Social media

A few social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have claimed ownership of the term, “social media” and have written the first draft that guides most of our ideas about social networking and about socializing online.  Social media and social networking are vast ideas that are just beginning to blossom – and are doing so on very limited terms.

danah boyd speaks and writes about this, too:

“Give me one other part of history where everybody shows up to the same social space. Fragmentation is a more natural state of being.”

-- From http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/13/5488558/danah-boyd-interview-the-era-of-facebook-is-an-anomaly

Unfortunately, these social network mega-corporations have also had time to figure out how to use and harvest our social information for their own ends, like advertising and market research.  

Part of what I want to do is challenge this notion of megalithic social networking sites by introducing non-ego-centric networks.  In other words, I think there can be non-individualistic social networking -- social networking for the greater good rather than for myself.  We can look at these networks (of our friends, peer organizations, or any variation of any kind of entity that exists!) from a different level -- we can look at them from the perspective of a network and interact with them so much differently than we do on Facebook.  It's a little like social movement building -- thinking about key influencers and power brokers within the network.  It's a little like Malcolm Gladwell's ideas on how things spread and cause tipping points.

I also hold as a core belief that we can be social and use technology to connect us without getting stuck in it and without selling our data/information to gigantic companies.  I'd like to write more about this in the future!

Non-profit NYT article responses

For Ambitious Nonprofits, Capital to Grow 

(NYT, 6/27/12, By David Bornstein)

What follows are my reflections, lessons learned, and highlights from reading the article.

Summary:

Bornstein details some of the paradigm differences between the non-profit and for-profit sectors.   He makes some allowances for slow non-profit growth, mostly citing our differences in perceptions about funding sources.  He outlines the difference between "builders" and "buyers" - builders work on supporting the growth of an organization, whereas buyers are mainly concerned with the quality/quantity of the product.  (See Starbucks quote below.) Bornstein puts the onus on non-profits, asking: "What would happen if everyone in the nonprofit sector paid more attention to the differences between build and buy money like everyone does in business?"  Designing a growth plan can help align the organization and funders, creating common outcomes and mechanisms for evaluation.  In sum, Bornstein motivates non-profit leaders to be thoughtful of our funding strategies, and look toward businesses for some advice.

Opinions:

• It would be interesting to see a comparison of funding perceptions between non-profit and for-profit execs - a survey of their thoughts on funding and how it relates to the functioning of their org/corp.  
• I'm not exactly clear on what Bornstein is asking of us non-profit execs - is it to refine our financial paradigm to be more similar to those in the for-profit sector?  So there are good points here: a) developing more sustainable funding sources rather than being reliant on grants/foundations, b) focusing more on the product/output and how [members] value them. On the other hand, non-profits may be reluctant to consider their members consumers.  Additionally, members do not always have the money to buy the product, which is an argument for why the non-profit exists in the first place.  
• Moreover, there's the idea of charity - the non-profit may want to give its services for free.  I have mixed feelings about charity, because it sets up a hierarchy - with giving in only one direction, not reciprocated, the giver has power over the receiver.  Furthermore this action (giving) doesn't come from a place of solidarity, rather it comes from outside/above, and perhaps mixed in with pity.  However, charity helps lots of people every year - those in need, without voice.   A provoking article that has helped build this question within me, called "To Hell with Good Intentions," can provide more insight here.  
• Another key point is how can non-profits access the "building"-type of funding (equity) he mentions? I don't think Bornstein clearly outlines this.  
• In sum, my main take away point is for non-profits to be very thoughtful as to the value of the product we provide - does it add value to the members' lives? If so, how much - can we quantify that monetarily and should we?  If not, we should do some serious thinking.

Lessons learned:

• Difference between equity and revenue: "“The role of equity is to pay the bills while something learns to fend for itself.” Equity pays for mistakes and unanticipated problems — hiring the wrong people, expanding to the wrong locations — as managers figure out how to operate at an enhanced scale on a continuing basis."
• Donors Choose and Volunteer Match - both online platforms have used similar strategies (I should look into them for NV)

Questions:

• "Non-profits can't get investors because we don't have owners" - not sure if this is true - non-profits do get investors, right?

Noteworthy quotes:

Simply put, builders and buyers think differently. “If you invest in Starbucks, what you care about is Starbucks being healthy over time and lots of people buying the coffee and, in fact, you want the coffee to be high priced,” explains Craig Reigel, current managing director of N.F.F. Capital Partners “But if you buy from Starbucks, you care about getting the best cup of coffee for the lowest price. The way you think about success is completely different.”

"...It was possible to raise money against a plan and that all the investors signed on to the same goals and reporting requirements — a social entrepreneur’s dream."

One of their clients, VolunteerMatch, which helps Americans find volunteer opportunities online, raised $4.2 million in equity to upgrade its Web platform and fee-based services. Since 2007, the organization has doubled its impact, facilitating more than 620,000 volunteer connections in 2011. “If we had tried to go a traditional philanthropic route, it wouldn’t have happened,” explained Greg Baldwin, the organization’s president. “You can’t build an operation and scale it if you’re trying to package 15 different programmatic grants that all have different goals based on the priorities of 15 different foundations.” The growth plan got everyone aligned. 

Bornstein is also author of the book How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas.

What do you think?