Will Democrat Political Strategy Work for Republicans?

It has been widely reported that in 1992 James Carville, Presidential candidate Bill Clinton’s chief strategist, posted a notice on the wall of the campaign war room a notice that read something like the following:

  1. Change vs. more of the same.
  2. It’s the economy stupid.
  3. Don’t forget health care.

The purpose of this list was to keep the candidate’s message focused throughout the Presidential campaign.  Mr. Carville and his list is credited with helping Clinton win the U.S. Presidency though in fact, Ross Perot did more to put Bill Clinton in the Whitehouse by splintering the conservative vote and giving Clinton a plurality of votes.  A reasonable observation could easily be made that without the conservative Perot candidacy Clinton would have almost certainly lost that election because most Perot voters would have likely voted for Republican George H.W. Bush, who was easily more conservative than Clinton, and given him the victory with well over 50% of the vote. (See election results)

Past performance being the best indicator of future performance, what would happen if the Republican Party were to employ Mr. Carville’s list today?

Here’s my take on it.

“Change vs. more of the same”.
It appears that most Americans are disappointed with the current administration’s performance.  Voters were promised transparency and non-partisanship that has not been delivered.   While the last “State of the Union” address promised that priority would be given to the lack of jobs that beleaguers the American economy , the administration has instead remained focused on its healthcare agenda and largely ignored the economy outside of creating a growing bureaucracy that may ultimately create government jobs that will require higher taxes to fund.   In a nutshell, the current administration promised change, and many Americans see it as change for the worse.

“It’s the economy stupid!”
The American economy has generally gotten worse under the current administration.  They promised jobs, and the jobless rate has climbed in spite of those promises.  It appears that the administration has backed themselves into a financial corner with expensive programs which prevent the use of tax cuts to jump-start the economy, ( a historically proven solution).  Since historically the economy always eventually recovers in spite of political mistakes, it appears that the administration has decided to simply stall and watch it.  When the American people climb out of the downturn under their own power, the Administration will, with the support of admirers in the media, claim victory over the problem.  Indeed it has already begun with the administration claiming success in creating jobs, while the jobless rate continues to rise.  The week before, the administration claimed economic success when General Motors, paid off a government bail-out loan early.  They neglected to disclose the truth that General Motors simply paid off one bail-out loan with yet another government bail-out loan.  The Administration’s economic efforts have thus far failed. It’s like P.T. Barnum said, “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.  They can’t maintain the pretense of success indefinitely and people are already asking questions.

Don’t forget Healthcare.
Sixty percent of Americans were against passage of the Healthcare Bill and the Democratic party ignored them.  The Democratic Party chose to rule the American people when they were elected to represent them.  When you try to rule a country against the wishes of sixty percent of the people, you’re going to have a problem.  When that country is America, whose people are genetically biased against being ruled and have repeatedly fought for freedom, you have a BIG problem.  Healthcare is probably one thing that the Democratic Party hopes Americans forget before the next election.  Ask yourself this question: “Why would the Democrat authors of the healthcare bill delay its programs taking effect until after the 2010 election cycle when a bill with a positive effect would virtually guarantee electoral victory?”

Conclusion:
I believe that in this scenario, the Republicans would win and would not need to splinter the Democrat vote to do it (though some conservative Democrats may be swayed)  Republicans will however need to embrace important, broadly held conservative values to insure that their vote is not splintered by conservative third-party candidates, for that is the true lesson of the 1992 election.

The only way liberals can win is by splintering the conservative vote, or fomenting sufficient personal hate as they did with George Bush.  Those issues aside, Mr. Carville’s list should serve conservative Republican candidates well in the next two election cycles.  After all, his list is essentially another way to raise the question Ronald Reagan asked in 1980 when he suggested Americans ask themselves: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

And should the Republicans succeed in resuming a position power, when that same question is asked regarding their collective turn at the helm, they need to have acted to ensure the electorate’s response is “Yes”.

It definitely wasn’t “Yes” for the Republicans at the last election, but without a miracle, it will not be “Yes” for President Obama and the Democrats this time around.

May 10, 2010 | Rand | Comments Closed

Are American Liberals Intolerant?

