We are slowly getting higher in the rankings for the Pepsi Refresh grant (86 as I write this) but I'm afraid it's not going fast enough to reach the top 10 before the month is over. It really breaks my heart especially after personally seeing people trying to win this for Safe Harbor. For example, when we went to film a Safe Harbor shelter for our video, the employees told us they were voting every day and thanked us for doing it. After seeing the actual shelter we would be helping and hearing the gratitude of the employees, it made me want to win even more.
Another story: During one of my multiple attempts to get our flyer approved at Hendrix, a guy who was also getting a flyer approved, stopped me so that he could text right then. Apparently, he had been in a class this summer that applied for a $5,000 grant (I think they got it too!), so he knew how important it was to vote. He also mentioned that he got a Tweet about it from @ClemsonStudents which is pretty cool that others are doing it too.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
safe harbor video project update
So! Our video project has finally begun with filming that took place Friday. Though we hit a few bumps with microphone/sound problems, overall I think it went well. The sound wasn't very good when we played it back on the camera but it sounded better on my computer so I'm optimistic that it will turn out well.
As for the actual inter view, it was great! The woman we interviewed had an amazing, inspiring story. She wanted her face to be shown so that there would be a face to the story (which it is pretty amazing). We couldn't have asked for a better interview. The only problem is her interview lasted almost 10 minutes, much too long for our video, and we have no idea what to cut out!
In our last class, we did some story boarding. I think the focus will definitely be on the story of our interviewee with domestic violence statistics and facts throughout. We also have footage of the inside of one of the shelters which we hope to incorporate in the video, possibly when she discusses the shelter itself. Mainly I think our goal for the video is to inform viewers of domestic violence and show how Safe Harbor can help.
And I think we'll succeed.
As for the actual inter view, it was great! The woman we interviewed had an amazing, inspiring story. She wanted her face to be shown so that there would be a face to the story (which it is pretty amazing). We couldn't have asked for a better interview. The only problem is her interview lasted almost 10 minutes, much too long for our video, and we have no idea what to cut out!
In our last class, we did some story boarding. I think the focus will definitely be on the story of our interviewee with domestic violence statistics and facts throughout. We also have footage of the inside of one of the shelters which we hope to incorporate in the video, possibly when she discusses the shelter itself. Mainly I think our goal for the video is to inform viewers of domestic violence and show how Safe Harbor can help.
And I think we'll succeed.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
some new concepts: crowdsourcing and learning loops
This week’s readings discuss crowds and learning loops. Chapter Eight, “Working with Crowds,” talks about, well, crowds. It starts by defining “crowdsourcing” as “the process of organizing many people to participate in a joint project, often in small ways.” Then it classifies it into four categories:
Crowd wisdom: Best example? Wikipedia. I mean, can you think of a better example of quintessential crowd wisdom?
Crowd creation: PostSecret - This is an ongoing art project, as described by the website. Users anonymously submit secrets; it started through snail mail and has grown to include e-mail and such. If you've never seen the website or the books, you're missing out. They even have a Twitter now.
· Crowd voting: Pepsi Refresh! Need I explain more?
· Crowd funding: Crowdrise - Crowdrise is a website that allows anyone to start an online fundraising page so that you don't even have to be an organization, you can just raise money on behalf of an organization.
These are the four different ways an organization can utilize crowds to create social change. I think it’s important to define these categories because it shows the different ways you can utilize the power of a crowd. I tried to find examples for each because though the book gives its own examples, I was finding it hard to think of other ways each of these could be conceived. I’ll admit, it seems that utilizing a crowd seems to be much easier to put in motion when the idea is something creative like in the example of the Royal Opera creating a user-submitted opera or the Humane Society creating a video contest after the Michael Vick scandal. Can these methods be easily used in a different type of non-profit such as a hospital? I think that the creativity and scope of crowdsourcing corresponds with the creativity and scope of the organization’s goals. I’m not saying a hospital can’t use social media and crowdsourcing – far from it – but they have to modify it and maybe use slightly more traditional methods to reach its audiences.
