Issue Fatigue – Fighting for Attention and Funds in an Aware World

I have come to the conclusion that the donor - gift method of raising money is in the long term not sustainable. I have this opinion because personally, I have got tired of being asked to donate.

I believe that the solution may be creating a business to generate profits to fund the charities.The jury is out. I will soon know if my experiment is succesful.

Interesting idea, Mark, and we look forward to learning more about your experiment. One might also ask what roles can businesses in general play in generating profits to fund charities?

Certainly, many social ventures are diversifying their revenue streams. Hybrid business models (http://www.socialedge.org/features/issue-areas/hybrid-models/) that blend income generation use for-profit enterprises to subsidize the nonprofit activities.

However, communities supply more than donations (don't they? shouldn't they?) Their support may extend into offering expertise, extending marketing, bringing new supporters into the fold. So even if traditional fundraising cannot stand alone, isn't there a larger role "community" can play in sustainability? And if so, how do nonprofits compete for people's limited bandwidth?

Jill: I appreciate the last question your raise re: competing for people's limited bandwidth, as I think that gets to a fundamental issue.

Inherent in the asset-based approach I noted in my response to Mark is the assumption that the answer is not outside us, but within us. Instead of feeling we are competing for scarce resources outside ourselves - whether that is money or attention - we are first building on what we already have.

For example, when we build upon the human assets / resources we already have, we are engaging colleagues and friends and THEIR colleagues and friends - a far cry from doing a blast email or a pleading Twitter post.

The issue, then, is not so much the techniques we use, but first how we think about our own work and the assumptions we make about that work. If we see ourselves as having nothing, we will look outside ourselves for help, casting a wide net to please-oh-please catch something.

But if instead we assume we have strengths to build on, we don't need to look far beyond those assets. Does that makes sense? Hildy

In the book Fundraising on eBay, one of the nonprofits referred to fundraising as "friend raising" and pointed out that every encounter with a person was a chance to share their mission and make a personal connection. In their charity auctions, they had the person packing the item for shipment include a short note saying who they were and how the nonprofit had helped them and appreciating the buyer for their purchase and support.

In a virtual world, it is harder to have personal touches, but not impossible. It seems to me that Twitter is a culture based in part on reciprocity. I follow you, You follow me. A RT or retweet is, in effect, a way of saying "atta boy - good job" and "thanks for the interesting idea". An @reply saying "thanks for the RT" often follows a mention and this respectful thanks builds a personal connection and is, well, polite (minding your Ps and Qs - Pleases and Thank Yous (Qs), or as wikipedia defines the origins - minding your pints and quarts to make sure neighbor doesn't drink too much). I recently tweeted about how Zappos does a good job of customer support and within 24 hours the CEO of Zappos was following me on Twitter. Think about that. Not just anyone from Zappos, but the CEO is following me. He may be following a gazillion people, but darn, if I didn't feel special and acknowledged.

So the question is, with all the social media tools out there, how can we maintain a personal connection and show a heartfelt gratitude for the support. How do we then take that connection and expand on it offline?

Jill, I'll admit to the fatigue also, from the point of view of a for profit endeavour which neither business nor charity seem to get.

We're rendering profit for our own mission to leverage social enterprise in Eastern Europe. Thankfully the business we migrated to provide our core funding had a small steady income, otherwise we'd have collapsed much sooner.

The concept on which P-CED is based is profit for social purpose, as an alternative to the nonprofit paradigm. As an illustration, founder Terry Hallman invested in sourcing the development initiative which brought a microfinance initiate to Russia by making the case for returnable investment in economic development.

Here we find a disconnect between profit for purpose and CSR in that although our income is based on serving corporate and government customers, none seem want any association with their branding.

For interest, Terry'z paper that set out this idea, for the Clinton re-election committee.

http://www.p-ced.com/about/history/

Jeff

Mark: In facing the same frustration, we have considered a different question: Who IS really sustainable? And what is it that creates that sustainability? The answer in our search was: Wealthy individuals. And how do they do it? They don't build their wealth on what they DO, but what they HAVE.

By building not only our income but our programs themselves upon the assets and resources we already have, we build strength upon existing strength.

And I don't mean financial assets (although those are nice to have, unless the stock market takes them away...). I mean the human assets & resources we all have - board, staff, volunteers, and all the people they know who care about the cause. Our physical assets & resources (buildings, computers, etc.). The asset that is our mission and the passion it generates.

And of course community assets and resources - the human, physical and mission resources of everyone else! Those are strengths just waiting for us to build upon them. And when we do, we are building a far stronger effort - one that is, in fact, sustainable.

I've written more about this here, if it is helpful: http://bit.ly/UGNC

Hildy Hildy

More than anything else, an issue fatigue is a communication fatigue. It seems ironic that with the advent of information technology, information on development initiatives and good-for-the-world actions has become more and more superficial. The gateway becomes a barrier. You surf the net about social and environmental actions and you will start to have a feeling similar to a sugar overload.

I started an initiative called Dire Husi(www.direhusi.blogspot.com) last year and I was very positive that people will find a youth social enterprise initiated by indigenous young artisans worthy of support. Well, it's rooted on the principles of sustainable dev. Young people using their skills and creativity to move out of poverty. I was thinking that it's hip and cool and can make a significant impact on young people and many good Dutch ladies will find it lovely. But after almost a year of writing to corporate foundations,and funding institutions, blogging about it, blasting emails, I got very few responses.

So I opted to do it the old way--human to human. Gathered my classmates, treated them to coffee, organized small groups in our college, showed them the artworks and accessories like i'm an old trinkets salesman, showed them my tattoo and narrated the story ala Miami Ink. Then a friend of a friend of a friend introduced me to a guy working in a funding agency, who introduced me to a media person, who introduced me to an industrial designer and so on and so forth.

It seems that the positive results are brought about by the real human to human relationships I gradually established.

I think there are old ways to spark interest. According to "Blessed Unrest" by Paul Hawken, the movement on social and environmental justice has grown to mega proportions without formal institutions noticing it. We can always review how. I think some very good communicators worked on it.

Vincent: Wow - you are the perfect example of what I was sharing! Instead of seeking the help outside yourself, you looked first to the assets you already had - and it worked! Thanks for unknowingly proving my point! :-) Hildy

I'm a Rotarian, retired school teacher, and frequent visitor to Kenya and Uganda to work on humanitarian projects. My wife and I having learned that the people are not looking for a handout, they merely need to be empowered to help themselves. We've managed to activate projects to the tune of $600,000, mostly through Rotary Grants, but have come to realize that using Rotary as the primary source of funding is not going to allow us to reach the many children and communities that are in need. So we started to reach out to business and are trying to learn how to suceed with grants and foundations. Twentysome years of teaching primary is not a great starting point and success has been elusive. In the meantime, we visit rural schools, see kids without shoes and tattered uniforms, schools without books and water, girls dropping out of school wimply because they have no sanitary towels or privacy in the delapitated latrines, and rampant absenteeism due to inadequate sanitation and disease prevention. We want to make a difference, but how?

The above is a prelude to our latest effort, building libraries and more in rural schools. We found that even our friends are getting tired of us talking about the great need and asking for help. They want to help but are tired of writing checks. I think we have come up with a solution, the book drive. In March our goal is to collect 40,000 fiction and non-fiction children's books, enought to start 16 libraries at schools where there are no books except textbooks shared by three to five children. We are recruiting Rotary Clubs, other service organizations, churches, schools, businesses and neighborhoods, asking them to conduct a book drive. There are three levels of pariticipation: Collect books, sponsor a library, or sponsor a school/community for three years. The three year plan will maintain ties to the community and create personal relationships between the sponsors, the school children and members of the school community. There's much more to the comprehensive plan, but the point is that it gives time to insure that the projects started are sustained long enough to take root.

The initial response to the Book drive has been very encouraging. We have schools, churches, businesses, hospitals and Rotary Clubs signing up to collect books. Groups are beginning to sign up to sponsors a specific school we'll exchange letters, photos, videos, etc) and two groups have made a three year committment. People seem excited to know that their children can learn from the experience, be involved in the collection, and that whatever is contributed will provide opportunities for children in, perhaps, the neediest area of the world, Sub-Sahara, Africa. Maybe the answer is not to rely on attracting large scale funding from businesses and foundations, but rather rely on the giving an opportunity to get directly involved in projects on a personal level. Don

I think you are right to tie this problem to communication. And it is not new, only enhanced by the speed and many prongs of the internet.