This blog is almost sure to arouse the ire of a liberal leaning reader, but should it do so, it will be a demonstration of the very condition that I have observed and elected to discuss.  A number of political liberals, the stalwarts who denounce conservatives as being unwilling to embrace diversity, when faced with a point of view that diverges from their own, are not only resistant to that point of view, but become personally outraged, insulting and abusive towards those who have a differing point of view.

Some may believe their violent response is the result of mounting frustration due to an inability to rationally defend their position while others see it as the product of an out of control ego that cannot fathom the idea that someone has the audacity to disagree with them. I don’t know  why  they react so, but it does happen with some regularity and must be the result of some fundamental emotional conflict.

While not all liberals react this way, it has become so predictable a response that you see it fairly regularly on broadcast television.  Commentators who seem to be able to discuss terrorism, brutal murders and moral depravity with emotional detachment, when faced with reporting on a simple protest rally that opposes their political viewpoint increasingly resort to vilifying, insulting and mocking the participants who hold the opposing view.  For example: many mainstream media commentators, when faced with reporting on a gathering of what is known as the “Tea Party Movement” seem incapable of simply and accurately reporting the news of the event without at least some negative personal commentary about the participants.

I find this interesting because the Tea Party Movement for the most part appears focused on protesting: a) runaway government spending,  b) increased government regulation and c) higher taxes.  This being the case, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that those critical of the movement must be in favor of fiscal irresponsibility, increasing government regulation and higher taxes.  Since this contrasts with the beliefs of most Americans, it isn’t surprising that these media outlets have suffered in the ratings over the past year.  You would think the financial repercussions of falling ratings would influence the producers to assume a more balanced position in an effort to improve ratings.

Another related news phenomena I see regularly is the split screen interview with both a conservative and a liberal.  While on its face it appears that the news agency is being balanced, often the interview is decidedly unbalanced.  What usually happens is that the liberal speaks first and the polite conservative sits quietly until it is their turn to speak.  Then when the conservative respondent begins speaking, the liberal respondent shouts over them for the balance of the segment.  The outcome is that, for practical purposes, the viewer hears only the liberal side of the question and never clearly hears any opposing argument.  Of course, the news agency could kill the liberal respondent’s microphone, but they never do because then an opposing view would be heard.  This practice has been going on for years and is one of the reasons I do not wholeheartedly trust the mainstream media.

In light of these observations, I’d have to say that a number of liberals practice the very intolerance that they accuse conservatives of believing in.  In practice it seems that intolerance, personal attacks and discrimination are generally acceptable with a nod and wink if you are a liberal and totally unacceptable for anyone else, especially conservatives.

There also seems to be a parallel liberal concept of selfishness.  If you are unwilling to freely and enthusiastically give a liberal your earnings to satisfy their wants (especially if they want it for redistribution to their supporters), you epitomize their definition of selfish.  But if you are a liberal, you are not selfish if you coercively confiscate another’s earnings to satisfy your wants or to redistribute those earnings to your supporters to satisfy their wants.

So are American liberals intolerant? …. Many of them are and continue to be so despite the fact that it is fundamentally hypocritical.  The rest simply smile, nod and wink while their leaders continue the charade.  Perhaps it is this fundamental hypocrisy that provides the emotional conflict that elicits the violent personal attacks when the liberal point of view is challenged.

May 6, 2010 | Rand | Comments Closed

Is Social Media a Threat to American Culture?

I recently encountered a book on the used book shelf at a Salvation Army Store which held the position that social media was destroying our culture.  Admittedly I only gave the book a quick browse but I’d have to say on the basis of that quick look that the first word that came to mind was one that describes “used oats” (i.e.: oats that have been run through a bull already).  Needless to say, I did not purchase it… even at $1.99 in hardback it was a waste of money. It did however provide me a topic for this article.

The author, a successful resident of Silicon Valley, argued that social media was destroying our culture based upon the demise of a number newspapers and magazines and the corresponding writing jobs being lost.  First, I think this is more due to the Internet in general than Social Media in particular.  Second, I’m sure that this is a similar argument to those that were heard when the automobile replaced the horse and buggy, or when audiotapes replaced vinyl records, or when any technology was replaced in the last century.  The fact is that the newspapers and magazines that fail will be those that do not embrace the Internet, do not provide the type and quality of content that the public wishes to read, and do not reduce costs to operate in a profitable manner.  What is a far greater danger to America is a scenario where our Federal Government decides that, like some banks or auto manufacturers, some publishers are “too big to fail” and bails them out with federal funds. This would essentially give the government financial control of our news media and correspondingly influence over the news we receive.  This would effectively destroy freedom of the press and pose a far greater risk to America than Social Media on the Internet.