Chapter Nine discusses learning loops – something I had never heard about until reading this book (I had heard crowdsourcing in passing at least). Thus, I feel that I need to define learning loops, mainly for myself. Learning loops is the process of monitoring (and analyzing) results and then using this information to change future plans. The way this is different from normal analysis that PR professionals have been doing for years is that it is all done in a short period of time, or in real time. The Humane Society example works here too (in fact, it was the opening example of the chapter). The chapter warns to not have too broad of a scope, however. It suggests working in small sections with targeted audiences so that if one small section doesn’t go the way you want it, you have the chance to change/scrap it without losing a ton of money and a ton of time. While the chapter gives a million and one ways you can measure the success (many suggestions don’t require money or too much effort), it emphasizes the overall goal. At the end/middle/throughout campaign, analyze it with the overall goal in mind. Did it reach it? If it did, what elements made it successful? If it didn’t, what didn’t work?
The suggestions and ideas of the book are lofty at times. I think they are all feasible but seem to apply to some organizations more than others. However, it might take some time for organizations to move completely into this direction but I think it’s a great direction to be heading!
To offer a possible downside of crowdsourcing, here's an article I found on Fast Company that describes why crowdsourcing may only produce mediocre results. However, I think that if an organization uses it for smaller things (I mean, designing a car? That's a VERY lofty goal for a crowd), it can produce good results.
Monday, November 8, 2010
building relationships through transparency
Wow I've been neglecting my blog. This has definitely been my toughest semester so far. BUT excuses aside, I plan for the rest of the semester to be much more active, especially as we start to wrap up everything for the semester, like the Safe Harbor video and the Pepsi Refresh project. But first, I'm going to talk about the book. This week's readings dealt with, as my title says, building relationships through transparency, an idea that is just now starting to catch on among non-profits.
I'll start off with one of my favorite statements from chapter 5, "Listening helps you be less of a spammer and more of a service provider." Now this I like, I mean, who likes spam? I've signed up for plenty of mailing lists, only to get annoyed by the daily e-mails that don't even apply to me. I've set up an entire email just for things like that and it has become my default email to give to companies/organization, basically used for anything that's not personal or school-related. About once a week, I'll go through it and basically delete all of them. Seriously, it's a horrible task. Ok, so that rant has a point, I promise. I think if more organizations listened to their consumers/supporters/whatevers, all forms of communication would be streamlined, improved and more efficient. Of course, listening isn't the only step. You then have to use the information you get from listening and apply it, so you can effectively engage with your public. An organization must engage with everyone, even their critics. The book makes a special point about talking with critics. Listening and engaging with critics provides two great advantages to an organization:
1. You can hear criticism and fix the problems within your organization that are most important to the public.
2. You can explain and give further information to clarify problems that critics have. If you don't respond and just leave the criticism out there, that's hurting your organization. However, if you respond with a thoughtful, concerned answer, people will usually have more respect because it shows you care. Then the discussion begins.
Here's another pretty important concept: being able to lose control. No one likes to lose control, especially when it comes to an issue or cause that one is passionate about. Because of new technologies, the "power is being pushed to the edges." The public has more control now; it's not just the CEO of a company who controls the outcome of an organization's efforts. There is a forum for everyone to get their opinions out and control their own efforts. This doesn't mean that an organization should put in no effort to create well thought-out messages, it just has to understand that the public and other organizations have their own messages and efforts too. The good thing is, most of the time these other messages and plans will help a cause or effort, rather than hurting it. Even if your messages are exactly the same, if everyone is working toward the same goal, it's a good thing.
The next chapter continues with these ideas of relationship building by discussing one important aspect of building a relationship: transparency. You can have relationships with your publics without transparency but they won't be as meaningful and therefore your publics may not be as interested in helping your cause. The very first thing mentioned in Chapter 7 is the dashboard. I'll admit, I had never heard of these before but they sound really cool. Having all of that information in one place, in an easy-to-navigate table makes it easy for people to understand how the organization work and what problems/successes they are having.
This chapter emphasizes trust; however, it is not only referring to building trust within publics but it also states that for trust to build in publics, the organization must trust that people "on the outside" mean well. I think this is a key point (and so does the book). If an organization thinks everyone is out to get it, it'll never let its guard down enough for anyone to help.
