FLIP Video Contest Evaluation

In 2010, the betterplace lab invited organizations on betterplace.org to pitch their ideas for a video competition that would show their projectsʻ achievements, failures and learnings. The top 10 pitches each received 2 FLIP cameras with which to realize their film ideas. "

The FLIP Video Competition"

Our goals in holding the competition were:"

1.  To test whether film is a useful feedback and learning tool for NGOs"

2.  Whether the video competition would influence support and fundraising for participating organizations on betterplace.org"

3.  Whether the public would vote for the best quality film"

2

These inputs led to the following outputs"

3

-  Staff time and expertise: idea development, call for pitches, several marketing campaigns, email management (a lot), evaluation of pitches, research for technical solutions, trouble shooting, process monitoring, project management, blog entries http://www.betterplace-lab.org/de/blog "

-  Cisco provided 20 FLIP cameras and facilitated international delivery"

-  Research and development of tools for online video usage: http://www.betterplace-lab.org/forschung/stakeholder-feedback/de/flip and for effective voting platforms and software"

-  Bid opens April 14, 2010: Send us your film ideas in script format. Question to be addressed: What have you achieved and what can be improved?"

-  By May 25, we received 240 inquiries, 68 pitches (48 eligible), shortlisted 20 through peer review and chose 11"

-  11 organizations received FLIP cameras, of whom 8 put their films on YouTube by the deadline (3 failed to submit anything)"

-  The competition was open for public voting"

-  By October 17, 2010, the winner had received 617 votes: http://www.betterplace-lab.org/de/blog/der-flip-video-wettbewerb-hat-einen-gewinner "

Finding: The FLIP competition had almost no effect on increased funding through betterplace.org"

4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Nursery School for Togo

Sol y Vida

BeBook the mobile library

Kick HIV!

HCFA Provide Hope to kids in Africa

KIDS Glasses for Everyone

Kinderhospiz Regenbogenland

SAEP

APer:

Before: 29.Sep

18.Oct

Finding: The „supporters“ on betterplace.org only increased substantially for one organization"

5

0 20 40 60 80 100


Sol y Vida

Kick HIV!





SAEP

APer:

Before:

The videos on YouTube attracted the following number of hits per film (total 6.807 views):"

6

1141

1029

876

874

859

761

728

539

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Kick HIV

BeBook Mobile Library

Sol y Vida

Togo Nursery School

KIDS – Brillen für Alle

HCFA Ziegeprojekt

David im Regenbogenland

SAEP South Africa

Total views: 6.807

The data shows that there is no correlation between the number of views and the ratingsgiven"

7

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Views

Oct 17 ra^ngs

And it shows the time period over which NGOs were able to attract votes"

8

0" 200" 400" 600" 800" 1000" 1200" 1400"

David im Regenbogenland"

KIDS – Brillen für Alle"

Sol y Vida"

BeBook Mobile Library"

Togo Nursery School"

SAEP South Africa"

HCFA Ziegenprojekt"

Kick HIV"

Oct-04" Oct-11" Oct-15" Oct-17"

9

So what does this data tell us?"

  Video feedback is a great tool for raising awareness for an organization among their own networks, mobilizing their own constituency and promoting what has been achieved (we know that from email feedback), however this campaign did not affect organizationsʼ funding on betterplace.org.!

  Winning such a competition has not necessarily to do with the quality of oneʼs work but with his/her ability to mobilize social networks (we know that from the time period over which NGOs were able to attract votes). Hence an open video competition is not a valid evaluation, but rather a mobilization tool if well played with their own constituency."

Compared to our original goals:"

1.  We learned that a film is useful as a marketing tool and to show achievements, but not failures or feedback for NGOs. "

2.  The video competition did not influence support and fundraising for organizations significantly on betterplace.org"

3.  The public apparently did vote for the films of organizations that were well connected through social media campaigning. This leads to the assumption that it was not “the best quality” they voted for but they supported the cause of the NGO. "

10

Other lessons learned"

  Transparency and communication are absolutely key: Never change deadlines or rules of the game without solid reasons and never do it without first explaining the change to participants (we made that mistake by changing the final voting deadline for purely internal reasons. This upset KickHIV, who had planned their big campaigning push for the last days of our original deadline. They claimed that this kept them from winning.)!

  Precise marketing campaigns planning is vital at the beginning of your project (we did it rather spontaneously…). Keep in mind that your inbox will be flooded at times and it is important to respond to participants and answer their questions!"

  Participants did not address failures and learnings in their films but rather used the medium as a marketing tool. This means that such a competition is not useful as a learning tool from failure. !

11

Other lessons learned"

  The organizations who participated had almost all great fun with the whole campaign and used it in their own contexts (not necessarily with the betterplace.org platform)"

  The usefulness of the tools we provided (How to make a good video etc. ) cannot be properly assessed. One should plan a proper survey from the beginning when providing such tools."

12

13

We did not anticipate the following technical challenges for participants:"

  how to upload to YouTube"

  naming their YouTube videos (and renaming them when we asked them to give better, more accessible titles)"

  attaching and syncing sound to their videos"

  creating hi-resolution videos"

  loading the large files online with very slow internet connection"

  creating captions (for translations)"

  finding editing software that worked on their computers"

14

And these technical challenges remain when itcomes to public voting using open Internet platforms"

  What information should be required (besides an email address) from voters which discourages duplicate voting of single individuals? Their names? How can we keep them accountable?"

  What if one village or a school, for example, has very few computers? Should it matter if multiple votes come from a single IP address?"

  How to deal with the fact that some of these places (like Nicaragua or Africa) have a much lower instance of computer/Internet users than in Germany for instance? Should we consider this discrepancy?"

  How do we evaluate the validity of votes?"

The winner was offered a free consulting session with an NGO expert, but they never asked for it."

What is the lesson to be learned from that??? "

"

And last but not least..."

Extra charts showing before and after numbers during the competition."

Appendix"

During the voting phase, the organizations were barely active through blogposts on betterplace.org"

17

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Sol y Vida


Kick HIV!



SAEP



APer:

Before:

The number of „advocates“ on their betterplace profiles was only marginally increased "

18

0 10 20 30 40 50


Kick HIV!



Sol y Vida



SAEP

APer:

Before:

And the „visitors“ to their betterplace profilesdid not increase at all"

19

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


SAEP

Sol y Vida




Kick HIV!


APer:

Before:

betterplace lab"

Schlesische Strasse 26"10997 Berlin"Tel +49 30 76 76 44 88-0"Fax +49 30 76 76 44 88-40"[email protected]"

Vielen Dank." Thank you."

Susanna Krueger and the betterplace lab team (especially Becky Crook) and also thanks to Martin Sprott for excellent advise."

Technology

FLIP Video Contest Evaluation