A study in 1996 laid the groundwork for the idea of "compassion fatigue," encompassing desensitization and emotional burnout, as a phenomenon associated with pervasive communication about social problems. The study marks the first-known empirical investigation of compassion fatigue as it relates to media coverage and interpersonal communication about social problems. "

Alas, I was not able to find a link to the full article ("Compassion fatigue: Communication and burnout toward social problems" From: Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, October 1, 1996).

However, I came across this article "Developing Sustainable Leaders Through Coaching and Compassion" (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/bf4dzn) which references the above research: "Compassion fatigue occurs when the experience of compassion becomes a burden, thus stimulating more stress, rather than less."

So if it is when compassion becomes a burden that stress and apathy (instead of empathy) sets in, how can nonprofits avoid becoming a burden?

Also is there a correlation to simplicity versus complexity? The easier something is to grasp, the less of a burden it is, and more likely to receive donations. The more complex, the greater the burden, and the less likely to receive support.

Blogger Ross Atkins asks in his discussion "Why do you care about certain issues, and not about others?" and goes on to posit "Why, as we found out last month, do Britons give more money to a donkey sanctuary than to charities that support victims of domestic abuse? The 200 largest UK charities which provide services for abused women or campaign to prevent abuse have a combined annual income of £97m. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has £110m. Do we care more about animals than women? Can that really be the true?" http://tinyurl.com/4lr5vo

So why do you care about certain issues and not others? What are the successful nonprofits doing in their communications?

I too am a big believer in face to face contact! I am the founder of Elevate Destinations, http://www.elevatedestinations.com, a specialist in innovative donor travel. We bring donors and board members to visit projects overseas and presto--donor fatique begone! We've organized incredible trips for groups like KickStart, EcoLogic, Direct Relief International, WaterPartners International and more. All our trips have deepened donors' investment--financial and emotional-- in these organizations. I have heard many donors say they would pay not to have to go to one more fundraising dinner--I say get out there in the field!

Thanks Dominique. As you participated, recall that last April we hosted a conversation on just this topic Travel with Conscious (http://www.socialedge.org/discussions/responsibility/travel-with-conscience/) which has some great insights on how to do "engaged travel" well and the importance of education before, during, and after the visit. Do you have any tips for nonprofits considering offering this avenue of participation to their supporters?

The greatest hazard of donor travel is when non-profits try to organize it themselves. This may sound self-serving, but the fact is that many small to mid size organizations can easily burn out their developments staff for a whole year while they try to put a trip together. That's where we come in--handling just about everything, at no charge to our non-profit clients. (We build our trip fee into the charge to travelers.) So I recommend that non-profits outsource their donor travel!

Just to address some of the broader issues that are being addressed, I think it is challenging, but important to try to find a balance in your life. It's a cliche, but many people who are altruistic doers are not always great of taking care of their own personal pleasure and making sure they have some FUN along the way--in the face of the serious issues they are addressing. I have actually been thinking of organizing some retreats for fatigued activists with the purpose of helping them recharge their batteries. I know mine get worn down pretty readily!

There is some discussion about "finding resources outside the organization" vs. building on what you already have". The true life example in the creation of the artisan group doesn't prove or disprove the point the theory. The artisan group founder was delivering their communication message to generate interest, support and ultimately asking end users to support the efforts through sales. The artisans do not requesting funds to create their goods. In contrast, most non profits are asking for funds to actually create their product or service.

Two factors that I believe are having a profound negative impact on NPs, made more extreme by the current economic environment, are 1) the multiples of similar organizations providing similar goods and services, and 2) the fascination with "bringing projects to scale".

Lisa Shulman.

Great discussion so far! I am finding it mirrors something we have noticed in our own work - that many of the ways we have all been taught to fundraise aren’t working well. What we’ve observed, however, is that it’s not the economy that is to blame, although it’s a great scapegoat. The truth is that very few (if any) community efforts were leading a self-sustaining existence long before the economy collapsed.

So if the whole system isn’t working - if there are all sorts of symptoms of that systemic failure, many of which the respondents here have pointed out - then maybe it’s time to consider different systems entirely.

Using the example of Don’s Rotary project, we do all have a tendency to just ask our friends or anyone else we know to help with money. That is because we build programs by creating a plan, then creating a budget, moving straight from plan to cash.

A different system, however, might include another step. After the plan is created, we could create a flow chart of that program, breaking it down into its functions. This would not be a list of line items, but a flow chart of “this has to happen, then that needs to happen, then this needs to happen.”

For each of those bubbles in the flow chart, we could then ask, “Is anyone already doing this piece? If so, can we partner with them?”

That’s what I mean about sharing existing resources - building on what the community already has. If, for example, the flow chart makes it clear that “we need to transport goods from here to there,” the question would then be, “Who is already running trucks into that area?” If the issue is, “We need to store the goods once they arrive,” the question becomes, “Who already has a warehousing operation?” And etc.

It is a different way of creating programs from the start. It is not a “fundraising mechanism” but a different system of program development from the start, based on sharing resources.

Yes, eventually you will need cash. But you will need far less cash than if you built a stand-alone organization. That is just one systemic change. But it is a change that builds engagement into the very infrastructure of a program.

Hildy

The points that you have raised are right. 1) With similar causes and advocacies it's one big amazing race for development organizations(profit, non-profit, and hybrids alike) targeting the "conscious" donor, consumer, friend, corporations. 2) And the scale, the abstraction,the magnitude of the issues and problems , the way development communication has been done for quite a time, can make people do some "spacing out" tactics and would rather choose to be apathetic about it.

My professor in college is a big fan of Peter Senge and somehow, he has imparted to me this appreciation of "parts and wholes". That rather than looking at "similar" organizations as competitors (like in a marketing war) you can always see them as allies. You can always work and share resources with each other. Yeah, it's easier said than done. But it can actually work. This June, I'm planning to bring the artisans I work with in Manila campuses for a "human to human" interaction with affluent students and the cost of doing so is no joke (to consider the food, the airfare, accommodation). Guess who offered accommodation? a "similar" donor-looking organization running a shelter for street kids. In return, we will be teaching their residents crafts making and arts.

I agree with you that to make a statement, we should start small and be concrete about it. But that should not stop us from "correlating" our work to something bigger and grander. The formula I believe in: small, manageable units working with each other, and in effect "scaling up" impact.

Vincent: Yes! One of the big things about "parts and wholes" that we found in our own work is that is that when we focus on the parts alone, we lose context. But when we focus on the whole, we can absolutely still see all the parts, and how they would fit together better.

And to your point about sharing resources being "easier said than done": The only reason it's hard is because all the systems and approaches and tools we use were created with the assumption that we will all functions separately. Even when we are urged to collaborate, the assumption is that we are entirely separate entities meeting for a singular purpose - the assumption of "enlightened self-interest" rather than shared interest as part of something bigger than ourselves.

If instead systems assumed all our separate organizations were actually cells in a body, or droplets in a stream - not separate at all but part of something bigger - then there would be community-wide systems that facilitate the kinds of exchanges you are talking about. Then no one would think it was hard; they would think that's just the way it is (just as we now think "separateness" is just the way it is.)

Has anyone seen these sorts of systems in action? Please share if you have. Because I know from my own experience that when you have seen what it looks like when the systems are aimed at cooperative, integrated community work, you just never want to go back to the other way.

And then, when the systems are aligned behind our working together as one big integrated whole, it is amazing to see how EASY it is to work together. The only reason it's hard now is because everything is aimed against that integration. But it is so easy when everything is aligned around that wholeness!

I am heading out for the day, and will check back in this evening. If it makes sense at that time (if the discussion has not moved beyond it), I will share some cooperative systems we have seen - where the assumption is that everyone wins and everyone is working together. (If anyone has read The Pollyanna Principles and wants to share some of the stories in there, please do!)

I'll miss being part of this discussion today! Hildy

Thank you for the very interesting discussion. Sustainability! Our holy grail. At a practical level it is a choice, do we believe a particular need is important enough to deserve a solution? The charitable tax code was developed to encourage donations in order to address rising poverty, which the government (a monarchy) could not address. In other words they are public funds under the direction of individuals. Is that more effective then allocating those funds for government to deliver the services? Given the level of needs, it is a fair question.

