Does your use of technology make you stick out or stand out?

When technology is used for volunteer engagement, the results are not always fantastic. Here are 6 ways technology can make or break your volunteer engagement.

Technology that sticks out

Collecting information

Asking volunteers to fill out actual forms. Paper, Word documents, PDFs. Print and mail, print and scan, save and send back. These scream INEFFICIENT! Even if you don’t require printing, the way most people create forms in Word, they end up looking pretty funny when filled in and require fiddling. They also indicate that there’s probably going to be a staff member at the other end doing a lot of menial cutting and pasting or data entry. The only time paper forms are OK is when volunteers face economic barriers and don’t have access to computer or internet. But most public library facilities serve this purpose – usually internet is free, but printing is not and scanning doesn’t exist.

Solution: Online surveys. Whether as part of a more robust database system or free tools like Google Forms (a part of Google Docs), Survey Monkey, Wufoo, or FluidSurveys, collect your data so that the volunteer and the administrator don’t have to hassle with administrivia. Instead, they can work with data that has been entered directly by the individual. AND often you can integrate your forms with other software you use.

Volunteer administration systems

Some organizations buy into intense software to coordinate and schedule volunteers. They may simplify things on the back end for the coordinator, but are often headaches for the volunteer–especially in the application stage. If a person is considering volunteering or just wants to learn more about opportunities with an organization, sending them through a 10 page volunteer administration system and asking them every question the organization could ever think of needing the answer to (from t-shirt size to 5 references to the names of any planned future children) for them only to find out on page 9 that there are only two distinct volunteer roles, neither of which is interesting to the volunteer or neither of which has openings — not OK. This is not an effective way to welcome a supporter into the organization.

Solution: Mix the admin with the personal. Have the initial application form (ahem, online survey) be short. Name, contact information, what triggered their interest in the organization, if any particular role is of interest to them. Done. Then, follow up by email or phone. Within the week. 24 hours even better – catch them while their interest is hot.

Social media

You know those Twitter accounts that only promote fundraising events? Or how about those Facebook pages that haven’t had new content for a year? If a volunteer starts following an organization via social media, bad social media skills can be a turnoff.

Solution: Don’t use social media if your organization is not going to invest in it. Turning to the youngest person in your office and asking them to do it off the corner of their desk is not OK. And if you do invest in it, be sure to involve someone that has a talent for marketing and engagement strategy. Just because a young person has personally used social media doesn’t mean they have the experience to implement a campaign or plan around it.

Technology that stands out

Social media

Just as social media can make an organization stick out, it can also make them stand out. Not for promoting, but for engagement. Social media is used best as a communication tool with people that are already involved with your organization. When getting contact information from volunteers, also find out if they’re on Twitter. Mention them in your Tweets or on your Facebook page by thanking a group of volunteers, or spreading interesting information they’ve shared.

Collaborative on-line documents

As a jury member for this year’s Vancouver Timeraiser, I was surprised how many applicant organizations didn’t have any positions that could be done from home. Really? I’ve worked with teams of people pulling together research on women and politics or articles on millennial engagement with ZERO in-person contact. The ones I use most frequently are Google Docs (and spreadsheets, and forms) and Wikis. You can change the settings so that anyone can edit and see the document, or only those you invite.

Myth: You need a Gmail account to use Google Docs.
Fact: Nope, you just need a Google account. You can create one using any email address.

None at all

I don’t mean you don’t actually use technology – just that volunteers don’t even notice it because everything is so smooth. Kind of like government – we don’t notice it when it’s working well.

Do an audit of your volunteer engagement processes – recruitment, screening, training, scheduling, working, rewarding, coordinating, communicating – to determine how technology is helping or hindering engagement at each step. Better yet, create a high impact volunteer role for a volunteer do an audit.

How do you use technology to effectively engage volunteers? Have you ever been frustrated by an organization’s use of technology (or lack thereof)?

NET TUESDAY – MANAGING VOLUNTEERS WITH SOFTWARE AND SOFT SKILLS

Complete details here >

Tuesday, July 5 | 5:30pm | 306 Abbott St (upstairs) | FREE
Join me and Elijah van der Giessen (of Net Tuesday and David Suzuki Foundation) as we share strategies about the use of technology for effective volunteer engagement.