The last points made by this chapter are on how to apply these ideas of transparency to the way an organization works. In referring to "publicness" (a word I quite like, I might add), author and blogger Jeff Jarvis (in the book) has this to say: "The more public you are, the easier you can be found, the more opportunities you have." For a non-profit organization, this is absolutely key. I mean, it's important for all types of companies but for-profit companies can afford to be underground while not-for-profit organizations need all the "publicness" it can get to reach its audiences and have an impact. This publicness can be achieved through letting an organization's information out into the public domaine (all information! - not just the good stuff like how much money was donated), being easily found on search engines and having a presence on social networking sites.
Transparency must be found inside and out of an organization. That is, an organization has to share this information (and one could argue even more) with its employees. Creating trust among employees is equally (again, one could argue even more) important in the success of an organization. As we've learned from day one in PR classes, happy, enthusiastic employees equals happy, enthusiastic publics. Problems with employees can seep out to "the edges" of an organization. Besides, internal relations is the place to start to achieve transparency. Start the conversation inside, share it with the outside, and then engage the inside and the outside together.
I'll start off with one of my favorite statements from chapter 5, "Listening helps you be less of a spammer and more of a service provider." Now this I like, I mean, who likes spam? I've signed up for plenty of mailing lists, only to get annoyed by the daily e-mails that don't even apply to me. I've set up an entire email just for things like that and it has become my default email to give to companies/organization, basically used for anything that's not personal or school-related. About once a week, I'll go through it and basically delete all of them. Seriously, it's a horrible task. Ok, so that rant has a point, I promise. I think if more organizations listened to their consumers/supporters/whatevers, all forms of communication would be streamlined, improved and more efficient. Of course, listening isn't the only step. You then have to use the information you get from listening and apply it, so you can effectively engage with your public. An organization must engage with everyone, even their critics. The book makes a special point about talking with critics. Listening and engaging with critics provides two great advantages to an organization:
1. You can hear criticism and fix the problems within your organization that are most important to the public.
2. You can explain and give further information to clarify problems that critics have. If you don't respond and just leave the criticism out there, that's hurting your organization. However, if you respond with a thoughtful, concerned answer, people will usually have more respect because it shows you care. Then the discussion begins.
Here's another pretty important concept: being able to lose control. No one likes to lose control, especially when it comes to an issue or cause that one is passionate about. Because of new technologies, the "power is being pushed to the edges." The public has more control now; it's not just the CEO of a company who controls the outcome of an organization's efforts. There is a forum for everyone to get their opinions out and control their own efforts. This doesn't mean that an organization should put in no effort to create well thought-out messages, it just has to understand that the public and other organizations have their own messages and efforts too. The good thing is, most of the time these other messages and plans will help a cause or effort, rather than hurting it. Even if your messages are exactly the same, if everyone is working toward the same goal, it's a good thing.
The next chapter continues with these ideas of relationship building by discussing one important aspect of building a relationship: transparency. You can have relationships with your publics without transparency but they won't be as meaningful and therefore your publics may not be as interested in helping your cause. The very first thing mentioned in Chapter 7 is the dashboard. I'll admit, I had never heard of these before but they sound really cool. Having all of that information in one place, in an easy-to-navigate table makes it easy for people to understand how the organization work and what problems/successes they are having.
This chapter emphasizes trust; however, it is not only referring to building trust within publics but it also states that for trust to build in publics, the organization must trust that people "on the outside" mean well. I think this is a key point (and so does the book). If an organization thinks everyone is out to get it, it'll never let its guard down enough for anyone to help.
The last points made by this chapter are on how to apply these ideas of transparency to the way an organization works. In referring to "publicness" (a word I quite like, I might add), author and blogger Jeff Jarvis (in the book) has this to say: "The more public you are, the easier you can be found, the more opportunities you have." For a non-profit organization, this is absolutely key. I mean, it's important for all types of companies but for-profit companies can afford to be underground while not-for-profit organizations need all the "publicness" it can get to reach its audiences and have an impact. This publicness can be achieved through letting an organization's information out into the public domaine (all information! - not just the good stuff like how much money was donated), being easily found on search engines and having a presence on social networking sites.
