A little perspective from John Cary over at the SSIR blog, "'Kony 2012' and Our Capacity to Evlaute Public Charities":

The general public and even the media, by and large, simply don’t have the experience, training, or tools to fully evaluate charities’ activities, much less on an ongoing basis. In particular, three aspects of nonprofit operations are quick to draw scrutiny in moments like these. The first is the percentage of funds raised that a nonprofit spends on overhead or administrative costs. The second is how a nonprofit's finances are monitored and tracked. The third is the primary method by which a nonprofit achieves or advances its mission.

Although scorned by donors and downplayed by nonprofits, overhead and administration costs are the glue that holds together nonprofit programs—from office space to percentages of salaries. To pretend such costs don’t exist or to marginalize them only shortchanges other aspects of an organization and its work, including fair wages for social justice advocates. Doing so also perpetuates false expectations on the part of donors. To be clear, there is no figure put on overhead costs in the IRS code pertaining to nonprofits. For decades, there has been an expectation that nonprofits should keep administrative costs to around 10 percent of operating costs, but the origin of that number is unknown, and any right or wrong number potentially sets a damaging precedent for diverse, sustainable, systemic social change work.

How much does overhead matter to you when giving to a charity? Do you care?

 

There has been a lot of criticism of the KONY 2012 campaign led by Invisible Children (IC) since they unveiled this video last week.  While I certainly think there are some valid criticisms, I have found the vast majority of them to be weak, condescending, and/or arrogant. I originally envisioned a lengthy post, hoping to address what I felt was off about much of the criticism, but others have done much of the tackling, and have given many of the criticisms a better treatment than I could have. However, I do think it's worth exploring this charge of promoting "slacktivism" that  has been leveled against Invisible Children. It's not a new critique, as Malcolm Gladwell has probably given the largest voice to it thus far, with a good back and forth between him, Clay Shirky, and others, following #jan25. Quite honestly though, I think the charge of slacktivism is a pretty lazy criticism across the board. It's quite often accompanied by a lack of critical thought into what it means to mobilize large numbers of people to engage in a virtual environment through sharing, liking, +1-ing, or tweeting a video or blog post in 2012.

One claim is that it often crowds out more substantive work that can be done around a given cause or issue.  While it is certainly true that in most instances more could be done, I've yet to see any evidence that more would be done in the absence of the liking, tweeting, or sharing.  There seems to be an underlying assumption that the slacktivist would be more meaningfully engaged if social media or wristband wearing didn't offer them a low cost jolt of "warm glow." However, I've yet to see any evidence that this crowding out effect is present, and that individuals would otherwise be doing much more substantive work for a cause or organization.

There is a parallel fear in the mobile donation space, where some nonprofits are concerned that small low-barrier donations, like the $10 mobile donations popularized through the Red Cross text-to-give campaign for Haiti, will cannibalize larger donations that could be had.  In much the same way as on the “social actions” front, this fear isn't backed up by much evidence. What's more likely occurring, on both fronts, is that new individuals who would not otherwise become engaged, are now allowed to participate. Undoubtedly, for many, the one time $10 donation or tweet will be enough, but for some smaller subset that initial foray into the advocacy or donation space will open up a new level of engagement with that cause. And, as someone who sits on the board of a small non-profit organization, I can attest that every additional supporter we can get matters, even if its just them sharing a blog post.

Not only have critics failed to make the case that crowding out is occurring, but they've also failed to make a case that this type of work, or engagement, is not substantive.  This is perhaps where the critique gets the laziest, as it does not allow for a broader view of what "matters" in terms of activism and cause advancement.  This is probably the most baffling, as we just witnessed what most viewed as a very successful online campaign to Stop SOPA that was largely pushed forward through mass engagement in online environments, by liking, sharing, and tweeting content. In IC's own words, two of their three goals are centered on "awareness" and "advocacy." If you agree that arresting Joseph Kony is a good thing, and that awareness and advocacy are necessary to marshall resources toward that end, then I think it becomes difficult to define the actions associated with "slacktivism" as being meaningless (as of this posting the video has generated over 70 million hits on YouTube...Super Bowl advertisers pay upwards of $3 million to get that 100 million eyes for just 30 seconds!). Having recently read “Bystanders to Genocide” by Samantha Powers (if you haven't read it, you should), I was reminded of this passage when watching the Kony2012 video:

American leaders have a circular and deliberate relationship to public opinion. It is circular because public opinion is rarely if ever aroused by foreign crises, even genocidal ones, in the absence of political leadership, and yet at the same time, American leaders continually cite the absence of public support as grounds for inaction.

