A new study from the Overbrook Foundation about Web 2.0 adoption by nonprofits confirms what I’ve been saying for a long time now:  Too many organizations (nonprofits and .coms alike) are completely missing the point of Web 2.0 and the concept of Social Media.  As noted in a very thoughtful post yesterday, “the potential of Web 2.0 is in the interconnectedness around tools and communities, not in any single tool or community”. 

Overbrook found that most nonprofits are not fully utilizing Social Media and Web 2.0 principles (no surprise there).  However, what I found most interesting (or telling) about this study was the examples cited from grantees “using social media in spectacular ways to engage their constituents in conversations”.   Most of the examples cited were completely tactical (focusing on specific actions, sites or tools), but even more surprising, had little — if anything – to do with Web 2.0 and Social Media:

1.) Signing a petition (a form of engagement, yes, but hardly a Web 2.0 form of engagement)
2.) Joining an offline rally and lobby day (again, engagement but not exactly Web 2.0)
3.) Allowing members to comment on an issue blog (Blogs are certainly a big part of Social Media, but the implication here is that allowing people to comment is somehow groundbreaking…it isn’t a Blog if people can’t comment on the posts.)
4.) Visiting/viewing a MySpace page dedicated to the campaign (MySpace may be a Social Media destination, but creating a page on MySpace does not constitute Social Media engagement)
5.) Donating (I’m not even sure where to start with this one)
6.) Adding a campaign icon to the supporter’s own home page or Blog (Now we are dipping a toe – a pinkie toe, but a toe all the same – into Web 2.0 waters).

There is certainly nothing wrong with any of these tactics – it’s just that they don’t have much to do with Web 2.0.  Why?  They are “one to many” (the organization acts as publisher by providing content that is blasted out to an “audience”) and they are focused on motivating the masses to do what the publisher wants the masses to do (join, donate, lend support to the publisher’s cause).  In short, these tactics are what I would call “Web 1.5”. 

What does that mean?

In the early days of the Internet, the Web was really nothing more than a digital newspaper (Web 1.0).  Organizations published or broadcast information out to mass audiences.  Interaction was limited to joining an email list where the audience could receive more broadcast information from the organization (the publisher).  Web 1.5 was a bit more interactive.  Users could participate in a forum or discussion group, sign a petition, etc. 

Web 2.0 is all about co-creation and connection.  Thanks to the proliferation of easy to use tools, everyone has become a content creator. In fact, many sites such as You Tube provide no “published” content whatsoever.  Content is created by the community.  True Web 2.0 engagement tactics would include things like this:

1.) Providing users with content to create their own videos or mashups (or seizing publisher content and creating something unexpected, such as Democratic Underground’s campaign against the Chevy Tahoe);
2.) Providing users with tools (a Facebook application for example or a tool that Bloggers can use on their own Blots to track a particular issue or statistic such as hunger, infant mortality, AIDs deaths, etc.)
3.) Providing users with ways to review, rate and/or vote on your published content and giving that content prominent placement accordingly (not a lot of examples of this in the nonprofit world, but the Edwards campaign does something like it with their weekly user generated Blog posts).

I’m not suggesting that organizations pick a handful of “Web 2.0 tactics” and jump in.  True Web 2.0 engagement is a comprehensive approach to building and nurturing relationships.  It requires taking the time to understand the needs and desires of your community and then identifying ways to facilitate what THEY are interested in, as opposed to a singular focus on getting the masses to do your bidding.  That doesn’t mean that the organization/content publisher can’t realize benefit from Web 2.0 engagement – far from it.  There can be some real magic when an organization takes the time to identify the win/win, i.e., the intersection between facilitating/contributing to a community and achieving organizational goals. 

Filed under: Non-Profits, Social Marketing on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 by Nan Dawkins |
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.