship.

You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.
Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free. I've known Bob Rumson for years. I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong.

Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it. Nobody has ever won an election by talking about what I was just talking about.

This is a country made up of people with hard jobs that they're terrified of losing. The roots of freedom are of little or no interest to them at the moment. We are a nation afraid to go out at night. We're a society that has assigned low priority to education and has looked the other way while our public schools have been decimated. We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious men to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: Making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it.

…

We've got serous problems, and we need serious men, and if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where andwhen, and I'll show up. This is a time for serious men, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up. My name's Andrew Shepherd, and I am the President.

I know its just a movie, but the message is clear.  Change requires a lot of effort.  But we can do it.

So yes, I understand that change is hard.  I know change is scary. I get it. But the fact that it is difficult, or that you might fail, or that you won't necessarily know what to do doesn't mean you don't have to recognize the need for change and follow through.  No matter what kind of organization you run, what role you play, these changes in our society must be recognized and you must change how you operate and communicate.  You must change everything about what you do. We are all impacted, we are all in the same boat, and we all must think and act differently to adapt, and take advantage.

01:22 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

What makes a brand powerful?

Cone Inc released their "Cone Nonprofit Power Brand 100" report yesterday - in which it valued (and ranked) the brands of some of America’s leading social, environmental and animal organizations.  Not surprisingly, the report is already generating a lot of buzz.  People mostly want to talk about which charities were ranked and which ones weren't, or who scored highest on the list (and why).  But I think that is the wrong discussion to have.  I want to focus on something else - the very concept of brand, and its importance for nonprofit organizations, in today's connected society.

[NOTE: I was the Director of New Media at Cone from December 2006 to December 2007 and remain connected to members of the Cone team who worked on this study in various ways.  I was aware that this research was being conducted but had no role in the research or analysis, nor was I given access to any information about the study that is not available publicly.  In fact, as you will see below, I am quite critical of the study -- and I am sure that my friends and colleagues at Cone have a very different perspective on the value of the research that they have delivered.  A spirited discussion awaits for sure.  I also want to note that I have previously, or am currently working with, several of the organizations that are ranked in the study.  I provide strategic guidance around communications, fundraising, education, mobilization, and other work, largely focused around the use of the internet and technology.  I acknowledge that the work I do is directly related to the 'brand' of an organization, however, as you will see from my analysis below, I have a different view of what is important and offer guidance to my clients accordingly].

All research is flawed in some way.  In this case, the Cone report is not even close to being comprehensive. Cone began with the selection of 100 nonprofits to value and subsequently rank.  They write in the FAQ about the study that "because we needed a pre-existing pool of top U.S. nonprofits, we looked to private support- and income-based rankings, such as the “Forbes 200 Largest Nonprofits,” the “Nonprofit Times Top 100” and the “Chronicle of Philanthropy Top 100,” to identify the largest nonprofits.'  They also acknowledged, "in the end that’s a fraction of the 1.5 million total nonprofits in the U.S., so there are bound to be some favorites that aren’t on the list."  True.  I recognize that it is not possible, or at least not realistic, to consider everything in a study or measure every organization.  But, just as a starting point, I would question whether picking the 100 'largest' nonprofit organizations, in terms of revenues, is a good place to start.

The Cone report also tries to assign a value to something - brand - that may not, in fact, be fully quantifiable.  Cone, and their research partner, Intangible Business, have done a good job explaining the thought process behind their rankings, writing: "The brand valuation calculation attempts to derive the amount a nonprofit would be willing to pay for its brand, if it did not already own it, by determining how much money the brand contributes to the organization. This approach is called the “relief from royalty methodology” as it calculates how much the brand owner is relieved from paying by virtue of owning the brand."  They also listed out the criteria that was used to calculate the ranking:

"The total brand value is driven by three key factors:

1. 2007 revenue: Consolidated, itemized revenue, including but not limited to: direct and indirect public support, government contributions and alternative revenue streams

2. Propensity for future growth: Compound annual growth rates (CAGR), derived from the reported financial data, adjusted to reflect the nonprofit brand’s long-term ability for growth

3. Brand image: The relative strength of each nonprofit brand’s image derived using eight measures (people's familiarity with the organization, the organization’s personal relevance to people, share of voice, geographic reach, support base, direct public support, nonprofit efficiency, and growth).

So here is my issue: brand, as we have always known it, no longer matters -- or at least does not matter as much.  Put another way, I don't think that determining the value of a brand, and using that as a way to determine whether an organization is successful or worthy of support, is constructive.  Let me explain my thinking:

In the past, brand was dictated by the organization. Organizations talked about the importance of their work and the impact of their actions,  They showed glossy videos of their volunteers in action and published lists of the celebrities and influentials who had signed on to support their cause.  Today, every one of us gets to decide whether an organization has a strong brand.  That decision is based on our personal interests, our relationship to a certain issue, and the interaction that we have had with a group -- as a donor, a volunteer, or even just a casual observer.  Groups can talk about the good work you are doing, and the strength of their mission.  They can have celebrities do PSAs and generate oodles of press coverage.  But if the work that an organization is doing doesn't interest me, isn't addressing a need that I believe exists in society, nor can be measured as having an impact that I can understand and can appreciate, I simply won't regard that organization very highly, or consider it worthy of my support or attention.