Another argument that the author presented revolved around the idea that the established media was being replaced by “amateurs” who wouldn’t do as good a job as the “professionals”.  I stand directly on the side of the amateurs on this one.  For the most part the professional media has abandoned impartiality over the past few decades and the internet has frequently provided alternative viewpoints and filled in the gaps intentionally ignored by biased professional newscasters.  Most amateurs make no attempt to conceal their bias. (For the record…I am a conservative)  By comparison, the established media pretends to be unbiased while consistently filtering coverage to support their bias and interests.  News organizations are owned by corporations, like GE who have huge investments in outside industries.  If you do not believe that this is a legitimate concern I suggest you visit this website: Gehealthcare and consider all the ties that GE has to the healthcare industry.  Then ask yourself this question:

Do you honestly believe a news organization owned by a company with a huge interest in medical technology, would report anything negative regarding a bill that would add 30 million new people to healthcare rolls thus driving up demand for their products thereby generating millions (ultimately billions) of dollars in additional profits? (GE owns NBC )

Whether you or I agree with the healthcare bill is not the question here… The question is whether broadcast news can be trusted to put its self-interests aside with billions of dollars in potential profits at risk.  Personally I think anyone who believes that GE would willingly turn its back on billions, is violating the 11th commandment… “Thou shalt not kid thyself”

Some readers may remember in the 1990’s when NBC aired a demonstration that they said proved that the GM pickup truck’s gas tanks were dangerous in a collision.  What they neglected to tell the audience was that they had planted an explosive device on the test truck to make certain that there was an explosion. GM got a copy of the tape and analyzed it.  The explosion actually started a few frames before the collision took place and NBC settled the ensuing lawsuit out of court. The point is… on a slow day, the news media will create news to get ratings and the money that goes with them.

In truth, the established media outlets, with all their vested interests appear to be more of a danger to American Culture than social media will ever be.  Social media provides an open exchange of ideas while the established media outlets tolerate no ideas outside of their own.  The Internet and social media provide free public access to political ideas and discourse that hitherto were reserved for the “professionals” many of whom have sold-out their objectivity.  Thanks to the Internet average Americans can publish an opinion or news article without the approval of an editor whose primary job is to generate news for profit and to protect readers/viewers from a new idea or facts that might raise embarrassing questions.

With broadcasters’ interests reaching out into so many non-broadcast related industries, and with government exercising more control than ever over the business community, the objectivity of American news organizations must be constantly scrutinized by their viewers and readers.  These media organizations are under tremendous pressure from both corporate and political organizations.  Their employees’ careers are at risk along with billions in corporate profits.  Under this pressure it is far too easy to let objectivity fall to the wayside in exchange for financial and career success.

When broadcasting companies are broadcasters only with no corporate ties to outside industries which could sway their news coverage, they may have a point to make about unbiased “professional” news sources.  In the meantime Internet freelancers are doing more to encourage free and open communications and an exchange of ideas than most of the “professionals” have done in decades.  In any case, don’t believe everything  you see or read.  Test it, get both sides, and make up your own mind… even if I wrote it.

April 24, 2010 | Rand | 6 Comments »

Internet Sales Tax – A Simple Solution

This spring there was a flurry of political activity as various state governments launched efforts to tax Internet transactions.  As state coffers suffer as a result of the economy, the Internet has been perceived as a golden opportunity by state lawmakers. One of the most common approaches has been to enact what is now being called an “Amazon Law” as a means to collect sales tax.  So what is an “Amazon Law” and how does it affect the average Internet user?

In the past the United States Supreme Court ruled that companies with no physical presence in a state could not be compelled to collect state sales tax.  After that ruling, most states responded by passing laws that made its citizens responsible for voluntarily paying sales tax on Internet Purchases. Personally I think any lawmaker who thought this was going to be effective should have been discharged on the basis of being delusional.  America was founded by a people who didn’t like paying taxes and little has changed.  The line of citizens volunteering to pay sales tax on Internet purchases has been conspicuous by its absence.