In a democracy one could argue that the government is the people. So, what kind of quality of life can we imagine for our communities and ourselves? Are we prepared to make those investments? Homelessness as an issue has been on the radar screen for over 200 years. Yet, as a democracy we have not found an argument that can free the necessary resources to eliminate homelessness.

Sustainability is as much a matter of community-will, as it is demand and support for a charitable service. Nonprofits that are successful in demonstrating not only the social but economic impact of their efforts will continue to do well. Supporting their success would be clear business logic, good governance and capable management.

Here is a little piece that I thought you would find interesting. Thank you for sharing your experience!

http://www.albertaviews.ab.ca/issues/2003/novdec03/novdec03charity.pdf

Carlos: I'm smiling at your linked article. I think you will enjoy the introduction to The Pollyanna Principles - it's here: http://bit.ly/EdNv

The subtitle to the book is Reinventing Nonprofit Organizations to Create the Future of Our World. And I really do think a full "reinventing" is what it will take - rethinking, deconstructing and then reconstructing FIRST our assumptions and expectations, and THEN the systems and tools and approaches we use. Thanks for a very thoughtful link! Hildy

Jill and Hildy, thank you for hosting this discussion. It is at the core of all efforts that create social benefit in the world. I've been leading a volunteer-based organization for 33 years, starting each fall with recruiting volunteers and matching them with kids. Initially I did this will holding a full time advertising job for a larger national retail corporation. In 1990 I converted the company program to a non profit, so in addition to recruiting volunteers each year, I'm now recruiting donors.

Not only do the donors get tired, the non profit leaders get tired, and this burn-out causes us to loose some of our best people. The system works against sustainability and human capital development in most of the small and medium sized non profits.

So, I've been trying to change it since I formed the Tutor/Mentor Connection in 1993. One success is a new $2 million fund at the Chicago Bar Association that makes grants to volunteer-based tutor/mentor programs in Chicago. In 1994 when I first met this group the annual award was $2,000 to a single program.

The ideas I am applying are not new in business circles. The company I worked for had 400 stores in 40 states and a $250 million advertising budget. Every week we sent three waves of ads to 20 million people telling them we had goods and services they want at really good prices at a store near them. While I created the ads other teams made sure the stores were near potential customers, had the right goods and services, and had well trained people.

Thus, I've created a database listing most of the tutor/mentor programs in Chicago, and posted this on www.tutormentorconnection.org along with maps, and an extensive library of information, and created events to try to get more people to look at this information, and more of my peers to join me in this effort.

In my business advertising we had to deal with burnout and donor fatigue too. Our donors were our customers. Every year for the 17 years I was doing advertising, we had blue jeans on the front cover in August, Jewerly on the front cover in December, and Easter clothes on the front cover in April, because that's what customers were thinking about at those times each year.

We really did not change the categories of merchandise in the ads. We did change the look of them and we constantly tried to add more potential customers to our mailing lists, and attract them to stores with price cuts, special Sales, etc. Those of us creating the ads got tired of the process before the customers did.

If we apply this concept to our problem, most of us do not have million dollar ad budgets. In fact most don't have any dollars for advertising. Thus we need to innovate new ways to get people to "shop" our stores.

I encourage you to read articles on my blog at http://tutormentor.blogspot.com and on the Tutor/Mentor Institute at http://www.tutormentorexchange.net to see how I'm trying to do this and how others can adopt these same ideas in their own efforts.

The big problems in the world are complex problems needing consistent long-term investment. Kids take 20 years to grow from birth to 20 and if they live in poverty and distressed circumstances many don't make it, and many who do make it don't have the skills to benefit from all the opportunities in the world.

We really need to find ways to keep the donor, and the volunteer, and our leaders focused on these issues.

Pollyanna, that is how I have felt when I have asked people to reconsider their direction. The principles and introduction remind me of Marley's Songs of Freedom. Thanks for the link and taking up the issue of change in the nonprofit sector! Regards, Carlos

Hildy, I agree with the Pollyanna Principles and ideas posted on the blog article that Jill pointed to. In fact I've been preaching the same ideas through the organization I lead in Chicago for more than 15 years.

I use maps and charts to try to go a step further, showing who the stakeholders are in the same zip codes, who should share responsibility for helping poor kids go through school and into jobs, and also showing process charts that illustrate steps that can be taken to achieve such goals.

What I've learned over many years is that our ideas, like your book and blog, are like "seeds". We can nurture them, and hope some will grow, but this is a painfully slow process if we're the only ones doing this. However, if more of us plant seeds and nurture their growth, then we speed the process.

A tipping point would be a process of learning these responsibilities and learning to lead them, starting in elementary school and continuing for the rest of one's life. using the K-16 education structure to provide learning-service activities that help kids learn from peers and adults, and from their own involvement.

I posted a quote that was given to me in 1993 by Merri Dee, a Chicago TV personality. It saids "If it is to be, it is up to me." which means that while many people talk the talk and complain about problems, these won't go away until more people take personal, daily, responsibility for making change happen. This can be as the leader or volunteer in a non profit, or as the donor, business leader, politician, or journalist who also needs to be responsible with their actions.

Read the articles and follow the links at http://tutormentor.blogspot.com to see what we're doing and what others could duplicate.

As Jill points out the (fill in the blanks) fatigue is not new. For fatigue caused by a particular technology, it's a natural part of the technology hype cycle. http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2006/12/technology_hype.html

(fill in the blanks) fatigue signals that we've entered the third phase: "Trough of Disillusionment" Technologies enter the "trough of disillusionment" because they fail to meet expectations and quickly become unfashionable. Consequently, the press usually abandons the topic and the technology.

I've seen this pattern over and over again for the past 15 years.

There was telemarketing fatigue, direct mail fatigue, internet search fatigue, email fatigue, email fundraising fatigue, social networking fatigue, friending fatigue, micro fatigue, virtual worlds fatigue, and now social media fundraising and awareness building fatigue ...

I think part of the problem with "issue fatigue" and use of social media tools is that some are focused on "spreading their message" or blasting it out and only focused on the ask .... versus building relationships, reciprocity, engagement, building trust, telling good stories about the impact, etc. Not on a constant barrage of asking only.

When I was in college, I was active in the anti-apartheid protests. We built shanty towns to get media attention, advocated divestment, and generally were quite loud, in between taking midterms and finals, in effort to cause a ripple effect on other campuses and throughout the world. However, amongst the activist crowd, you could never be enough of activist. It wasn't enough to care about ending apartheid, there were the grape workers' rights to fight for and the underpaid staff at the university and... In the end, it became hard to keep caring about everything.

RuthieB captured this sentiment in her recent blog post “Change the World (On a Monday)”: She says “Like most people, I find it unacceptable that my clothes are made in sweatshops, that cotton farmers are poisoned by pesticides, and that cocoa is harvested by child slaves. But a little knowledge can be paralysing, posing such questions as: is it OK to buy clothes a) for a fiver, or b) at all? What difference will it make if I don't? A friend who shall be nameless recently tried to talk me out of my ethical dilemmas, saying 'You can't care about everything'. Maybe not, but you can care about some things." http://tinyurl.com/969k9j

So I ask the question, isn't it enough to care about one thing? How can we help people feel good about picking their battles rather than giving up on helping causes altogether? The recent article “Compassion Fatigue” by Marty Kaplan, points out “There’s only so much time in a day, and the onslaught of information clamoring for our attention inevitably requires some kind of triage.” http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/compassion_fatigue_20090202/

How can we reach, as Beth Kanter's cycle defines, the "Slope of Enlightenment" where some continue to "experiment to understand the benefits and practical application of the technology" and the "Plateau of Productivity" where benefits "become widely demonstrated and accepted" and "The final height of the plateau varies according to whether the technology is broadly applicable or benefits only a niche market"

How can social media technology better serve and form firm foundations for deeper niches rather than crush people with excessive diverse and shallow "asks"?

I guess I could resist that title. Your question is fantastic:

"How can nonprofits better use social media to serve and form firm foundations for deeper niches rather than crush (or annoy) people with excessive diverse and shallow asks?"

I blogged quite a bit on that topic. Here's some advice How To Think Like A Social Media Marketing Genius http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2008/12/how-to-think-like-a-nonprofit-social-marketing-genius-whats-your-brilliant-thought.html

The two points that are most important are "listen first"

listening before you do anything will help you understand what people are saying and where to start engaging.