NEXT GENERATION ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Complete details here >

This two-part series will introduce you to data and research on what the next generation wants from nonprofits, help you identify how your organization is currently performing, and encourage next steps you can take to achieve your goals. Sample topics include volunteer opportunities, new donors, staff retention, and social media.

No more guessing: Data and research on what the next generation wants from nonprofits

Wed, July 13 | 8:45am – 10:30am | 1183 Melville St.
$40, including light breakfast

Future engagement: Assessing your current practices and taking the next step to effective next generation engagement

Wed, July 27 | 8:45am – 10:30am | 1183 Melville St.
$40, including light breakfast

While the questions asked of the panel might suggest otherwise, a general theme of the responses from the panel was “social media is just one part of a more complete fundraising and engagement strategy”. Here is a summary of the responses of the panelists on tips for using social media and mobile giving as a fundraising tool. (Notes in brackets are my own additions).

Why use social media as a fundraising tool?

• Integrated into offline efforts and personal connections; it’s a piece of a whole
• It’s only a tool; there needs to be a strategy behind it
• Provides opportunities to listen to and engage with a community of supporters
• Help supporters share your message with their networks
• Get your org into the hands of as many as possible
• Get more earned media
• Get more volunteers
• Use it for calls to action

What are tangible actions on Facebook to raise money?

Before you start…

• “Dig your well before you need it” – if you are starting now and want to raise money now, you’re too late.
• Need an engagement plan first.
• Website should be the centre of any online campaign; all online outlets should be connected to each other.
• Messages should be consistent across online platforms.
• Once people click through to the website, they should NOT be directed to your home page. It should be easy for them – clear donation page, easy payment options, email follow up written well. Ensure a good user experience.

How to amp up your Facebook success

• It’s possible to create a custom landing page for Facebook Pages. Landing pages results in higher page “likes”. (FBML was referred to, but this is now out of date – landing pages are now built using frames. Check out this post by Beth Kanter for more information on Facebook landing pages).
• Multiple touch points (i.e. supporters follow you by email newsletter, texts, Facebook) leads to increase giving. Need to know donors’ communication preferences.
• Online = smaller gifts because these donors are often on a lower rung on the ladder of engagement.

Specific tips

• Need to share a variety of content and not too much. Max 3/day. (Check out Dan Zarrella for great stats on how to get the most from your social media efforts. He found that once every two days is best.)
• Create urgency. Make specific asks.
• If you show up only to make asks, you may get huge (and public) backlash.
• Reply to comments. Use people’s names. Click through to their profiles to get to know them better (if their profiles are public).
• Share successes and how money is being used.
• Need to have a visibility action plan – be checking account at least 5 days/week, 5 min- 1 hr/day. Timing depends on when your supporters are online.

Other thoughts

• NTEN (Nonprofit Technology Network) is a great resource on nonprofit use of technology. (Click here for some good reports on nonprofit technology use to see how you stack up.)
• Social media requires staff resources. Those with the biggest fundraising success on Facebook were generally smaller orgs ($1-5million) but had 1-2 full time staff dedicated to social media efforts.

What are tangible actions on Twitter to raise money?

• Twitter is a community. Many people interact/influence exclusively on Twitter.

Specific tips

• Tell. Ask. Share. Engage. Monitor.
• Rebroadcast messages in different ways. Talk at different times of the day, depending on when your demographic might be online.
• Have fun. Be authentic.
• Keep messages to <120 or even <100 characters so that people can easily retweet you without having to shrink your message.
• Use hashtags (eg #elxn41 was used for the recent federal election). Start a conversation, make sure your supporters know to use it, then follow the hashtag to monitor the conversation.
• Do keyword research to monitor conversations. Use word that your audience would use, and not necessarily the jargon you use.
• Use Hootsuite as a tool to monitor all your social media accounts (ie also Facebook too). You can post to multiple accounts and schedule tweets. “Cook once and eat 3 times.”