Failing to squeeze more money out of its citizenry by these measures, the State of New York passed what is now being called an “Amazon Law”.  That law maintains that if an Internet business has performance-based advertisers in a state, the state considers it to meet the physical presence required by the Supreme Court and therefore the business must collect state sales taxes.  They initially went after Amazon.com hence the name.  Amazon will appeal it and eventually the US Supreme Court will rule whether this legally constitutes physical presence or not.

What it all boils down to is that by state law, an Internet publisher who places an ad for “Willy’s Widgets” on its website, and is paid a small commission if a reader clicks on that ad and purchases a widget, constitutes an physical presence for Willy’s Widgets in that state.  The truth is that the internet publisher has simply sold Willy’s advertising space on a commission basis.  The publisher is not an employee, and is no more involved in transactions than the telephone yellow pages would be.

Unfortunately for the states who have enacted “Amazon Laws” most advertisers simply cancel any agreements with publishers in the state and for obvious reasons it doesn’t appear to have significantly hurt their sales.  It doesn’t halt Internet purchases, it doesn’t limit search engines finding “Willy’s Widgets” and it doesn’t drive customers back to local merchants.  It only reduces the poor publisher’s income …on which he previously paid taxes.  Lawmakers seem oblivious to the fact that it’s a world wide web, not a state wide web.  The Commonwealth of Virginia considered passing an “Amazon Law” but didn’t, in part because they determined that if firms canceled advertising agreements as expected, the state would likely suffer a net loss in taxes collected.

I personally don’t feel that the state deserves to collect sales taxes as it doesn’t really  provide any services pertaining to the transaction that are not already taxed.  But understanding that some taxes are necessary, this convoluted exercise to get around the Supreme Court ruling strikes me as particularly foolish, when a relatively simple solution is available.  Understanding that I am no proponent of taxes in any form, here is a proposed solution for our lawmakers:

“Each Internet transaction is subject to state and local sales tax, based upon the merchant’s primary location.  The merchant shall collect sales tax and remit it to the respective authorities in accord with existing tax law.”

Now I realize that this simple 36 word legislation is an insult to professional politicians used to generating thousands of pages of ineffective and indigestible legislation, but its simplicity is obvious.  If a business is headquartered in Miami, collect Miami sales tax.  If it is headquartered in Phoenix, collect Phoenix sales tax.  It eliminates any argument about physical presence and it is basically fair to everyone.  If I walk into a business and purchase an item, I would pay the applicable sales tax.  Why not forgo wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in useless litigation and just pay the blasted tax and move on?

I don’t really believe a law like this will ever be passed.  Certain cities and states would certainly see it as unfair because they have higher taxes and businesses wouldn’t want to locate in their areas, or even worse, would flee high tax jurisdictions in favor of lower tax communities in order to be more competitive.

In any case, this is just my opinion and I am sure that given sufficient time State and Federal lawmakers will figure out a way to over-tax the Internet or bankrupt taxpayers trying.

April 21, 2010 | Rand | 9 Comments »

Are Facebook “Causes” True Barometers Of Support?

In a practical sense the answer seems to be a resounding… NO.

Some may ask, “How can that be… there are Causes with millions of members!”  My answer to that is, “So what?”  The fact is, if that membership doesn’t somehow translate into material support in some form that moves the cause forward, it is of little to no value in the real world and constitutes no real support at all.

When measured by this yardstick, the unfortunate truth appears to be that few causes have been able to convert what is essentially an online “fan club” into substantive real world support.  It is also true that it is not an easy task.

My firm recently undertook the task and we have come to realize just how difficult it really is.  Here’s the story of our attempt, perhaps you will find it interesting.

Recently my company, Corande Publishing launched a new FREE e-Magazine called “Homecare Monthly”.  We developed the publication to provide a means to support the fight against cancer by pledging a portion of advertising revenue to selected nonprofit organizations based upon subscriber choices.  We selected eight separate cancer-oriented nonprofit organizations; each associated with a “Facebook Cause” and set up a free subscription system whereby subscribers could choose which organization they wished to support and we’d pro-rate the contributions based upon subscriber selections.