Disagree with the cause and the mission of their organization all you want, but by asking people to share, like, and tweet they made the world take notice.  Not to bad for a bunch of slacktivists huh?

People are busy, and have more demands on their attention, time, and money than ever before…and while empathy may not be finite, there is only so much space in people's lives to fully engage with a cause or issue, and so all they can do many times is watch a video and share it with others, or hit "retweet" on a Twitter post.  That doesn't mean that that work isn't valuable, particularly in the aggregate. I had a chance to hear Leysia Palen speak about a paper that she and Kate Starbird released last month, entitled "(How) Will the Revolution be Retweeted? Information Diffusion and the 2011 Egyptian Uprising." In it they use empirical evidence to examine how individuals, both inside and outside of Cairo, who used some form of "retweet" functionality on Twitter helped to both sustain the cause on the ground and filter information. Even more to the point though, they started to critically examine what this new type of activism means in terms of impact. 

We're only just beginning to explore and understand better what these types of actions mean for movements, and what are best practices in employing them. What's needed is more critical thought, and less lazy condescension. 

-Clarence (@cwardell)

I ran marathon this year, I finished, and I won. I won, not because I finished in first place (this guy did), but because I finished, followed my plan, and met my goal of running below 4 hours and 30 minutes.  Every year, over 450,000 people in the US line up at the starting line for one of these races….many finish, some don't, and a far fewer number actually become the first to cross the finish line.  However, most people aren't running for first place.  Most are running just to finish at a "goal time," and the only way they can do that is to run their own race over the 26.2 mile course. The marathon experience, from training to race day, reinforced this lesson for me during the past year.  It was something I had to internalize during the PhD process, but there is nothing like the literal "putting foot to pavement" to make something stick.

It's the time of year where there is a ton of good taking place all around us.  It usually starts with volunteering to feed others around Thanksgiving, and ends with the final end of the year giving push before the 31st...In the midst of all this, there are plenty of fun and creative ways to get in on the good.  Here are two we thought were pretty cool.  One from the Case Foundation and one from GOOD.  Check them both out.  Do you know of some other fun campaigns?  Let us know! 

#Goodspotting: The Case Foundation is in search of pictures of "good" taking place. It's asking people to tweet pictures of good to the hashtag #Goodspotting, or upload them to their Facebook page. As part of the fun you can enter their #Goodspotting sweepstakes for a chance to win $500 for yourself, and $5,000 for your favorite non-profit. Check it out. We've seen some really creative pictures so far.

#30daysofGOOD: Speaking of creative...the good folks at GOOD are running the "The GOOD 30-day Challenge." This month the theme is microphilanthropy. From the website:

Each month, we challenge ourselves to improve the world around us—and our own lives. The challenge for December? To give away $30 (total for the month, not every single day) in the most creative and inspiring way possible. It doesn't have to be $30. It could just be $10. Or even a single dollar. We're aiming to make giving more creative and personal.

We're big fans of microphilanthropy here, and we couldn't agree with this more..."It doesn't have to be $30. I can just be $10. Or even a single dollar. It's the act of giving--and giving creatively--that counts."

Happy Giving!

-Tweenate Team

2011 Social Media + Emergency Management Camp: Transforming the Response Enterprise

A little late, but as mentioned previously here, a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to present the findings from a report I wrote with my CNA colleague Yee San Su, entitled, “2011 Social Media + Emergency Mangement Camp: Transforming the Response Enterprise.”  The event, held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars consisted of an opening talk, a moderated panel discussion, and questions from the audience. For an 8:30am start time, the audience was particularly engaged, and the panel members great. 

If you get a chance, check out the discussion or read the report.  It’s just a small piece of a much larger dialogue that is taking place right now (If you’re on Twitter drop in on the #smem or #smemchat hashtags sometime), but I think you’ll find some value in it (at least I hope!).  We’re fortunate to be in a truly unique period right now, as we're witnessing the transformation of major sectors and enterprises right before or eyes.  How the associated issues get discussed, and ultimately resolved over the next several years will shape the course of these entities for a long long time…

The video of the discussion, the report, and some insightful blog posts from members of the SMEM community can also be found on the Wilson Center’s Science and Technology Innovation Program Website.

A big thank you to Karen Smilowitz from Northwestern Univeristy, Rachel Racusen from FEMA, Pascal Schuback from King County Office of Emergency Management and CrisisCommons, Kim Stephens the author of the idisaster 2.0 blog, and Wendy Harman of the American Red Cross for sitting on the panel. Particular thanks go to Lea Shanely at the Wilson Center for efforts and support in pushing the event forward.