Transparency must be found inside and out of an organization. That is, an organization has to share this information (and one could argue even more) with its employees. Creating trust among employees is equally (again, one could argue even more) important in the success of an organization. As we've learned from day one in PR classes, happy, enthusiastic employees equals happy, enthusiastic publics. Problems with employees can seep out to "the edges" of an organization. Besides, internal relations is the place to start to achieve transparency. Start the conversation inside, share it with the outside, and then engage the inside and the outside together.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
creating and maintaining social culture
This week we read chapters 3 and 4 in Networked Nonprofits, called "Understanding Social Networks" and "Creating a Social Culture" respectively. In the previous chapters, they discussed the importance of social media in creating a successful nonprofit while these chapters discuss the logistical details and how to fully utilize social media to the advantage of an organization. I'll start by talking about chapter 3.
Chapter 3 starts by blunting stating that an organization can no longer think it is the most important thing around. People and other organizations are constantly moving and changing; your organization has to do the same or it will be lost in the world of social media. This chapter also introduces a lot of social media lingo that I am not familiar with, like "ecosystem" (in reference to social networks) which I think is pretty self-explanatory. These ecosystems are not random; they have structure. This structure is made up of nodes (people or organizations), ties (the connections between them), and hubs (larger "nodes" with lots of "ties", the influencers). Again, pretty self-explanatory. The hubs are the heavy-weights of the social media world. They are the ones with thousands of Twitter followers and Facebook friends. They are the ones whose blogs are read all over the world. Basically, they're important for a nonprofit to get the word out. Other social media definitions: core - the people who do most of the work, and power law of distribution - the imbalance that applies to most social networks where a small number of people have the biggest influence/do the most work. Finally the chapter discusses different ways to map an organization's social network. Mapping can be useful to realize and understand the different ties/relationships that exist and which ties don't exist but should.
The second half of this chapter talks about the importance of "social capital." Social capital is important because it is what makes relationships meaningful and is how you make real progress in creating social change. With social capital "two things generally exist: trust and reciprocity." This idea is elaborated in the next chapter that discusses creating a social culture.
Chapter 4 goes back to what we learned in introductory PR classes was one of the most important aspects of PR: relationships. This book, however, shows how relationships are changing. They are no longer just your neighbors and old roommates (though those are still important too), rather you can create and maintain relationship entirely online. But like with social capital, trust and reciprocity must exist. The basic qualities of a relationship are the same, whether in person or not.
This chapter also focuses on the idea that "social-ness" is more than just individuals using social media; it is the entire organization shifting the way it works fundamentally. An organization cannot just rely on young staffers and interns to handle social media. For social media to be used to its full potential, the leadership of an organization must be involved. Everyone connected to the organization should engage in social media. The book suggests that rather than making interns do all the work regarding social media, have them teach executives how to use social media so that they can use it themselves after the interns move on.
Chapter 3 starts by blunting stating that an organization can no longer think it is the most important thing around. People and other organizations are constantly moving and changing; your organization has to do the same or it will be lost in the world of social media. This chapter also introduces a lot of social media lingo that I am not familiar with, like "ecosystem" (in reference to social networks) which I think is pretty self-explanatory. These ecosystems are not random; they have structure. This structure is made up of nodes (people or organizations), ties (the connections between them), and hubs (larger "nodes" with lots of "ties", the influencers). Again, pretty self-explanatory. The hubs are the heavy-weights of the social media world. They are the ones with thousands of Twitter followers and Facebook friends. They are the ones whose blogs are read all over the world. Basically, they're important for a nonprofit to get the word out. Other social media definitions: core - the people who do most of the work, and power law of distribution - the imbalance that applies to most social networks where a small number of people have the biggest influence/do the most work. Finally the chapter discusses different ways to map an organization's social network. Mapping can be useful to realize and understand the different ties/relationships that exist and which ties don't exist but should.