Since each cause has over one million members, estimates indicate that the members of each cause have the potential to raise up to a $100,000 per month or more by simply accepting one FREE email per month. That’s a potential of over a million dollars per year for each cause to fund the fight against cancer.

It sounds promising doesn’t it?  The members get a free publication, the cause gets support, and the advertising pays for it all.  Simply subscribe free and raise millions of dollars for your cause to fight cancer!  We really thought we had found a way to help fund a worthy and important cause.

Unfortunately thus far it hasn’t lived up to the promise…

We published comments with subscription links on each cause page announcing that cause members could raise funds for their cause by simply subscribing free to a new family-oriented monthly e-magazine.

The results: almost nothing, zero, nada, zilch.  After a week we have received one single subscription from one member of one cause.  Though millions of users have enlisted as members to these eight causes, over the course of a week, only one was willing to accept a free subscription to help fund their cause!

So the question we’re left with is… WHY?

I have yet to arrive at an answer, only more questions seem to arise.

…Do they not “get it”?  Surely the concept isn’t that difficult to comprehend, manufacturers have been doing this for years.

…Are millions of people simply pretending to care?  I don’t really believe this but you have to wonder why they joined the causes.

…Are they afraid of something? The website clearly indicates a strong privacy policy.

I would welcome reader comment and input…perhaps together we can solve what is thus far to me a mystery.

Quick Apology
It has been some time since my last post, but we’ve been dealing with some issues including the launch of a new product.  Now that I’ve cleared some things off my plate I’ll try to resume regular posting.

April 14, 2010 | Rand | 6 Comments »

Social Media Interactivity – A Tool for Continual Growth

Web 2.0 Diagram

Web 2.0 Interactivity and Relationships

Now that we have covered a number of the tools available through social media it is time to consider how these tools can be employed in an interactive manner to attract support, both volunteer and financial.  First let’s take a look at a chart which to some degree demonstrates the interactivity we wish to achieve.

The chart indicates a worldwide pool of Internet users with your website at the center and various social media/web 2.0 tools positioned throughout the pool. These tools direct users both to other tools and to your website.  These tools and your website are designed to lead users to become supporters and lead supporters to engage in ongoing activity among the various tools.

The strategy is to attract as many users as possible to join your support base and then convert those supporters into real volunteer and financial support. To accomplish this you approach the situation much as a working fisherman does.  The more nets a fisherman has in the water, the more fish he is likely to catch.  Correspondingly, you should place as many interactive social media “nets” in the sea of Internet users as you and your team can properly handle.  Start with what you can handle and as your abilities allow, add more “nets”.

As you attract users the interactivity of these “nets” ultimately leads the users to your website, your primary point of contact on the web.  At your website you provide quality content and opportunities to support your organization in terms of volunteer activities and fundraising.  In order to establish an ongoing relationship with these users you want to induce them to subscribe to your monthly e-newsletter.  If you have partnered with Corande Publishing for free e-newsletter services, the simple act of subscribing provides you with the opportunity to raise funds for your programs at no cost to either your organization or the user.  You can tastefully present visitors with this painless means to support your cause on your website.

Each of the web 2.0 tools previously mentioned in this report provides supporters with the opportunity to further support your organization by interacting with family and friends through the various tools.  By doing so they quite literally cast your net into the pool of their friends and family who are active on the Internet and recommend they get involved.  In a sense, by providing good content through your e-newsletter and social media, and encouraging supporters to share this content with like-minded friends and family, you convert them into a self- reproducing body of volunteers, continually gleaning new supporters from their pool of contacts.

Utilize these tools wisely and consistently, and you can establish your organization as a leader in both your cause and in today’s nonprofit industry.  A recent survey has established that today’s donors want their organizations to utilize email and social media more.  They see destroying forests for the purpose of direct mail as irresponsible behavior.  They see organizations that don’t intelligently use email and social media as irrelevant in the real world they live in.

Get focused and get up to speed, the future is here and, whether you like it or not, your organization is going to have to function in it or falter. There are more web 2.0 tools available than virtually any organization could reasonably manage, but by being flexible, selecting those you can handle and using them wisely, your organization can grow and prosper.

