Shannon Blanchfi eldKaterina Hyzyk

Inez LeuteneggerGeneviève Riberdy

Julianne RivardSelena Zevenbergen

Social Networkingfor

Non-Profit Organizations

Agenda

• What are the main features/characteristics of Online Social Networking and NPOs?

• How is Social Networking being marketed for NPOs?• How pervasive is Social Networking?• Case: Free the Children (We Day)• What are the key issues/problems associated with

Social Networking for NPOs?• Conclusion• Discussion Questions

Web 2.0• The term Web 2.0 is commonly

associated with web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the internet.

• the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, web standards and scalability.

• Web 2.0 was largely championed by bloggers and by technology journalists, culminating in the 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year (You)

Web 2.0

• Includes the following features and techniques, as Andrew McAfee uses the acronym SLATES to refer to them:

1. Search2. Links3. Authoring4. Tags5. Extensions6. Signals• Some popular web 2.0 tools include: Podcasting, Blogs,

RSS, Social bookmarking, Social networking

What is Social Networking?

• It is a web based service that allows individuals to construct a public or semi public profile within a “bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system”.

(Boyd & Ellison, 2007)

Three Basic Types of Non-profit Social Networks

• Connectivity networks • Alignment networks • Production networks

Philanthropy Through Social Networking

• These social networking sites which enable philanthropic charities to enhance their ability to attain their social causes are a “beginning of new techniques with huge potential”.

(Keen, 2010)

• Non-profit organizations can post links to external news items about their organization and its causes; posting photographs, video or audio files from the organization and its supporters; and use message boards and discussion walls to post announcements and answer any questions people may have concerning the organizations causes.

Why Use Social Networking?• Raise awareness of the causes which they are attempting to get

out into the public is enhancing their ability to achieve the goals which they have set for their organizations.

• Appealing to a new, technologically savvy generation who otherwise may not have made the effort to gain knowledge about certain issues.

• Allow for a broader scope and range of people to be brought together to support a greater cause.

• Giving to charity because they also want to support an online identity that they have created for themselves.

• Publically broadcast that they support non profit organizations and their causes so that their online personas portray them as an educated, caring and socially aware person.

Marketing•Multimedia Approach

•Gaining momentum through classic Mass Media tools. Like TV, Radio and Press. •Highly commercialized•Linking multiple media sources through participatory activities.

•Celebrity Endorsement/ Social Modeling•http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDULIKqViDk&playnext=1&list=PL256089BF37883BE8&index=13

•Web Site Promotion/Use •1 like = $1

•Word of Mouth

How Popular is Social Networking?

• Facebook: over 500 million active users• Twitter:145 million active users• Decentralized approach to marketing.

Especailly with the option to like or share almost anything to Facebook that is online now. (ex. Articles, clothing, movies…anything)

Is It Working?

• Ubiquity – Any press is good press?• NPO 2.0- The epicentre for activity in the

future for NPOs? – Enhance Participation – Generate Trust– Facilitate Engagement

• Technical Barriers • Administrative Demands

Case: Free the ChildrenFree The Children was founded by 12-year-old Craig Kielburger in 1995 when he gathered 11 school friends to begin fighting child labour. Today, Free The Children is the world's largest network of children helping children through education, with more than one million young people involved in our programs in 45 countries.

• World’s Children’s Prize for the Rights of the child• Human Rights Award

• Oprah’s Angel Network

Started the initiative “ We Day”

What is We Day?

• Free the Children’s initiative to inspire and engage young people to make a positive social impact in the global community

• 3 events across Canada: • Toronto (Sept, 30)• Vancouver (Oct, 15)• Montreal (Nov, 12)• 4th event added in Waterloo on Feb 17!

• Live broadcast and streamed through CTV• Live tweeted, Facebook and youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXb2jhxOmTE&feature=channel

We Schools in Action

• Free The Children’s We Schools in Action program inspires a generation to care about social justice and provides the

practical tools needed to turn that inspiration into action. “Spreading the word”

“We Schools puts students at the forefront of active global citizenship by educating them on social issues and action planning, developing leadership skills, and engaging them in world-changing action.”

“I Like We Day”

As of November 26, 2010, 457,830 “likes”

Sponsors

What does it Mean for you to “like” a Page?

• Liking web pages grants publishing permission to your news feed– Not as invasive as Apps, which have access to all

of your personal information (new updates to transparency and user control)

What has We Day Accomplished?Since 2007…• 51,400 students from across the country have

attended• Participating students collectively fundraised to

support Free The Children’s Adopt a Village development program

• Youth will have logged a total of one million volunteer hours by the end of 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCcpnjwMv2g&feature=channel

Criticisms of We Day• Gesellschaft

masked as Gemeinschaft

• Pure philanthropy is not necessarily the case

Lack of Non-verbal Cues

• Non-verbal communication is not present on Facebook

• “[…] in the disembodied world of digital space, the cues to identity that we have in the real world are absent.” (Satchell & Foth, 2008)

• Organizations must compensate for the loss of physical presence and create a way to read signals created by others and find new ways to present themselves.