Brand used to be about marketing and positioning.  Today its about experience and impact.  As I look at the Cone list, I see groups with larger and more sophisticated marketing operations at the top, and high-impact organizations near the bottom (or not on the list at all).  Cone readily acknowledges this, writing "Brand value is ultimately a reflection of the amount of revenue a brand contributes to an organization, and is therefore inherently a financial measure. Nonprofits with large revenues will often have well-known brands that contribute a great deal of revenue to their organizations, in turn giving them high brand values."  That makes me queasy.

In The New York Times article about the Cone study, Alison DaSilva noted that environmental organizations "have spent a lot of time raising awareness of the issues through things like calls to action — put a brick in your toilet, turn out the lights — but not for their brands," while a group like "Make-A-Wish Foundation enjoys widespread recognition, but its revenues do not reflect that."  In short, the level of awareness that an organization creates for its mission is more important, in many ways, than the work that it does.  I couldn't disagree more.  Isn't it more important to actually (and measurably) reduce our carbon footprint or enrich the lives of children with life-threatening medical conditions -- instead of just talking about the fact that we should be doing that work?  Isn't it better to be known for actually doing something, than just to be known?

Maybe those two things aren't mutually exclusive, as the research seems to suggest.  Perhaps the groups that have the largest marketing budget and strongest brands are also doing the best work.  I'm not convinced.  The Cone list is littered with groups that I supported in the past, but no longer give time or money to today.  I haven't stopped giving my money and time to groups, quite the opposite in fact, but I have found many other organizations who are doing more and better work to address the issues that I believe are important in ways that I know are having a greater impact.  And I know I am not the only one.

As consumers, we get the final decision on what issues matter most to us -- and how we want those issues to be addressed.  We get to control the information we receive and how we spend our time. And thanks to the widespread availability of information, about the challenges that face our society and the work that groups are doing to address it, I can see first hand whether the claims that groups are making about their impact are true and what progress is actually being made towards a solution.  This is the reality of a connected society, and a reality that nonprofit organizations (among others) need to recognize changes everything about how we operate, communicate, and engage audiences.  Everything has changed - and topping the list is brand.

Cone writes in the explanation of its study that "valuing a nonprofit brand gives organizations a license to demonstrate to companies and other partners that there is an established and justified cost to aligning with nonprofits."  I am not so naive as to believe that groups can operate, and solve major problems in our society, without raising money and creating corporate and other partnerships.  Raising money is important.  But it should be a far smaller part of what you do as an organization than anything else, and certainly not the aspect of your work that you generate the most attention for.  

And yet, for some reason, the most attention seems to be paid to the amount of money raised, the creativity of an ad campaign, or the ranking of a brand that a nonprofit receives (as is the case in the Cone study).  That could be the fault of the media.  Surely the audience is to blame for not demanding more accountability and measurable action from nonprofits shares some responsibility.  But mostly, I think that nonprofit organizations find it far easier to talk about the operational aspects of their success, and to use those to power more success.  That's fine, if your job as a nonprofit organization is to run a nonprofit organization.  Activity is a great measure of, well, activity.  But if you got into business to teach kids to read, solve the climate crisis, or whatever your mission, you aren't focusing your energy in the right place.  Across the board, far too much time is spend 'serving the cause' instead of 'solving the cause' these days, and the Cone study gives groups license to continue that behavior.

The Cone study/ranking represents an old way of viewing what makes an organization strong and worth of support or recognition.  And I fear that by celebrating the organizations on the list, and reinforcing the behavior (marketing, promotion, branding) that earned these groups high marks for brand, we are making it even harder for group to focus on the impact that is needed, or for groups who are being recognized for their impact to find the support they need to scale up.  

The rise of the internet and ubiquity of technology have made it easier for audiences to get information and to be involved with the organizations and causes they care about.  Those same forces have also created far higher expectations among audiences about what nonprofit organizations must do to engage, educate, and mobilize action around these issues, and the relationships we have with groups.  A high ranking on the Cone study does not mean that these groups are doing enough to solve the most critical issues of our time, or that they value and support the relationship that they have with the audience. My personal and professional experience would suggest in many cases that the opposite is true (and that some of the best organizations were left off the list). In fact, groups that received high rankings in the Cone study, I would suggest, better examine the interactions they are having with their audience and make sure that they are delivering the kind of impact and value we want -- and quick.  Relying on your brand to sustain attention, fundraising success, and everything else still works, to a certain extent, but it won't for long.    

I am glad that Cone conducted the study.  I just think they studied the wrong thing.  Instead, they should have studied, and we should be ranking, organizations based on the quality of the experience they provide to their audience, the impact they have on the issues that they are stated in their mission, and the ability of groups to understand (and demonstrate that understanding) how serious issues are being addressed today.  So please, study that.