About The Author:

W.R. (Rand) Cordle is founder and President of Corande Publishing LLC, a digital media firm that provides free e-newsletter services and free fundraising assistance to qualifying nonprofit and charitable organizations.  Free details on these services may be found at http://www.corande.com

February 15, 2010 | Rand | Comments Closed

Video – A Picture is Worth…

Do you need to employ video in your media strategy?  Almost everyone has seen at least one popular viral video either online or on television and can imagine the impact it could have.  But you should realize that viral video isn’t the only option you have available.  The business sector understands the broad power of visual communications and invests tens of thousands of dollars just to have a product or logo appear in the background of a feature film. Product placement is far removed from viral but unquestionably effective. (Millions still remember E.T.’s favorite candy from an 1982 film)

When it comes to moving people to action, video can be extremely effective; a fact that has been proven by the advertising industry.  If video didn’t have the power to influence you can bet that businesses would not be spending millions of dollars per year for the honor of interrupting your favorite TV shows with commercials.  Whether it is laughter or tears, video can move people. (Note: Happiness is more memorable than sadness)

This influential medium is now available to almost anyone thanks to reasonably priced video cameras, editing software, and online applications like YouTube.  In a very true sense, just about anyone or any organization can promote themselves on video and distribute it freely across the Internet at minimal cost.  An entertaining or funny video can spread around the world quickly through social media and carry your message to thousands, if not millions.  Even if you do not have a great idea for a viral video, here are some practical video applications you can work on while you wait for inspiration.

1)   It is not a coincidence that television news programs often lead off with a human interest story.  Human interest stories attract viewers and your nonprofit organization should be able to tap into this inclination.  Create a video recounting a success story related to your organization, post it on YouTube, and feature it on your website to give visitors an example of what your organization can achieve.  People like to identify with winners so make your video a story on how your organization serves as an agent for positive change.

2)   Create your own short simple commercials and feature them on appropriate pages of your website. A video can welcome visitors, introduce a new program, promote the opening of a new facility or highlight a fun fundraising event.   Make your video informative and sufficiently short to hold viewer interest.

3)   Video a personal message, a thank-you or an appeal from a leader or recognizable personality.  You can post it on your website or link to it from an e-newsletter and deliver it to your entire support base at almost no cost to your organization.

A few cautionary considerations you should consider when filming a video or preparing a video script:

a)   Be sure to get signed permission before you share someone’s personal story or change the details sufficiently so that the subjects cannot be identified.  (It isn’t a bad idea to do both)

b)   Always get permissions in writing and make sure everyone appearing in a video signs a release form.

c)   Take precautions to make sure your video doesn’t come across as an attempt to guilt-trip viewers into supporting your cause. No one enjoys  guilt trips.

d)   Make sure your facts are absolutely correct.  When you quote statistics double check them and identify your source.  If you quote manipulated statistics, it could cost your organization its reputation.  I recently read online a shockingly high statistic about violence attributed to a government survey.  When I looked into the report I discovered that buried in the small print it had used eighteen months of data to represent a twelve month period.  These figures had been intentionally inflated by fifty percent; probably to justify department funding.  The organization that used these figures is taking a chance on their reputation that could come back to haunt them.

There are plenty of instructions on the technical aspect of using video online available through websites like Mashable.com and in books available at your local bookstore.  Do some research, create a script, and shoot some video.  You don’t have to be an expert to shoot video because you can shoot as many takes as you need until you get something you like.  Experiment and encourage your staff and supporters to do the same and submit it for consideration.  You may soon find yourself with plenty of material to work with.

February 9, 2010 | Rand | 1 Comment »

Linkedin – Linking Ideas

There is a quote from Victor Hugo that has been paraphrased from its original French as, “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”   The Web is an idea whose time has come and there are media companies who can confirm the truth behind this statement relative to their subscribers migrating to the Web for information.  Linkedin is a portal to ideas and ideas are important.

Some may not agree that Linkedin should be part of a nonprofit organization’s web strategy.  It is true that Linkedin does not offer the same sort of social cause-related atmosphere and interactivity that can be found on Facebook and the like.  I understand their perspective.  On the other hand, Linkedin opens up an array of groups and networks in such areas as Alumni Groups, Charity Groups, Conferencing Groups and others that can provide access to thousands of members and more important, the free exchange of ideas among professional peers on specific industry-related topics.