Also, it's about finding the right six people (influencers) in your network to spread your message. The excessive diverse asks are the wrong way to use social media and it creates the noise pollution and resulting fatigue.

I also think the approach of listening, learning, and adapting is essential to success. That takes a bit of work, but that will lead an organization up the slope of enlightenment and to the plateau of productivity.

More here: http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/02/riffing-on-listen-learn-and-adapt-need-your-organizations-adaption-stories.html

Great conversation!

One of the issues that concerns me (and that is referenced above) is the increasing number of nonprofits - there are too many out there and they are stretched too thin. This is driven partly Iby the emphasis on social entrepreneurship from funders, organizations, and even this website. Can we reframe the opportunity as social entrepreneurship OR intra-preneurship? Meaning, can we inspire our best and brightest to go into existing organizations, make them better, and utilize existing structures/assets, instead of starting new organizations? To do this, I would challenge the major social entrepreneurship players out there (including this website, Ashoka, Echoing Green, Draper Richards, etc.) to reconsider their definitions of what it means to be an effective and innovative change maker.

I have my doubts that promoting social entrepreneurship has driven the growth of nonprofits. I would say that nonprofits own refusal to change or accept their own internal innovators may be part of the reason for growth of SE. I would also add that with the number of crisis that have occurred contributed to that growth, for example, 911 and Katrina. It is possible assume that some of those start-ups were out of frustration with the lack of response from either existing nonprofits or government. As well, it is possible that many of the new incorporation's are used only for tax purposes.

From my point of view it is good that many people want to create change. The more the merrier, eventually we will figure out that our nonprofit systems and assumptions need overhauling.

My argument for re-defining social enterprise would be that it is an idea that offer greater value to the whole of society, not just nonprofits.

Great comments Liz and Carlos, I agree with both.

There was an interesting experiment at the last Craigslist SF nonprofit bootcamp. People were asked to (physically) distribute themselves along a continuum. Those who strongly agreed with a statement stood at one end of a line and those who strongly disagreed stood at the other end, and those who felt less strongly or neutral spaced themselves out in between. The statement was "There need to be more nonprofits." Those who agreed argued for innovation, that current systems that don't work, that inspired and motivated leaders can move mountains. Those who disagreed argued for collaboration, efficiency, less reinventing the wheel and more shared best practices, and in sum less nonprofits working better together, more intra-preneurs fixing things from within existing organizations. Both arguments hold water.

Hildy has a great article on why competitions for "not-enough-money" are discouraging collaboration and intra-preneurship: http://hildygottlieb.com/2007/06/26/stop-sign-competition-and-collaboration/

But despite the arguments against competitions, there is a need for the best organizations to rise to the top, for foundations to select and invest for the biggest social impact, and for social entrepreneurs to have an incentive to take time away from their busy day-to-day operating a nonprofit obligations to look at the big picture. Does this argue for a competition that requires three or more nonprofits to work together in a collaborative, innovative way? Are there contests to reward intra-preneurs? Is this an opportunity for NetSquared (who already encourages Mash-ups) or Changemakers to craft a collaborative team competition where multiple nonprofits all win funding by working together?

Silos by their nature are not bad - they allow for specialization and focus. But is there a need to bridge silos, and to have several silos (or social enterprises) work together toward a common goal, whether that be for fundraising or social solutions. In the end, all the parties come out stronger for it. Is this a call for co-opetition (wikipedia defines Co-opetition as occuring "when companies work together for parts of their business where they do not believe they have competitive advantage, and where they believe they can share common costs.") or something even more?

The only example of competition fostering partnerships I have been able to find is The Corporation for National and Community Service Grants: "Eligible applicants include higher education partnerships, defined as one or more public or private nonprofit organizations, or public agencies, including States, and one or more institutions of higher education. Thus, all partnerships must include at least one institution of higher education. Examples of such partnerships include: a national service-focused organization and colleges and universities where it has affiliated chapters; a national non-profit partnering with a Business School to run a national subgranting competition; a regional group of non-profit student organizations working with an institution of higher education which would serve as the legal applicant. Applicants should have demonstrable experience in planning and implementing significant service, volunteering or technology programs." http://www.socialedge.org/features/opportunities/archive/2008/04/21/the-corporation-for-national-and-community-service-grants-available

I am sure there are more - post them here! Discuss the pros and cons.

Jill: I guess I would disagree with the basic premise about competition being a good thing or even a necessary evil. We can't have it both ways. We can't say, “competition is good,” and simultaneously bemoan "all those organizations competing."

We know that no one organization can accomplish anything significant on its own - we all need each other. We also know we cannot simultaneously build the trust required to work cooperatively while we are competing for survival.

When we all work together we can move mountains. Our potential is not our individual potential, but our collective potential. When the cream rises and only one organization is funded, we are guaranteeing we will underperform that collective potential.

There are ways funders can fund cooperatively. I don’t mean "collaboratively" but “cooperatively.” The distinction is important. Collaboration assumes we are all separate and will work as separate “what's-in-it-for-me” entities. When funders require collaboration as a condition of funding, we simply escalate the competition - now whole groups of organizations are competing with each other!

Some examples: Cooperative funding solved the crisis of hospital emergency rooms being used as primary care for low income patients in Lincoln, Nebraska. Solved it. In the US, this is a problem that has been deemed virtually unsolvable in every community, and yet they solved it - done. How? The funder brought all 3 hospitals together and funded them all to fix it together.

We have seen similar work done with cooperative capacity building. The funder gathers teams of as many organizations as are interested in a particular subject - boards, fundraising, etc. That team then works and learns together, with one single consultant for the group. The result is that the funder not only provides capacity building to every single organization that requests it, but those group gain far more, because they are learning not just from the consultant, but more importantly, from each other.

The work I do - and the subject of The Pollyanna Principles - is to make visionary community change practical. Such change - the reason we all do the work we do - is only possible if we align our means behind the end results we seek. If we intend to change the world, and we know we cannot do that alone, we need to create systems that encourage our working together. More importantly, though, we need to eschew systems that encourage the opposite of that.

Assuming that competition is the only reality is simply not true. We are all interconnected and we all want the same thing. We just need systems that move us there, rather than perpetuating the competitive systems we bemoan.

Ok, rant done. You would think I have strong feelings about this! :-)

This may be a gem of an opportunity for co-hosts to agree to disagree :)

I love your extremely well worded response which has excellent points and should give funders pause to think about how they might better enable the success of their grants and grantees through more cooperative funding initiatives.

In the Malcolm Gladwell book Outliers, he attempts to explain why some people are successful (great book) and one of the factors that all successful people had is that they did not do it alone. All had help. So there is no question that successful social ventures have had help and that cooperation/collaboration is part of their success formula.

So if it is in their best interest, why aren't more nonprofits working together? I don't think competitions are stopping them from doing so. If anything, scarcity of resources should drive creative partnerships.

Perhaps it is that very scarcity of resources that prevents them from having the bandwidth to consider ways they might work cooperatively. They are so focused on achieving their mission and meeting the needs of their beneficiaries that the investment of time needed to find and bring together kindred organizations is just not available. Perhaps they are so deeply involved in their day-to-day demands that they do not have time to step back and view their organization in the larger eco-system?

This is where competitions can be beneficial. 1. they provide the carrot (incentive and investment) to take the time to reevaluate their business model and opportunities to scale. 2. they bring people working on similar issues "out of the woodwork" and enable funders AND other ventures in the field to discover each other 3. and this one is very cool, they can actually drive innovation to solve specific problems. Take a look at NetSquared mashup competitions or Changemakers challenges or the X-Prize!

So while we agree that cooperation can move mountains and competing is counterintuitive, I feel competitions provide a voltage charge to jumpstart innovation, enable identification of effective ventures (which can lead to cooperation), provide an influx of funds, encourages impact measurement and management (which leads to improved efficiency and efficacy), and gives leaders of social ventures an excuse to take time out from doing and a chance to focus on strategy. And done well, like the Global Social Benefit Incubator contest, can even provide valuable training to all applicants not just the winners.

GSBI Mentor Hardika Shah points out “The online application forces organizations to step back and assess the current market and competitive landscape and reconcile their original hypothesis, vocalize their value proposition and business model in the current market climate.”

The GSBI team explains "The exercises and collaboration are intended to benefit the entire social venture community, accelerating our knowledge sharing and our understanding of foundational principals behind scaling and sustainability."