General uses

• Use it to connect with influencers. (They don’t need to be following you). Journalists are all over Twitter. Find ones that have a concern for the issue/topic you are wanting to raise.
• Use it to make your superfans super happy by highlighting them/their work or sharing prizes.
• Drive traffic to mobile giving campaigns – this has been very effective in disaster response fundraising.Twitter and mobile giving go well together because people are often using Twitter on their phones already.
• Great for listening for breaking news that might be relevant to your work and that you might be able to piggyback onto.

And mobile giving?

How it works

1. There is no text messaging fee to the user for donation texts. These are absorbed by wireless carriers.
2. Carriers charge for the donation (currently now only $5 or $10). Carriers pass on $ to Mobile Giving Foundation Canada (MGFC, a registered charity), which passes on money to the charity.
3. Only charities are currently licensed to do this. Must fill out application with MGFC.
4. Charity works with one of the recommended service providers to arrange the text choice (eg text HAITI to 1234567) and do the techie stuff. (Note: This is where the cost to the charity comes from – paying the service provider. This is NOT the wireless carrier, but a company that arranges mobile giving).
5. When people make a text, the get a reply asking them to confirm their donation by replying “Yes”, after which a “Thank You” text is received. At this point charities can also arrange with the service provider to conclude with a “Reply to sign up to receive further texts from Charity XYZ”. Any further texts to/from the charity will result in standard text message rates being applied to the individual.
6. Individuals can get tax receipts online via a code they request by text. Receipts are given by MGF, not the charity. Donor information (ie phone number, account name) is not currently shared with the charity (unless the “reply to sign up for more” is completed above).

Why mobile giving is important

• It reaches a new demographic. They often have never given before. Low barrier. A credit card or cheque isn’t necessary.

Challenges with mobile giving

• Limited amounts to give (only $5 or $10 currently). Information isn’t shared with charities. Costs charged by service providers are prohibitive for smaller campaigns. MGFC is looking to address some of these.
• Because of these issues, mobile might remain limited to mostly disaster response giving. Another technology might leapfrog into prominence by the time these issues are sorted out.
• (One current possibility in print is a combination of QR codes with websites designed for phones.)

Final Thoughts

If all this seems overwhelming, I suggest listening first. I recently set up and gave personal training on a “digital listening” plan with a client to get them started with social media. By following some of your personal favourite nonprofit organizations through Facebook, Twitter, their blogs and e-newsletter, you can quickly get a sense of how others use it, and what seems to be working.

Panelists’ information

Dave.ca Communications (Dave Teixeira)
www.dave.ca
@davedotca

Raised Eyebrow (Lauren Bacon)
www.raisedeyebrow.com
@laurenbacon

Beachcomber Communications (Angela Crocker)
www.beachcombercommunications.com
@angelacrocker

Mobile Giving Foundation (Katherine Winchester)
www.mobilegiving.ca
@mgfcanada

Did you recently vote for your favourite charity so that they could win funding through an online contest?

You suck.

Unless you actually sacrifice something for the causes that you pat your back on for clicking for, you did no favours and deserve no credit.

If this is actually a cause that is of importance to you, you need to spend time, talent or money. Volunteer. Attend a fundraising event. Write a letter to your MP or news editor. Donate. Even better, donate monthly.

Raising awareness is important, but not when the actual cause gets lost.

I challenge those who changed their profile picture to cartoons to donate or volunteer with orgs who fight child abuse (the original purpose of the profile pics). Here are 3 to start:

http://www.justiceforgirls.org/
http://kidshelpphone.ca/
http://www.fsgv.ca/

Update: I added the phrase “If this is actually a cause that is of importance to you” in order to be clear that this post is directed at those that actually are patting themselves on the back. I stand by my position, but added this for clarification

Update 2: This is me shaking my head at “you suck” as an eloquent choice of words to express myself. As hard as it may be to believe, I am, incredibly, not in high school anymore.

Register for this bridge-building conference and you’ll get to see my lovely mug checking you in and taking session notes throughout the day. I was at the final organizing meeting tonight and I’m pumped!! The list of attendees is looking diverse and fantastic.

Wiring the Social Economy
Saturday, December 4, 2010
W2 Storyeum, 151 W Cordova, Vancouver
$20 sliding scale registration online or at the door

Wiring the Social Economy is a day for discovery and connection. For tapping into the energy of social entrepreneurs and sharing the wisdom of experienced change agents. For getting out of our silos and our comfort zones. Are you up for it?