Through a group membership you can follow discussions, engage in discussions, and get discussion updates via email.  All of this is available free on Linkedin and it takes only minutes to sign up and start building relationships with your peers.

For example, I just applied to the Linkedin group “Future Social Media”, which examines how brands can promote themselves on emerging social media platforms.  While to some this may sound exclusively business-oriented in nature, you should understand that your nonprofit is a brand.  Your organization’s image and reputation, will directly affect its ability to fundraise and to speak with authority to issues related to its areas of concern.

Learning how to promote your brand should be of utmost importance to everyone who is, or wishes to be, in a leadership position in the nonprofit industry. Ask yourself the question, would it be good for your organization to have the brand recognition of Coca Cola?  Linkedin can provide you the opportunity to learn about many subjects through interaction with professionals and links to relevant information.

For these reasons I recommend that every leader of a nonprofit organization at every level be a member of Linkedin and/or similar groups and regularly engage in the exchange of ideas that takes place within groups affiliated with their profession.  It is networks like Linkedin that will spawn the ideas which may determine the success or failure of your organization in the future.  They are virtual idea incubators.

Belonging to Linkedin, or similar professional networking sites allows you to keep a finger on the online pulse of your industry or cause.  Knowing what is happening with peer organizations, what is working, what is not working, and how your organization’s web strategy compares with others in your industry is valuable information.

And while you’re at it, join your alumni group.  It can’t hurt to publicize your organization to a few thousand members, many of whom may be business owners and leaders.  Who knows, some may be looking for a worthy organization to partner with.

February 3, 2010 | Rand | 1 Comment »

Web 2.0 Strategy – How Urgently Do You Need a Web 2.0 Strategy?

How Urgently Do You Need A Web 2.0 Strategy?

Over the past few days, some participants in various online discussions I’m engaged in have expressed the opinion that while there may be some value in nonprofits engaging in social media / Web 2.0 tools, the need to shift emphasis to a web approach is not all that urgent.

I found it quite timely that through a Linkedin group I’m involved with an article appeared, courtesy of ThirdSector, regarding a soon to be released survey from Charities Aid Foundation.  The survey report “How to Connect With Donors: Essential Messages for Charities” is due to be released in full in February.  The survey involved 203 people surveyed between March and June 2009 and the initial findings are revealing.

The lead-in for the pre-release article states, “People want charities to communicate more through email and social networking sites”.  The article elaborates on this, stating, “Sixty-nine per cent of respondents said they thought charities should make more use of social networking sites, but only 12 percent said they wanted them to do more telephone fundraising and 13 per cent said they should send more direct mail”…

For me the message is clear.  While many nonprofits have been debating the web’s potential and asking whether it and social media can be an important part of their organization’s outreach, society has embraced the web wholeheartedly.  It is likely that if the same survey were conducted today, (6 months later) the number of respondents indicating a preference for web-based communication would be even higher.

On a secondary level, the traditional fundraising approaches of telephone and direct mail solicitation did not have a favorable response.  I don’t find this surprising for two reasons.

1)   There is a growing segment of the population who no longer sees the need for a home telephone.  These individuals opt for a cell phone only lifestyle and don’t want their mobile phone number on anyone’s solicitation list.  In fact there are already U.S. Laws in place limiting unsolicited calls on mobile phones.

2)   The movement to preserve natural resources is growing around the world.  Unsolicited direct mail is often seen as a waste of these resources while electrons are perceived as comparatively waste free.  In the face of the green movement, “snail mail” isn’t green.

So how urgently does your organization need to embrace web 2.0?  Here’s my answer.

If your organization doesn’t intelligently implement some version of Web 2.0 strategy in 2010, you will assume a subordinate position in the realm of public opinion to those organizations that do.  Those organizations that move forward promptly and reach out through the use of web tools will be rewarded with higher levels of recognition and correspondingly higher levels of support.  You may be able to recover with prompt action, but valuable time and opportunity will be lost.  Time wasted can translate into income lost from missed donations and if you’ve monetized your e-newsletter, lost earnings.

If your organization does not embrace Web 2.0 by the end of 2011, your organization will probably be in trouble.  You will be competing for support with organizations that have a two year head start establishing themselves as the legitimate and current voice for their cause in the Developed World.  As such they will attract the lion’s share of support and recognition, leaving you in a subordinate position and facing some harsh realities.  Two years doesn’t sound like long, but we are speaking of Internet Years.  To give you some grasp of how quickly social media has taken hold and changed the rules of the game I recommend this video, featured as a courtesy on our website.