So I think competition is not the only reality, but that cooperation and competition can coexist. And that would be my little rant. I'm glad we both have strong feelings on this. For those loving this little exchange - you can see Hildy's and I's earlier encounter on this topic here: http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/blog/view/if_you_want_to_do_good_capacity_matters

Off topic a bit, but since it came up about too many nonprofits and not enough collaboration, I thought readers of this discussion might be interested in "The Weakest Critique of Social Entrepreneurship" by Nathaniel Whittemore, Published February 14, 2009. See what's REALLY driving him nuts about this critique: http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/blog/view/the_weakest_critique_of_social_entrepreneurship

I think the issue of "fatigue" is pretty simple at its foundation. Everything we do in life is to seek pleasure and/or avoid pain. If people are getting fatigued (related to social good, or anything in life) it's because they're feeling like continuing on the path is going to provide more pain than pleasure.

I realize that's all pretty obvious to most of us, but if you look at the way most organizations operate, they're not acknowledging the power of that simple truth. Most groups tell their story, then ask, ask, ask. They try to take the short cut of getting what they want without giving enough in exchange.

In basic terms, if I'm not getting pleasure out of my interactions with the organization because their story isn't resonating with me, or they're asking more than they're giving, then I'm going to get fatigued.

As someone wise once said "give, and you shall receive"... IMO, that's the fundamental answer to the problem of fatigue.

Thanks Randy. The simple answer is often the right answer. So the question then becomes - what can we give? How can social media tools enable more than fundraising, and give pleasure back to the supporter, share more stories that resonate? Looking for ideas and examples of "Great Gives" by nonprofits!

This has been an amazing discussion!

If there is one thing everyone seems to agree on it is that burnout and fatigue were problems long before social media came along. That would suggest we have simply taken this new tool and used it within the same system that wasn’t working before!

If organizations were not sustainable before these new tools and before this current economy, then it is likely the burnout and fatigue are just symptoms of something bigger.

Instead of constantly battling the symptoms, then - the lack of funding, lack of ongoing issues focus, burnout, etc. - what if we address the root cause head on? What if we create new systems - a community whose culture is one of engagement? What might such a community look like?

Well we already know there are communities that are more engaged than others. In such communities, people are more naturally inclined to engage. They volunteer more, donate more, advocate more, connect more and solve problems themselves rather than expecting others to do it for them.

When we see communities that are highly engaged on an ongoing basis (i.e. no burnout), we are affirmed that creating such a culture is possible.

So if it’s possible, what conditions would create such an engaged community? Perhaps it’s infrastructure - convening community conversations to build on the collective strengths of everyone together, rather than relying on one person or organization to do it all.

Or perhaps it is embedding community service into the education system. Or discussion of community issues as part of the education system. Or etc.

What are your thoughts? What have you seen work well for building a culture of engagement? What would our communities have to have in place, to embed that deeper level of engagement - the antidote to burnout - into the fabric of the community’s culture?

Hildy

A board member and donor of an organization providing permanent affordable housing to formerly homeless individuals did not want another bought gift for her donation. So, she suggested that she would buy the yarn, she is an avid knitter, if the organization could get volunteers to knit scarfs. She thought a hand-home-made scarf would be a good way to tell the organizations story and thank donors.

Her assumptions were confirmed. As donor's wore their thank-you scarf's people would ask, where did you get it? So, the donor had the opportunity to tell the story. How volunteers all over the country were knitting scarfs to thank donors for helping eliminate homelessness, which led to more donors! Each scarf was signed and messaged by the knitter.

Social media needs to work like that. There is no replacement for human contact! Although, it is hard to have contact when everyone is typing away on their phones or hooked up to their mp3 player.

I love the story and the scarf idea. Thank you for sharing. Not only does this give people the opportunity to talk about the charity, it allows them to do so without preaching because they are simply answering the question that came from someone else.

I agree with Carlos, that entire systems and the assumptions that go with them need overhauling to prevent people from being overwhelmed. And with you Hildy, that conditions need to change in order for communities to be able to engage at deeper levels. I like what Vincent was saying about one source of resource- building being artisans who don't request funds to be able to create goods and products.

I think what we are seeing with social media now is the collective potential for the capacity building of intertwining networks. Lets not forget we are coming into an age of enlightenment that has a chance to herald an opportunity for a golden age in humanity- through information sharing etc at global levels, where people are willingly and deeply engaged both personally and collectively in seeking solutions.

Jo: Thank you for your thoughts. I love your phrasing of the incredible opportunity we have - and the fact that this is not airy-fairy. It is practical, doable!

As I head off to do the talk that will become the YouTube launch for The Pollyanna Principles, your words could not be more timely. Thank you! Please keep popping in as this conversation continues! Hildy

Jo - I too love the "collective potential for the capacity building of intertwining networks." This is indeed the promise of social media marketing. It's always interesting when you, through one person, suddenly tap into a whole new pool of resources and ideas.

Speaking of the power of the collective, you may be interested in this youth competition I just discovered... The Power in Numbers grants: http://www.socialedge.org/features/opportunities/archive/2009/02/11/power-in-numbers-grants

Thanks for the discussion, it is very interesting.

For what it is worth I have voluntarily run a Community Partnership for the last four years, partnering a developed community with a developing community to transform people's lives out of mutual poverty, using already existing NGOs. We have had 6 schools, 10 churches, 180 businesses, local groups, local government and 15,000 people get involved at different times in our community to help some 6,000 people in our partner community through the NGOs.

However it is more about the premises we have tried to hold as core over the last four years that I wanted to share. The following have helped us sustain ourselves as a totally voluntary movement, but of the course we are still learning!:

• Create a common-purpose to engage a whole physical community and the sub elements within it and give them a sense of local collective ownership identity - Celebrate the use of our strengths and passions only in the areas that fit us - Listen to, invite and empower other people through personal relationship to get involved in the area of their passion (not necessarily competence) - Look for purpose alignment between donors, volunteers and the movement - serve them to realise their higher intent as they journey with us - Rather than pay for a product or service to build the movement, ask for it, inviting others to get engaged and be transformed through their provision - Partner with organisations in both communities that have the core competency we need, build upon knowledge already existing - Market our brand using all tools available for the sake of awareness but rely upon relationship to generate funds - Realise that people's hearts are best transformed through experience or action, not words/chat - lead people to do something/take them to the field - Develop methods and ways for the donor to give that link their personal support to real people, single or multiple - personal connection - Move with the latest technology and design so that people see you as cutting edge - Invest our time in finding alignment with leaders of others. Once a leader is on board, they multiply and help provide sustainability - Manage our own expectations, realising that there are plenty of other good ideas and causes and that ours is not the most important, all be it worthy!

People fundamentally are made to be in relationship with each other and have a desire to help, serve and give, whether they know it or not. When done correctly giving of ourselves always releases a positive feeling back to the donor.....the question we have to ask ourselves all the time as non-profits is how can we best help serve those who could/might donate/serve to realise that benefit for themselves. i.e. we are just as interested in the transformation of the donor as we are in our own projects, programmes and beneficiaries. We call it mutual transformation focusing our vision on both donor and beneficiary. If donors know that you have them equally at heart, which can only be done through relationship, then you have a trust which can last a lifetime.

Social media to me is for the use of awareness building of a brand/cause and engaging people in quick and easy advocacy actions. I believe that human relationship and personal physical experience is the key to sustainable action and giving.

Wishing you all well. Jim http://www.manly-manado.org.au

Jim: Wonderful - thank you for sharing all this!

We, too, have found that it is our assumptions and expectations that must change before actions will change. And yes, it is indeed transformation! (It is why my book is called The Pollyanna Principles and not "100 Things You Can Do to Work Together". It's about the principles first!)

We have also found, like you, that groups we were warned would never work together of course do work together - and joyfully. Because as you noted, we are intended to be in relationship.

Like the cells in a body, we are independent but create something much larger when we work in relationship. Thank you so much for sharing this.

If you are interested, the six Pollyanna Principles are listed here: http://pollyannaprinciples.org/ I think you will enjoy them, as they mirror much of what you have found in your work.

Does anyone else have examples of what has worked? What conditions we would need to create in communities to create the kind of cultural shift that makes "fatigue and burnout" irrelevant? Thanks!