There are two main goals of the conference that support community economic development. The first is to help the social media and technology community understand the challenges, needs and constraints of social change agents along with the issues they face. The second major goal of the day is to help the social enterprise and community economic development communities understand the possibilities and potentials of using technology in their work.

Each of these groups has organizations, events, and conferences to offer support within their communities. The goal of Wiring the Social Economy is to cross-pollinate ideas on challenges, solutions, and best practices between these communities of practice.

Can’t attend? Watch the website and wiki for live streaming and session notes.

Credit: pursuethepassion

Pompous*: (adjective)

• affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn or self-important
• characterized by pomp or splendor (archaic use)

*according to my Macbook Dashboard dictionary

Attending Net Tuesday Vancouver’s event last week on the use of video on the web left me with two impressions.

1. Web video can be a highly valuable and splendid way for nonprofits to engage with their audience and spread their messages.
2. People that create video for the web can be irritatingly self-important (see “HOWEVER” below)

The experienced panel offered great practical tips, the highlights being:

• if you’re not a pro, free tools such as iMovie and Windows Movie Maker are fine (Final Cut Pro was the choice for the pros)
• assuming you have a good story, video/editing quality doesn’t have to be great for a video to go viral, but sound quality is much more important
• things going viral is hit or miss; quantity of output is as important as what you think quality is
• other tools include Jamendo (free music), Mobygratis (free Moby music), freesound (free music), other Creative Commons audio sites, Tech Soup Canada (free or discounted software for nonprofits), pixlr.com (a free, web-based alternative to Photoshop for non-pros), qik (webstreaming tool), Craigslist (finding people willing to work on your project as a volunteer or for an honourarium)
• Pull Focus Film School is a great Vancouver-based resource, as it  ”partners aspiring film makers with non-profit organizations that are in need of film content”

For a great summary of Net Tuesday Toronto’s recent event on video, with even more specific tips, click here.

However

One story told by a panelist was of a video that was peddled to and turned down by two related advocacy groups because the video didn’t fit their values. Which means that the video makers either:

1. made assumptions of what was needed and made a video without consultation and didn’t choose the right audience; OR
2. consulted the client and yet somehow still subverted some of the values core to the client.

Don’t get me wrong. I thought the video quality itself was great. Well edited, good story line, emotional tension. I laughed, I cringed. The people behind the video production are obviously technically and creatively talented…

…but completely off the mark when it came to the core principles of the group the video was “made for”. And yet, the reaction was that of disbelief. They wanted cred for something they were trying to give away for free. The phrase “biting the hand that feeds you” was used. You’ve got to be kidding me. This is just a new age bourgeois version of pat-on-your-back charity.

The thing is, you’re not of service if you’re not wanted.

Question 1: What message are you sending out?

What message does your board chair’s message in the annual report send?
What message does your vision and vision statements send?
What message does your newsletter send?

While we obviously write these items with very specific intents, sometimes our language, when we dig down deep, doesn’t actually reflect our intentions.

Copy and paste your text (or an rss feed) into Wordle, and voila! (See below for an example). You may be surprised. At UGM, Ben found that some of the language actually focused on programs, when really what they wanted to focus on was people.

Question 2: What messages do your donors respond to?

On UGM’s online donor form, an open box question asks “What inspired you to give today?”. Ben then took all the responses and threw them into World, and voila!

Many at UGM (a faith-based social services organization) might assume that faith and God would be reasons behind giving. These words were present, but even more so were words that indicated a connection to family (brother, father, sister, etc.) and times of year (eg Christmas).

If you analyze what is inspiring donors to give, you can update (and assess!) your communications accordingly to match donors’ interests.

Example: UBC Vision and Mission

UBC is my alma mater, and I have always loved and identified with their vision and mission. I would have done SFU’s but alas, we DON’T HAVE THEM (ridiculous and uninspiring, I know).

Image Credit: Wordle.net

I can see easily now why I connect with UBC’s vision and mission. Beyond the obvious university words like “research” and “students”, the next most prominent words are “society”, “sustainable”, “global” and “citizens”. I’m surprised that “learning” isn’t more prominent though.

Try it! You might like it! What results did you get?