It sounds harsh and I’m sure proponents of “traditional methods” like telephone and direct mail solicitors will argue that their methods still work.  The question however is not whether they will work or how long they will work; methods and tools have always changed and will continue to do so.  The real question is whether your organization will be able to survive the societal changes going on around you and what do you need to do to insure that survival.

©W. R. Cordle

January 21, 2010 | Rand | 2 Comments »

Web 2.0 Strategy: Twitter- A Little Information

Twitter – A Little Information

I have to admit that when I first started hearing about Twitter, I was somewhat doubtful as to its usefulness.  Essentially I saw Twitter as little more than text messaging on steroids and one of the first questions that came to mind was: “How much useful information can you really pack into 140 characters?

At the same time I had to acknowledge that Twitter has a huge user base, Twitter is extremely popular with youth and young adults and reaching out to this demographic is important for the future health of nonprofit organizations.  Knowing these facts, instead of asking IF Twitter can be used to promote involvement in nonprofit causes and organizations, we must focus on HOW Twitter can be used to promote involvement with nonprofit causes and organizations.

This question in some form should be asked in nonprofit boardrooms around the world.  It is time to stop thinking about IF Social Media can have an impact, accept that it is having an impact, and get down to HOW can Social Media positively impact you.  The future health of your organization and perhaps the nonprofit industry in general demands it.

This brief exploration of the subject will share some ideas on ways to use twitter to draw attention to your cause, publicize events and promote programs to twitter followers.  The principles should sound familiar to followers of this blog and are applicable to the use of social media tools in general.

In order to use Twitter you must of course set up a twitter account and attract followers.  Setting up a twitter account is fairly easy and it is free.  I won’t go into the details of setting up an account because it is pretty simple and there’s plenty of free information on the subject available free on the Internet.  The second step, attracting followers, is not difficult either but unless you’re a celebrity it may take a little while.

Once you have set up an account your first move should be to start following tweeters who share your interest in your cause.  The primary tool you will use to accomplish this is the twitter search tool, specifically the advanced search.  Using this tool you can, similar to Google search, input a word or phrase and perform a search to find tweets on the subject.  Once you have found tweets on your topic of interest, you simply start following them.  You will be pleasantly surprised to find that many of them will then start following you.  As you contribute positively to the ongoing discourse on related subjects, more Twitter users will find you and additional followers will ensue.  The trick is to contribute positively and regularly.

I recommend you spend a little time following tweets before you start posting.  When you do begin posting, as in any social media, don’t be one dimensional that every post you make points back to your website, your blog, your Facebook group.  To put it bluntly, it isn’t all about you.  Engage in social media conversation without blowing your own horn every time.  It will establish you as a contributor to the dialogue and not just a user trying to leverage the dialogue exclusively for your own benefit.  Your cause and your organization benefit, directly and indirectly, every time you contribute positively.  When there is an obvious connection, use twitter to point followers to your online content that will be of interest to supporters of your cause.  For example: events, new programs and new services can be announced or promoted through Twitter and links provided to your website for more information.

I repeat: your tweets should not exclusively point to your website, Facebook page, or blog every time you post, but if you’re providing quality content in those media tools, it will naturally happen frequently.  A good rule of thumb is to reference your content about half the time, assuming you’re providing good content.

Understand that regardless of where it comes from, linking to interesting and valuable content establishes your website, twitter page, Facebook group, etc. as a resource for individuals interested in your cause.  Having a reputation as a “portal” to valuable cause-specific content and resources is an excellent way to build Internet traffic which enhances your organization and builds support.

In other words, Content is King, regardless of where it comes from and if you don’t have the time or ability to generate much of it, link to the good content that is available.  After all, for the most part newspapers and news broadcasts don’t create the news, they just report it.  If content is a challenge for you, you can do essentially the same thing using Twitter, Facebook, your website, Linkedin and other social media tools.  Find the good content and report it regularly and you will as a result gain followers and fans.

©W. R. Cordle

January 14, 2010 | Rand | 1 Comment »
« Older Entries