I will not be able to touch back here until tonight, and I look forward to seeing where the conversation goes. It really is an honor to be able to be part of this dialogue! Hildy

You're right Hildy, even if you did name your principles Pollyanna after "unrealistic naive souls." Just like cells in the body creating intrinsically holistic systems of organization, humans have a innate ability for transcendence so it's in our common destiny to evolve the way we create our communities. It's true, the way to do it is to tap untapped human potential.

It's like what Don and Jim are doing with community-lead change, where individuals are giving like Don said " as an opportunity to get directly involved in projects on a personal level" or

as Jeff and Mark see it, businesses themselves generating profits to fund charities - challenging old assumptions of organizational strengths and market demand - and being able to turn competition into co-petition and cooperation. Good luck with the book.

Jo,

I learned yesterday that at Davos David Cameron prescribed capitalism with a conscience in his speech. In so doing, unknowningly perhaps, he was resonating where we started 13 years ago, advocating business rather than charity.

The Tomsk initiative which Terry sourced in 1999 created 10,000 micro-entrepreneurs and paid back the $6 million invested, with 95% business survival of more than a year,

We don't see the tools of the nonprofit model as a problem, it's more that the energy used to compete for the donor dollar can be deployed more effectively to generate income and leverage investment to help others create an income.

What we're trying to do instead is to place the tools and the infrastructure at the disposal of the poor, such that they may use information to create wealth. It's a point made in the founding paper and more recently by C K Prahalad, who says poor people remain poor because they lack access to information.

Now we've burned out from using widgets and web 2.0, it may be time to realise that there's a more fundamental issue in the approach being taken to eradicate poverty.

Jeff

Jeff, big business could learn a thing or two from you and Terry. Using business to fund other sources of business is a really smart idea.

Thanks for the well-wishes, Jo. The title has been a fun one, and has gotten people talking about just what you suggest - What IS unrealistic? And what is really possible and practical?

It has been fun to use the title to reinforce the truth that if something is not scientifically impossible, it is indeed possible. And that means we have tremendous potential to achieve significant, visionary change in our world!

Hildy

Hello everyone,

This is a great conversation. Thanks to Jill and Hildy for linking to the discussion summary for the ArtTribes online chat I moderated on issue fatigue. In that discussion, we didn't touch much on the issue of funding--rather, the chat was geared toward causes of issue fatigue and combating it through the use of film/video, art, media and technology.

What I've been gathering through participating in both that discussion and this, is the importance of creating platforms that allow for (1) engagement, storytelling and communication, and (2) creating and demonstrating impact.

Beth is right that issue fatigue is not new. It does seem more stark now, though, given that we are living through a time where resources are very limited, demonstrable progress in issues ranging from education reform to genocide is hard to see, and information and "asks" flood over us every day. But as Beth's blog demonstrates, we also have more opportunities to connect and innovate than ever before. In this environment, with all our obstacles and opportunities, I think donor engagement might be a better strategy than traditional fundraising, to garner support, resources, funds and attention.

Creating a sustainable engagement platform within your existing structure takes time, creativity and dedication. But as Jill points out in her comment about virtual fundraising, it's also easier to disseminate information than ever before, since the internet, web and mobile technologies allow for more connectivity and access. In gaining and retaining attention (and not causing extra stress from "compassion overload"), participants in the other discussion pointed out the need to be sparse, consistent and targeted and, more importantly, to create a personal connection.

The other piece of this is to build your platforms to both create and demonstrate impact. Institutional funders and individual donors alike would rather contribute to and participate in initiatives that make a difference and do it well. If you can show your impact- whether through a powerpoint presentation or a good story-- I think you're more likely to succeed in keeping attention and obtaining resources that will sustain your efforts.

We do have tools for collaboration and engaging with each other. Finding ways to get the donors in these discussions is much more difficult.

I posted a response that suggests ways students in affluent communities could take a role in this, in a forum at http://firesidelearning.ning.com/forum/topics/1786468:Topic:6703?page=5&commentId=1786468%3AComment%3A45452&x=1#1786468Comment45452

I also wrote about this on my blog http://tutormentor.blogspot.com/2009/02/fall-in-love-with-non-profit.html where I pointed to a forum hosted by http://www.womenoncall.org which is a portal connecting business and professional women with non profit organizations in Chicago. This forum is hosted by some very high profile people, just as Social Edge is. In my blog article I pointed to a link to a web site called Muckety.com. This link shows the network of the person who was the keynote speaker at the WomenOnCall event: http://www.muckety.com/Sheli-Z-Rosenberg/6017.muckety

Imagine if people like Sheli Rosenberg were in these discussions, drawing the people in her business and professional network!

We need to find ways to make this connection. Using the tools of social networking and collaboration that we have available to us, the next step is using social network analysis to find who is connected to who and where these people are entering the discussion.

I am loving this conversation!

I am noting something Lina said above, as I think it is one of the many keys to the issue of burnout / fatigue: "Creating a sustainable engagement platform within your existing structure takes time, creativity and dedication."

If we were to replace the words "Creating a sustainable engagement platform" with the words "building relationships" we would realize that of course "taking time" is critical. And when we are talking about relationships, we are talking about sustainability.

I am recalling a conversation with a seasoned fundraising colleague a year or so ago. He was responding to my call for building truly engaged friendships for our organizations as one path towards sustainability. When I say friendships, I don’t mean “friend = donor” but friends as we have in our real lives - people who will help with whatever we need. Friends make us sustainable in our real lives, and are a key part of sustainability in community benefit work as well. (I've written a lot about that - a good start is here: http://bit.ly/8dFKS )

My colleague recognized that in the long term, if we have real friends, our work becomes easier, because it all just flows. But he added, “But that takes time. And all we have time for now is sending direct mail pieces and short-term asks.”

What we have created is a hamster-wheel we can’t get off! We spend our time chasing short-term dollars because we haven’t built sustainability. And so we have no time to build sustainability, because if we don’t chase the short-term dollars, we will be broke and go out of business, and etc. and etc. We've created this Catch22, and then built whole systems and industries around it, to ensure it is never just eliminated.

This comes back to whether we are doing our work from a sense of strength or weakness, from a sense of abundance or a sense of scarcity. The key is therefore to do both - to begin building more and more sustainability, while using fewer and fewer short-term asks as a stop-gap until an organization's program development and sustainability systems are fully transformed.

But the key to sustainability is to take the time to be engaged and creative, as Lina notes. Simultaneously be building up the systems that create sustainability, so we no longer have the sense of scarcity and fear that leads to the desperate “please just feed this one child” approach that DOES lead to burnout!

And much of that comes back to something I noted earlier in this conversation - building on our assets (what we DO have), rather than focusing on always chasing after what we do NOT have. (For more about how that can work, this article is a start: http://bit.ly/11sCUV )

Thoughts?

Thank you for your thoughtful contributions. I liked Jim’s idea of mutual transformation. That is how many of the people who work at L’Arche describe their work experience. As an immigrant it is also an idea that resonates. There is always a tension between our ideas and values of individual and community. Mutual transformation makes sense as an individual’s opportunity for well-being depends on their community’s ability to create such opportunities. The process of becoming engaged is what leads to such opportunities, and mutual transformation.

Local Living Economies and Social Enterprise are ideas that can provide opportunity for mutual transformation. These ideas open a new canvas, where doing well by doing good, can transform the future of our communities. From that perspective adopting the Pollyanna Principles as means to develop local living economies and the social enterprises that can support such economy, could be beneficial.

Creating opportunities through community engagement can be cultivated by understanding the affinities/values, social networks and economic needs of our communities. It used to be said that if you understood your company’s paper system, then you would have a better chance of picking the right software. Perhaps the same applies to how we use social media networks.

Carlos, great points on community engagement. I just saw an article "Community building means making members feel special" which delves into what it means to develop community online and how to build relationships that can lead to engagement. Some very tactical, practical tips on managing an online community can be seen here http://www.communityspark.com/community-building-means-making-members-feel-special/ including one of my favorite suggestions:

"Your members can make other members feel special with minimal input from you. You just need to lead by example. Pay attention to members and remember things about them. Be personal. If you do this, other members will do the same thing."

Connecting your supporters with each other is one way social ventures can help ensure that their venture is one that people will cheer for and engage with, rather than becoming one of the causes people drop or only stand on the sidelines for.