Image Credit: striatic

Many people that I work with know me to be obsessive about using less paper. First I reduce, then I reuse, then, at last, I recycle.

This carries over beyond my work life and into my personal life. I’m one of those people that calls my service providers to be removed from solicitation lists (did you know you can even get the paper inserts taken out of your credit card statements, even if you can’t get bills online?). I’d love to get zero mail (confession: birthday cards are still OK;).

This carries over beyond my work life and into my philanthropic life. I donate online.

I’ve worked in fund development before. I know that it’s important to meet donor preferences.

But this rule seems to breakdown when it comes to reducing paper.

Exhibit A

• I donated to at least 5 different organizations last year. All of them I donated online with.
• Of those five, four of them followed up with print material – direct mail, invitations, newsletters, etc.
• Of those four, I emailed each of them asking them to remove me from their (paper) mail lists, though I added that I was happy to receive any information by email.
• Of those four, NONE have sent me any email. I actually had to email two of them after getting paper mail an additional time. I have received no further solicitations from any of them otherwise.
• Of those original five, only one continues to connect with me via email. Very intermittently – nothing to be considered spam. I also have found out about their campaigns via Twitter and Facebook. I have followed their campaigns’ success online.  And surprise, they’re the one I donate the most to and have begun to donate most regularly to.

It (figuratively) breaks my heart to see nonprofits not getting it. Traditional ways of communicating with donors (ie mail) are still important for connecting with traditional donors. But “new” ways of communicating with donors (though “new” is debatable – the web has been used commonly for over a decade) are important to connect with and retain new donors AND cut down on paper.

Reduce and prosper?

Nonprofits should play their part in reducing waste (in both paper and the cost for stamps) by – at the very least – respecting the methods donors have gone out of their way to request to be solicited.

Read on:

• Direct Mail Isn’t Dying – But Sometimes I Wish It Would

The main messages of the talk focus on the shift from institutions to collaborative, unmanaged networks. The question is no longer “Is (s)he a good employee” but rather, “Do I want this idea/image/contribution?” Institutions don’t allow us to fully benefit from the valuable contributions of those that would contribute ONE idea. However, collaborative networks such as Wikipedia, Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, and blogs in general allow all contributions to have a chance to be valued.

Collaboration and Social Movements

So let’s say that you, as an individual, want to address an injustice. You want to alleviate poverty in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, you want to protect fragile and rare habitats for species of the Haida Gwaii, you want to draw attention to wage disparity along gender and ethnic lines in the nonprofit sector.

You want to be a part of a social movement. You don’t have any money to build an institution, but you know you could contribute at least ONE idea, and there must be others out there like you.

This is the power of collaboration over the internet. Very little money (or none at all) is required. No institutions are required (save some sort of virtual space to collaborate). Some people may contribute the majority of the ideas, energy and talent, but the contributions from those that just have ONE can still add value.

Recent online activity re: #iranelection or #pman (Moldova) demonstrate the potential upswell of energy that can come from an unmanaged, online network. Granted, the actual impact of these loose networks can be and have been argued, but they still allow for potential valuation of ONE contribution.

Institutions vs. Collaboration and New Infrastructure Synthesis

Our society has recent, but strong history building institutions with hierarchies. Want to organize people? Group people according to task area/project/interest, throw in a manager, and voila – you’ve got yourself organized. Even community organizing can lead to creation of these hierarchies, thus mirroring the same institutions the group is likely organizing against. (Note: Even the phrase ‘community organizing‘ is shout out to institutional responses!)

Credit: Adaptation from Clay Shirky/TED

Since we have grown up with hierarchical institutions as models for organizational structure, it’s hard to visualize another model. But this is where social media has come in. The development of technological features such as #hashtags has allowed people with like interests to find each other and organize around ideas outside a traditional institutional model.

Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis of Infrastructure

Synthesis of new ways. Credit: Tony Yue

So we have an old way of viewing the organization of people (thesis: hierarchical institutions). Now there’s a new way of looking at things (antithesis: unmanaged cooperative collaboration). We (as a society) are still trying to figure out how to navigate this (synthesis) to produce results. Ivan Boothe’s (@rootwork) recent guest post on Beth Kanter’s blog about how social movements require more than social media provides great insight into the difficulty we find ourselves in.