Lastly, there were a ton of people who had a hand in making the report come to fruition, and I’m indebted to them all for there help (please see the acknowledgements section of the report for a full list). I’d specifically like to thank Jeff Phillips, Heather Blanchard and the folks at the National Emergency Management Association for making the Camp happen, and for allowing me to the opportunity to represent the findings from such an important discussion.

I'll be chairing what should be a pretty cool event this Thursday. Read below for a little more information about the event, and my attempt at some Twitter data visualization...

On March 24, 2011, more than 150 members of the U.S. emergency management community convened for the 2011 Social Media in Emergency Management (SMEM) Camp. This was the first time members of this community convened on such a large scale to discuss how social media and emerging technologies are affecting response operations. Hosted by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and the SMEM Initiative, in collaboration with CrisisCommons, the event included representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the American Red Cross, Twitter^©, state and local emergency management agencies, private sector interests, and various volunteer technology communities (VTCs). The Camp was a direct response to changes in societal expectations of emergency responders (e.g., the timeliness of response) brought about by the emergence of social media and related technologies over the past decade.

The figure below (created using the open source visualization tool Gephi) is a network representation of backchannel conversation that took place between individuals via Twitter during the Camp, as captured via the #SMEM11 hashtag. The network visualization represents directed conversation between individual Twitter accounts, as defined through “@-mentions” on Twitter. When individual A mentions individual B in a tweet, an arc from one node to another is used to capture the relationship on the graph. As an example, the tweet, “@Disaster_Guy @joelarn @g_r_e_g Glad to hear the word "awareness" from so many of us. #smem11” would result in two arcs being drawn from @Disaster_Guy’s node. One arc connecting to @joelarn, and the other to @g_r_e_g. The size of the node and its label (Twitter unique names) are proportional to the number of other nodes it is connected to on the graph (only nodes that have at least two connections are included in this graphic). Similarly, the thickness of the line connecting two nodes is proportional to the number of explicit mentions between the two on Twitter. Coloring of the nodes and edges are community based, determined via the Louvian Method, and highlights groups of nodes that were most closely related via mentions.

 

Content from these tweets, along with the recorded in person discussions at the Camp fed into the recently completed report, “2011 Social Media + Emergency Management Camp: Transforming the Response Enterprise.” The CNA report will officially be released this coming Thursday, November 10 in conjunction with a panel event at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, featuring representatives from FEMA, academia, local emergency management, and the Red Cross. Go here to RSVP for the event or watch the webcast.

This post from @benpolitico ran across my Twitter feed a few months back, and I’ve been meaning to write about this fundraising fail from the Obama campaign for a for few weeks.  In late September the campaign sent out solicitation emails that tried to leverage social information to get individuals who had not yet contributed to the campaign to donate something.  Politico published the letter from campaign manager Jim Messina in full, which contained the following passage:

Here's something you don't have in common with 2,685 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in Arlington, VA.

That many of your neighbors have decided to own a piece of this campaign by making a donation of whatever they could afford. For some, that meant just $5. For others, it meant $100 or more. But each had their own personal reason for giving.

Our records show that you aren't one of the 2,685 people where you're from who have stepped up for 2012. Now's your chance to change that.

Now, to be clear I have no idea how successful this particular appeal was at generating new donors.  In fact, they may have achieved their goals along this particular dimension.   I call it a fundraising fail because of the optics.  The letter clearly rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

Mr. Messina,

How many unemployed, under-employed, or over-extended individuals have you sent this claptrap to?

I am deeply offended by your use of the same passive-agressive tactics that Bible-thumping Evangelists have used for years to make little old ladies eat dog food so they could send in the last of their savings for salvation. Moreover, I am insulted by your insinuation that I haven't done enough, or don't "keep up with my neighbors" and am "not doing my part." AND, I am infuriated that you suggest to me that "Big Brother" is watching - and judging me.

As a rule people don’t want to feel like they’re being taken advantage of, or overtly being guilted into doing something.  As an example of the former, companies have long struggled with how to effectively price discriminate (charge different prices for the same good to different customers—think airlines) without making it obvious to costumers that that’s what they were doing.  This is where the Obama fundraising apparatus misstepped.  Setting aside the fact that they apparently had inaccurate information for some individuals, the actual structure of the appeal – you should feel ashamed for not having given yet-- was off-putting to many.