Thank you Lina. Lina's conversation was the inspiration for this discussion and I encourage everyone to take a look at the excellent summary she wrote up: http://linasrivastava.blogspot.com/2009/01/summary-preaching-to-converted-engaging.html

Impact measurement AND management is key and thinking about this in advance will save you a lot of trouble later. Definitely take a look at the valuable tips and insights from Sara Olsen and Brett Galimidi, partners at Social Venture Technology Group, who bring you the latest trends, approaches, and examples of how to manage resources to generate the greatest positive impact possible in their Social Edge blog SVT on Impact. http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/svt-on-impact

In particular - take a look at their Impact Management Recap blog entry which summarizes a huge amount of tantalizingly useful info: http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/svt-on-impact/archive/2009/01/13/impact-management-recap

Oooh.. and their "The Field's Love-Hate Relationship with Standards" is particularly excellent too: http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/svt-on-impact/archive/2008/11/16/standards-for-standards

I have created tools and activities to help a community (~100,000 pop) promote and organize energy conservation activities at all levels, from the household to the schools, City Hall, and the US Congress. I want other communities to have these tools as well. The program is easily syndicated and customized to local needs, but requires $20 - 40,000/yr per location to operate. My current business model is to help individual communities find separate funding, but I wonder if a single funding source for multiple towns would be more likely to succeed.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy held a live discussion on Social-Media Workshop: How Nonprofit Groups Can Use Online Tools to Build Awareness and Raise Money. See what was said here: http://philanthropy.com/live/2009/02/social_media/chat.php3

What's the difference between sites like Digg, Facebook, and Twitter? How do they work? How can your organization use these tools to connect with potential donors or supporters? What lessons can be learned from the recent Twestival

a massive fund-raising event for the group Charity: Water that was organized on Twitter? Social-media experts Chris Garrett and John Haydon answer nonprofits' questions.

Also referenced this earlier discussion: How Charities Can Raise Money With Twitter and Other Social-Networking Tools (11/25/2009) http://philanthropy.com/live/2008/11/social_networking

Kari Dunn Saratovsky asks in her blog entry today: "Is your organization or cause tredding a little differently in this new hyper-connected world? Do you see your personal style of giving changing? Or, are you just plain overwhelmed?" Read her blog entry and then share your thoughts: http://www.socialcitizens.org/blog/feeling-whelmed-cause-driven-world

Also thanks and a shout out to other SocialEdgers continuing this dialog in their own forums: David Brotherton: http://comeonin.typepad.com/come_on_in_the_waters_fin/2009/02/social-networks-fundraising-and-issue-fatigue.html TutorMentor: http://tutormentor.blogspot.com/2009/02/stimulus-package-for-volunteer-based.html Allison Fine: http://afine2.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/issue-fatigue/

Allison is tired too. She sums it up: "The solution is to go back to basics: building strong relationships with your supporters. For all of the pinging and poking and clicking and razzle dazzle of cause chatter, social change continues to happen through social connections. For causes it is more important than ever that they focus on how to strengthen those ties, with and without social media, online and on land, to support their efforts. This year, in particular, social capital trumps financial capital - so we better get to building it one person, one connection, one conversation at a time."

David says Issue Fatigue is "a topic that funders, and all organizations interested in changing public will, should be paying close attention to. But are they?"

What do you think?

Jill, you are asking some good questions. To combat the scarcity of resources mindset in a cause driven world might require not only using information to build relationships that result in mutual transformation, along with impact measurement and management to keep track. But using social networks in a broader strategy to unlock private investment - like we've seen with Twestival as an example of the power of intertwining networks to raise over $250 000 for water projects - and that is through the power of storytelling.

By bringing world views together to change how we perceive social responsibility, it's great to see how storytelling and digital media are being used by individuals in the developing world to tell their own stories, so as to create connectivity and access to donors. Using telecommunications and social interactions to create action and change is the way to go.

It's interesting to hear that there are now 4 billion cellphones in use around the world changing the way we think about information and mobile computing. Of course, talking is the first step in building platforms that bring people together, because Hildy is right building relationships is what it takes to create sustainable engagement platforms, for people to strengthen ties with each other to create the change the world desperately needs.

Jo: I find I keep going back to the words you wrote above: "To combat the scarcity of resources mindset in a cause driven world..." I believe that is a huge contributor to the sense of "begging bowl fundraising" many bemoan in fundraising in general - and more recently, social media fundraising.

I have found myself playing with the metaphor of seed potatoes - a metaphor my business partner uses quite a bit (giving credit where credit is due!). When we are worried about survival, we don’t save any of our potatoes to plant next year - we eat them all now.

Use of social media for engaging dialogue to further the actual mission and vision of an effort - moving it forward in public thought - THAT is planting seed potatoes. Yes it will grow financial support, but that’s not the main benefit - the main benefit is that the mission will be successful!!

Which comes back to your comment above re: the scarcity mindset. Until organizations are sustainable, they will continue to see every tool first for its survival potential. And they will eat their seed potatoes, having to start from scratch again next time and the time after that.

Which then brings me back to one of my first thoughts in this discussion: Sustainability means building on our assets - the things we DO have - rather than constantly relying on our working harder and harder to bring in more resource. Wealthy individuals are not sustainable because they work hard every day; they are wealthy because they build their wealth on what they already have.

This article shows how organizations can take an asset-based approach to their work: http://www.help4nonprofits.com/NP_Fnd_Asset_Based_Resource_Development.htm

It comes back to building upon our strengths, rather than assuming we can build strength from weakness. Thank you, Jo, for pushing the conversation back in that direction - I think it is a critical factor (if not THE critical factor!). Hildy

Thanks for your comments Jo and further analysis Hildy. This aligns perfectly with Britt Bravo's comments on this issue in her blog Wednesday:

"I've often thought of the explosion of social media as being like the free love movement of the 60s and 70s. Social media tools have opened the doors for anyone and everyone to be an expert, a journalist, a pundit, a filmmaker, an organizer, a fundraiser, and a "friend."

Now, people are examining their new roles and relationships, and asking themselves, "Who and what do I want to commit to?" Perhaps, organizations need to change their focus from how many supporters they can gather, to the quality of their relationships, and how they can get people to commit to their cause for the long run."

http://havefundogood.blogspot.com/2009/02/issue-fatigue-whats-cure.html

How do you get people to commit to your organization? How will your organization become one of the ones people focus on, rather than weed out? Why will people remember you and their interaction with your organization in thoughtful and personal way that will survive the inevitable shake-out of causes to become one that they strengthen ties with rather than cut loose?

Jo, you suggest the key to long-term support is in the story telling, making the emotional connection, and increasingly leveraging mobile communications. Andy Goodman (who gives talks on what makes good presentations - see my twitter highlights @jfinlayson) calls the 2008 Friends of the Children annual report "an annual report that you will actually want to read" -http://www.friendsofthechildren.org/assets/pdf/2008-FOTC-annualReport.pdf Why? because of story telling. It demonstrates the impact of the organization by chronicling the story of one beneficiary and how his life changed over the year thanks to the nonprofit.

So how do you tell an effective story? Check out some Social Edge discussions on storytelling: Storytelling and Social Change: http://www.socialedge.org/features/discussions/marketing-communication/storytelling-and-social-change Strategic storytelling and social innovation: http://www.socialedge.org/features/discussions/marketing-communication/strategic-storytelling-and-social-innovation/ * Stories of Change: http://www.socialedge.org/discussions/marketing-communication/stories-of-change

But even with a good story to tell, here's the question: Who do you tell the story to? With hundreds & thousands of potential supporters to connect with, and with limited staff and time, how do you do it? To use Hildy's analogy, you can't save all your seed potatoes when you are starving for resources. Can the mass tools work for long-term relationships, or do you have to pick your battles? How do we avoid turning people off by giving them too much attention? (Think about it, have you unsubscribed from a newsletter or stopped following in twitter because there were too many tweets or emails?) How much is too much, and as Goldilocks says - what amount of outreach in our hyper-connected age is "just right"? (Is it the same for everyone? Can you let them choose?)

And if picking your battles, how do you decide which people to make the extra effort for? How do we "build upon our strengths"? Who are the key influencers, who have the networks, that you can focus on, so that they can then carry the message to their followers personally on your behalf? How can you turn more of your supporters into key influencers?