Millennials and Structure

Now here’s the problem (maybe). The Millennial generation, generally, likes structure. They value authority. They grew up with uber-scheduled lives, their parents have been hyper-involved in their lives. So where do they fit in to this new, collaborative, unmanaged, loosely (if at all) structured infrastructure? One benefit of this new model for Millennials is the collaborative nature. Millennials went through the school system working in teams. But the lack of structure may be a barrier.

I suspect that Millennials will create their own ‘formal’ institutions as a solution. They may use informal, collaborative networks to find their peers, but then shift towards having more structure. Though current institutions may already exist, they don’t offer opportunities that they find meaningful and relevant. Again, Millennials will create their own institutions.

Synthesis

So how will this all play out? What will the new infrastructure facilitating social movements look like? I don’t think we know yet, but Clay Shirky predicts 50 years of chaos before it’s sorted out. If Millennials focus on creating institutions to facilitate social movements that come out of online collaboration – great. However, if these new Millennial institutions draw away from human and financial resources of the current nonprofit and social change sector, the current way of doing things is going to evolve (for a time) into chaos–struggles for sustainability and sector fragmentation will result.

Perhaps the calm out of chaos will come not from organizing people, but organizing institutions. Hierarchical institutions and collaborative, cooperative networks finding each other and working together towards common goals.

I really don’t know. Do you?

<end of murky personal academic musings>

I find nonprofit people often fall into one of three Word categories:

1. The Designer: These individuals use InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, or other fancy, somewhat expensive software programs that take a bit of learning. They are smart people, and are good at making things look pretty. These people sometimes resist Word because they see limitations in what the finished product can look like. They are surprised when I can make text boxes and make images line up all the way to the edge of the page.
2. The Try Hard: These individuals use Word or maybe Publisher to get their message across in brochures, posters, notices, and resources, but don’t consider how the medium is impacting how that message gets across. They uses Times New Roman and Arial font and are a fan of centering their paragraphs. They emphasize text by CAPITALIZING, italicizing, bolding and underlining, ALL AT ONE TIME.  They try really hard to make things look pretty, but don’t always succeed.
3. The Cause: These individuals focus their time on important work like serving clients, moving the cause forward, raising money. The know it would be nice if their documents all looked consistent and were easy to use, but really don’t have the time to make work like this a priority. They don’t try hard to make things pretty, they are just relying on the words to get their message across.

But here are the problems. Relying on The Designer means having to rely on someone else to do something for you, however small, that you wish you could do yourself. This is fine when you are a large organization with graphic designers in house, but this isn’t the case for most small and medium nonprofits. Being The Try Hard means the message you are trying to get across can get lost in the medium you are using. Being The Cause means that this sort of stuff gets pushed aside.

What Word can do for you.

It is possible to make a pretty damn good design in Word that gives your organization’s documents a consistent look. Doing it in Word means that if you need it updated in the future, almost anyone can open a document and do it. Plus, you can easily convert the document into a PDF and look super professional when sending documents.

In my current job at SFU we create a lot of Word documents for external use – resources for students, community organizations, etc. What has been incredibly wonderful has been to have a template with which to create all future documents. The title font, the section headers, the text, the text boxes, the bullets are all predetermined. It makes creating new document designs incredibly easy, as the design work is already done for you. Your organization’s logo is in the header or footer – always in the same place. It means that documents are branded, are recognizable, easy to work with and easy to create. From there it’s easy to create PDF that looks professional, can be sent nicely over email, and can be printed easily. Note that if you are doing huge print jobs and are using a professional printer (ie beyond Staples), you’re going to need The Designer after all.

Who can get this done?

There are really two parts to getting things done: 1) creating the original template, and 2) implementing the template across all existing documents. The design can be done by a design savvy person at your organization, by a professional paid designer, or by a skilled volunteer. Implementing the template could be done by the same person, or by any staff or volunteer at your organization familiar with Word. Kitsilano Neighbourhood House recently posted a skilled volunteer opportunity like this on Govolunteer.ca through Volunteer Vancouver looking for almost exactly these two tasks. I’m thinking about applying for it. Like I said at the beginning – happy tears.