Online Fraud

• People want to know where their money is going• Scams, “fake charities”• It’s harder to know where our money is going online• It is crucial for non-profit organizations to safeguard

personal information in their networks• False identities

Do not Address Users Individually

• Organizations serve multiple roles• Could benefit from offering a high level of

customisation and personalisation• Users need the tools and medium to

incorporate political and social activism to their digital identities

Lack of Trust

• Users have a hard time trusting online charities• Non-profit organizations trade on a currency of trust• Must be more forward and honest about their

intentions and actions• Non-profit organizations must enhance participation,

generate trust, and facilitate engagement among users• “Relationships with members, donors and supporters

are crucial to building an organization’s volunteer, financial and advocacy capital.” (Greenberg & MacAulay, 2009)

Limited Resources

• Costs of maintaining and upgrading an organization’s technological infrastructure can be very expensive

• Must have some technical knowledge to use the range of applications online

• Facebook is constantly changing

Limited Control

• “[…] because online interaction is more anonymous and based almost entirely on discursive action alone, many of the mechanisms of social control that function in offline communities are weak or absent.” (Greenberg & MacAulay, 2009)

• Hard to control how users will “behave” online• Non-profit organizations face increasing pressure

to meet the demands of their funders and donors

Not Using Network to its Full Potential

• A lot of room for growth in their networks• “Not all organizations will be able to fully incorporate the

benefits that social technologies can provide, nor will they wish to. For some, the dialogical orientation of these media may create new administrative demands that outstrip an organization’s “communicative capacity”.

(Greenberg & MacAulay, 2009) • Many non-profit organizations’ communicative culture is

less focused on achieving mutual understanding through an open-ended style of communication, than upon securing successful outcomes

Must be More “credible”

• Users desire credible information to be delivered by a trustworthy host

• Users have a desire to hear from experts and often seek to speak with other donors

• By spreading more information, organizations build greater trust with its users

• Organizations should be a gracious facilitator rather than a dominating voice

Therefore...

• For organizations to be successful, they cannot simply rely on their “online page” to increase awareness in their cause or to trigger participation from users.

• They must instead, carefully plan and research their approach in order to develop social relationships with their stakeholders.

Conclusion• It is clear that Non-government organizations are not

yet using social networking to their full potential. • However, through initiatives such as 'We Day' we are

seeing more involvement from these large organizations as they utilize the power of social networking through mediums such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube.

• Sites such as these are able to spread a message in a short amount of time to a very large audience and NGO's are now caching on to this new way of communication.

Discussion Questions

• What do you think about the point brought up by Janet Newberry warning of the hidden motives of CSR?

• Do fraudulent campaigns (such as Ashley Kirilow’s case) affect your attitudes towards participating in online charities? If so, how?

References• Aldridge, N. (2007, October 31). Meet the Patrons. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk• Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html• Creamer, M. & Klaassen, A. (2007). Facebook’s Map Might Lead Advertiser’s Astray (Cover Story). Advertising Age, Vol.78, No.43,

2.• Free the Children. (2010). Free the Children International. Retrieved October/1, 2010, from

http://www.youtube.com/user/freethechildrenintl • Free the Children. (2010). Our mission. Retrieved October/1, 2010, from http://www.freethechildren.com/aboutus/mission/ • Free the Children. (2010). We day 2010. Retrieved October/1, 2010, from http://weday.freethechildren.com/about/ • Greenberg, J. & MacAulay, M. (2009). NPO 2.0? Exploring the Web Presence of Environmental Nonprofit Organizations in

Canada. Global Media Journal—Canadian Edition, Vol. 2, No.1, 63-88• Ingenhoff, D., & Koelling, A,M. (2009). The potential of web sites as a relationship building tool for charitable fundraising npos.

Public Relations Review, 35, 66-73• Kang, S, & Norton, H. (2004). Nonprofit organizations use of the world wide web: are they sufficiently fulfilling organizagtional

goals?. Public Relations Review, 30, 279-284.• Keen, J. (2010, April 13). Technology, social networking transforms giving. USA Today. Retrieved from www.usatoday.com• Kirstner, J. (2010). Webtrends blog. Retrieved October/27, 2010, from

http://blogs.webtrends.com/blog/2010/10/06/facebook-changes-that-impact-marketers-groups-no-longer-like-pages-and-apps-get-a-privacy-update/

• Kunz, B. (2009). Advertiser Outcasts. MediaWeek, Vol.19, No.29, 1.• Linvingstron, G. (2009). High Dollar Nonprofit Donors Would Embrace Social Media. Journal of New Communications Research,

Vol.4, No.1, 87-94.• Melillo, S. (2008). Making Networking Work for Youth Media [Electronic Version]. Youth Media Reporter, 2(1-6), 30-34. • Newbury, J. (2010, We day: The corporate selling of progressive ethics and hope to youth. Rabble.Ca, Retrieved from

http://www.rabble.ca/news/2010/10/we-day-corporate-selling-progressive-ethics-and-hope-youth • O’Reilly, T. “What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next • Generation of Software.” O’Reilly.com. 30 September 2005. Web. 28 November 2010. • Satchell, C. & Foth, M. (2008). The Re-creation of Identity in Digital Environments and the Potential Benefits for Non-Profit and

Community Organisations. 3CMedia: Journal of Community, No.4, 16-27.• Zuckerberg, M. (2010). 500 million stories. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from

http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=409753352130