The economics and social psychology literature has long demonstrated that fundraising and philanthropy is inherently sensitive to social information.  The amount that someone contributes to a particular cause, and the likelihood of contributing at all is a function of both who asks and how they frame the ask.  For instance, because charity is an intangible good, people have a hard time determining what they should give to a particular cause or organization when asked, so social information such as, “everyone around you has given $100” has an effect on the ultimate level of the gift (see this work on coherent arbitrariness and environmental goods).  The campaign obviously recognizes this, and the strategy is a pretty sound one.  However, this time they misstepped in linking the theory to the practice.  Next time, they may just want to say something like:

"We're glad that you joined us on the historic journey to the White House in 2008.  This year, over 2,685 in the Arlington, VA area have joined the movement to return President Obama to the White House.  We'd like you to join them..."

Simple...same information...sans the side of overt guilt.

 

Outside of the Casey Anthony verdict, Twitter has been abuzz today in anticipation of tomorrow's first ever Twitter Town Hall at the White House.  I've had the good fortune of obtaining an invitation to attend in person in the East Room tomorrow, and while I'm not exactly sure what to expect I'm pretty excited at the opportunity.  For those not familiar with the event, The Washington Post has a rundown:

On Wednesday, [Twitter co-founder Jack] Dorsey will moderate the town hall from the White House. He will select questions from thousands submitted before the event and more from live messages known as tweets. He will run an algorithm that searches for tweets with the phrase “#AskObama” and choose the most common topics, according to Twitter. The company can block topics deemed inappropriate.

The president will dictate responses to his staff and Twitter officials, who will put out his answers within Twitter’s 140-character limit using the account @townhall or @whitehouse.

Again, not entirely sure what to expect, but if I can I'll be live-tweeting the experience from @cwardell. For more information on Twitter follow @townhall and @whitehouse.  The event will be live-streamed tomorrow starting at 2pm EST at http://askobama.twitter.com/

Mike Allen from Politico has a bit more of a rundown on the event:

 

In Wired last month Clive Thompson (@pomeranian99) posted an article detailing the findings from a forthcoming paper, entitiled "Networks, Information & Brokerage: The Diversity Bandwidth Tradeoff," co-authored by a former professor of ours, Marshall Van Alstyne (@LivLafLuvLearn).  The work explores how homophilic relationships (i.e. relationships with individuals who share common charateristics that make communication and relationship formation easier) effect our "information diets," and provides a counterpoint to the classic "The Strength of Weak Ties" argument put forth by Granovetter.  The work points out that by accounting for the "bandwidth" of a relationship, or the number of times you interact with an individual, you can negate the weak tie argument to some extent:

Sure, weak ties are better positioned to bring us new info. But they don’t do it frequently, because we don’t interact with them very often. Such a person might be, say, five times more likely than a close friend to tell you something surprising in conversation. But if you interact with your friend 10 times more often, the odds suddenly tip toward their being a more valuable source of news.

In other words, bandwidth matters. Plus, your close peeps have social-capital advantages: They know what’s likely to be new to you and how to frame things so you’ll listen.

The implications of this work are quite fascinating, especially when considered within the context of a platform like Twitter, in which individuals often establish "weak tie" homophilic relationships with individuals they have never met.  While not a one-to-one translation, over time Twitter essentially acts as a low-cost means to increase our relationship "bandwidths" inevitably leading to an ever increasing amount of interesting information coming from "weak tie" relationships that would have remained dormant only a few years ago (I for one can't keep up with all of my "favorited" tweets!).

A follow up on our last post, Square (@square) launched a new payment system today that, a few years from now, will make us look at someone pulling out a credit card to make a purchase with disdain (ok, maybe not disdain, but you know that feeling you get if you end up behind someone making a grocery store purchase with a check these days...whatever look that generates).  The app wil allow you to setup a "card case" on your phone, and essentially run a tab at any store that you walk in to that's running the Square payment system:

 

Here's how it works: You set up a "card case" in your iPhone. It's an app that works like a wallet, and each vendor you frequent has its own credit-card-type card inside the case. When you show up at one of your regular haunts, you open your case, pull out the "card", and click "Start tab."

Using one of Square's new iPad-type cash registers, the vendor rings up your bill as they normally would. Then they find you in their list of active customers (now that you've clicked "Start tab"), and charge the bill to you.

COO Keith Rabios and Dorsey talk a bit more about how they ended up in this space, and their views on intersection of design and payments:

Dorsey wasn’t interested in simply providing a direct replacement for existing point-of-sale systems. He wanted to revamp the entire payments experience--making it simpler and, as COO Keith Rabois puts it to Fast Company, "more delightful."