The second half of this chapter talks about the importance of "social capital." Social capital is important because it is what makes relationships meaningful and is how you make real progress in creating social change. With social capital "two things generally exist: trust and reciprocity." This idea is elaborated in the next chapter that discusses creating a social culture.
Chapter 4 goes back to what we learned in introductory PR classes was one of the most important aspects of PR: relationships. This book, however, shows how relationships are changing. They are no longer just your neighbors and old roommates (though those are still important too), rather you can create and maintain relationship entirely online. But like with social capital, trust and reciprocity must exist. The basic qualities of a relationship are the same, whether in person or not.
This chapter also focuses on the idea that "social-ness" is more than just individuals using social media; it is the entire organization shifting the way it works fundamentally. An organization cannot just rely on young staffers and interns to handle social media. For social media to be used to its full potential, the leadership of an organization must be involved. Everyone connected to the organization should engage in social media. The book suggests that rather than making interns do all the work regarding social media, have them teach executives how to use social media so that they can use it themselves after the interns move on.
Monday, October 11, 2010
safe harbor video inspiration!
Our group has already discussed a few ideas for the videos we are creating for Safe Harbor, like the "3 in 4" theme. So I did the first thing I always do, I looked on YouTube for some inspiration!
Here's a few videos I find inspiring:
This first one doesn't relate to domestic violence directly, though it is one of the examples given on how children learn from their parents. The thing I like about this video is the theme. The different situations shown combined create a video that sends a powerful, reinforced message.
This video is specifically for a domestic violence organization and its programs. I like the quotes from people who have actually participated. I think this would be a good alternative to actual people talking about their experiences, if that's not possible.
This video is a good example of a class-made video. While it's more of a documentary and much too long for what we're going for, the set-up may be something to imitate. Also, I think the title "Hands Off" is really great and memorable.
This video is by the Avon Foundation. Obviously, it is quite professional-looking which I like. I think my favorite part of this video though is the families and (one) man that "speak out" too. Having other viewpoints rather than just women can reach those who may think it only affects women.
Last but not least, here's a PSA from a Canadian organization for women. Obviously, our videos will be longer than this but like the first video, I think the theme is well-organized and well-chosen. Also, like the third video, I think the title "Shelter from the Storm" is really great.
So that's all for my inspiration right now! Hopefully our group can incorporate some of the better ideas from these videos to create our own great videos. Also, I'm on the look-out for some fundraising videos as most of these are geared more towards general awareness.
Here's a few videos I find inspiring:
This first one doesn't relate to domestic violence directly, though it is one of the examples given on how children learn from their parents. The thing I like about this video is the theme. The different situations shown combined create a video that sends a powerful, reinforced message.
This video is specifically for a domestic violence organization and its programs. I like the quotes from people who have actually participated. I think this would be a good alternative to actual people talking about their experiences, if that's not possible.
This video is a good example of a class-made video. While it's more of a documentary and much too long for what we're going for, the set-up may be something to imitate. Also, I think the title "Hands Off" is really great and memorable.
This video is by the Avon Foundation. Obviously, it is quite professional-looking which I like. I think my favorite part of this video though is the families and (one) man that "speak out" too. Having other viewpoints rather than just women can reach those who may think it only affects women.
Last but not least, here's a PSA from a Canadian organization for women. Obviously, our videos will be longer than this but like the first video, I think the theme is well-organized and well-chosen. Also, like the third video, I think the title "Shelter from the Storm" is really great.
So that's all for my inspiration right now! Hopefully our group can incorporate some of the better ideas from these videos to create our own great videos. Also, I'm on the look-out for some fundraising videos as most of these are geared more towards general awareness.
best spokesperson ever?
Since I've been blogging like crazy this week, I thought I'd add one more. This is just a funny video I found. With the title, "Should BP hire this guy for PR?" and our recent class discussion about spokespeople, how could I not watch? Now this guy knows how to turn around a question (completely unethically, of course, though nevertheless amusing).
http://www.wimp.com/bppr/
Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out how to embed the video, so there's a link to the site where I found it.
http://www.wimp.com/bppr/
Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out how to embed the video, so there's a link to the site where I found it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)