It seems to me that people don't want a million bite size interactions, they want meaningful engagement. Social media does not encourage one vs the other, it is just a tool that can be used different ways. However, the problem with social media is that it makes it really, really easy to "ping" tons of donors on a regular basis. Guess what people do when they are exposed to the same message over and over? They tune out unless they believe that certain actions will make a meaningful difference.

As I wrote today on my blog, donors are suffering from "filter failure", their inability to screen out all the social media "noise" that comes at them, meaning that they are not picking up on the important, interesting "signal".

It seems to me that there is an opportunity for nonprofits to become trusted "filters" in their focus area for their donors. If they are careful to only send anticipated, relevant communications (see: Seth Godin), they can build trust with donors who will come to depend on them as their trusted source for information on certain subject areas.

If nonprofits don't pull off that trick, donors will soon begin to regard social media fundraising as spam. And find ways to filter it all out.

For more on Filter Failure: http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2009/02/information-filtering

Hi Sean,

Great comments. I like the idea of "doing filtering" as something you can do for your donor/suporters. Sorting through and sharing just the relevant highlights is a nifty "give". It also means you are sharing and communicating, not just "asking" as Randy mentions earlier in this conversation.

Another "Give" idea: show the impact and results of your supporters efforts. Annette's Blog posts about Issue Fatigue and comments: "Personally I'm sick of causes on things like Facebook and the online petitions. How do I know that they're actually working? I doubt they do. They are all good causes but they really should join together so they can achieve more." http://maenad-au.livejournal.com/55754.html

Are there more ways that causes can join together?

The great thing about story telling is that it can remove the blinkers we have on, build bridges and generally bring people together all while creating common emotion. Great story telling also carries information that changes understanding and unleashes action.

I think new media, and other technological story telling tools for social interaction and social change through interactivity, have a huge part to play in the interconnected network of mass communications, empowering well-informed citizens to act with global influence just like the twestival empowering informed citizens to act over water. Just knowing that in 20 odd years 4 billion people will be affected by a water shortage, I guess really makes it real for people to act now, or it just shows the power of new media.

If new media creates a space -unlike mainstream media, which has apparently 6 corporations influencing most of what we see and hear- into multiple platforms that empowers individuals to share information, and like social media, influence each other for the public good. It will not only change the relationship between the public, the media and the state it will change the way things get done.

When people are informed and aware it changes social consciousness and creates an atmosphere where it's easy for organizations, corporates and grassroots to come together for a common goal helping to create a new mythology and transforming culture. And the reason I think it's going to take a change of consciousness to do it, is because in consciousness is not just awareness but knowledge.Information is power. Especially now that through the internet as it is possible for huge numbers of people to think together in new ways, and act in new ways like twestival and other "flash causes" and because and I forget who said this, collectively we know we know far more than we have been able to tap so far.

I worked in advertising for 17 years and every week we printed stories telling what we had on sale in our stores and sent them to 20 million people in 40 states where we had 400 stores. That costs us over $250 million in 1980 dollars. Can't imagine what it would cost now.

The goal was to draw customers to our stores.

I use blogs to tell stories of what I do at Cabrini Connections, a tutor/mentor program in Chicago. You can read these at http://cabriniblog.blogspot.com and http://chrispip.blogspot.com/search/label/student%20spotlight

I also use blogs to focus on the need for Chicago to have hundreds of programs doing this work. In these stories I use maps that follow bad news media stories with stories that show the assets in a neighborhood which could be helping tutor/mentor programs grow. http://mappingforjustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/media-reports-sw-side-teen-first-cps.html

While this results in about 100,000 visitors to our web sites each year, the only way that we'll dramatically increase traffic is to teach other programs to use these same tools to tell their stories, and to teach our students, volunteer and alumni to use social networking and corporate advertising to draw volunteers and donors to different programs in different places.

The next step is to recruit teams of volunteers in schools, colleges. churches, businesses, who research and write these stories, focusing the messages strategically at what consumers are thinking of at key times each year. For instance, in August as School is starting, people are more likely to think about volunteering. In December, people are more likely to think about donating. In May when school is letting out and people are more likely to think about summer vacation, we need them to think about what could be done over the summer so tutor/mentor program recruitment has more impact each year, supporting more programs in areas where they are needed.

In my Ning site I show work that interns are doing. The link is http://tutormentorconnection.ning.com. This is one way to expand the number of story tellers. Interns don't need to even be from the same city. The people who tell the stories could be from different cities too.

We're at an early stage for this type of collaborative story telling. However, as more non profits find it difficult to raise money and find volunteers, strategies like this will become more appealing. As more of us tell the same story, with the same message and purpose, over and over, we'll begin to get the attention of more people who want to end poverty, believe in social justice, are concerned about the workforce, etc. and understand that without their time, talent and dollars, we cannot do this work.

In October 2008 there was a blog action day where thousands of bloggers wrote about poverty. It became a public awareness event. I think things like this can be duplicated, and can repeat as a strategic form of story telling that begins to work like advertising.

How about asking organisations for in-kind contributions instead of money? Some of my friends, for example, make office space and facilities available to help non-profits. Other examples would be stationery, computers, free advertising design and space, etc

Fanning the flames of our earlier competition pros and cons comes a new report from McKinsey:

"Capturing the promise of philanthropic prizes The use of prizes is undergoing a renaissance, and sponsors are using this powerful instrument in new and innovative ways to produce societal benefit. Read McKinsey's new report, "And the winner is...," which examines when prizes should be used and how effective ones can be developed and delivered. Read more (PDF - 3.54 MB - http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/socialsector/And_the_winner_is.pdf)"

Thoughts? Is there a "right way to offer prizes"? Is the renaissance (or glut) of prizes a good thing or a bad thing. Will there be Prize Fatigue? Are people spending too much time applying for prizes and not enough time building their innovation? Or are prizes driving innovation? Can prizes drive collaboration? The story continues - comment here.

Oh no, Jill - I have so much to do and there you go getting my mind racing! :-)

A few thoughts. First, check out Barry Schwartz's talk at TED just this year. You can find it here: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html Barry shares his research into what actually motivates positive behavior. What he has found is that the most consistent motivator is neither incentives and rewards, nor is it rules and punishment.

The primary motivator is inspiration.

That brings me to your last question: Can prizes drive collaboration? In our experience (and I document various cases of this in The Pollyanna Principles), prizes can drive collaboration when the prize is not awarded to individuals, but to the collaborative effort to create visionary community change. AND, more importantly, the reward itself is simply the ability to effect that change together.

We have repeatedly experienced situations where leaders from otherwise “competing organizations” have been given the tools, support and opportunity to work together to accomplish something amazing. And consistently their inspiration to accomplish that amazing community-focused end result keeps them working together as true partners for years. Their only reward is that the thing they care about comes to fruition.

In addition to the reasons stated by Barry Schwartz at TED, the reason for that success is also because this sector is populated by individuals who are, for the most part, not particularly motivated by money (or face it, we'd be working somewhere that paid better!). Our motivation and inspiration instead lies in making our communities / world a better place. So when we are given a real shot at creating visionary community change - that’s an inspiring reward!

What happens in those circumstances is no longer a matter of contrived mechanisms (whether funder-forced collaboration or the notion of a prize). It is instead the powerful and unstoppable spirit of inspired cooperation.

Sorry you asked? :-)

I think that we're heading towards a true paradigm shift in how NGOs approach fundraising / development.

I see a "perfect storm" on the horizon for many nonprofits, which includes the decreasing significance of social media/web 2.0, tough economic conditions, increased regulatory oversight, and the emergence of hybrid organizations that are competing directly with established NGOs.

The "democratization" of the Internet, which we all praised 8-10 years ago, is proving to be a mixed blessing. The fact that anyone with a cause and a Web browser can populate the Net means increased competition for attention and dollars. Fundraising is going to become much more personal and hands-on than we've been accustomed to in the past. As the Web becomes more and more crowded with content from individuals we don't know, relationship building will become key in our strategy.

Whereas the old world of fundraising was approached from a mass-market strategy (think Feed the Children), the new world will be one-on-one, face to face appeals. True grassroots support.

Individuals do give "where they live" but more specifically, they give to causes to which they individually relate. In other words, the donor sees himself/herself as a stakeholder.

Ironically enough, as social networks mature and plateau, the nature of the relationships in the network change. Networks shift from small groups of friends and colleagues to distant "pseudo-relationships" with little or no relevance to the user. In the nonprofit world, this means that as soc nets grow, the connection between member and issue has a limited lifespan.