the Communications Network blog

Conference 2.0 Strategies Capture a Bigger Picture

At the recent Communications Network annual conference held at the Ford Foundation in New York City, 20 volunteers known collectively as the Gorilla Engagement Squad, used Flip Cams to conduct video interviews with 120 conference attendees.  In addition to asking participants what resonated from the sessions they attended, Gorillas asked: “What has and hasn’t changed about foundation communications over the past five years?” 

What Has Changed About Foundation Communications in the Last Five Years? from Communications Network on Vimeo.

As commander-in-chief of the Squad, I was thrilled to see the wealth of engaging compelling content captured by my colleagues using what I call a “conference 2.0 engagement” strategy. It’s all just a further extension of the evolution from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 in which we recognize that folks are no longer satisfied to be talked at -- we want to talk amongst ourselves.

As these videos demonstrate, it no longer need be just the insightful experience of presenters and the quick chats with folks in the halls that shape our experience of conferences.  Conference 2.0 engagement strategies -- captured by our peers -- can communicate the collective mood of a gathering.  Because this organized collective of my peers chose to commit acts of journalism (did Clay Shirky coin that great phrase?) I can quickly test my sense of reality by perusing the Twitter stream or viewing eight or ten brief videos featuring 40 or 50 of my colleagues. 

While I love to be inspired by those of you who shape panels and present winning experiences, I’m more of a sucker for how we, as participants, let what we hear shape and inspire us. 

So here’s my take-away, that I’d like to test with your sense of what you heard at the conference and in these videos:

The collective fear of” seasoned” (a.k.a 35 year old +) foundation communicators is receding.  Assuming budget cuts don’t get us, digital natives who intuitively grasp new(fangled) media tools, aren’t going to either. We are growing more confident in our capacity to adapt to a landscape where change is the only constant. Clay Shirky’s exhortations to experiment are not a threat -- they are an oft-repeated invitation we are ready to embrace.

Whether you agree or disagree, we welcome you to talk back on our blog here.  I’ll be inviting the Gorillas to chime in since, whether they know it or not, their work is not done here. 

Susan Herr

What's Driving Your Social Media Policies?

In a post on his blog, Mitch Hurst, communications consultant and Network board member, offers some thoughts about social media policies for foundations.  Hurst says that these policies sometimes become "guardrails" that "exist partly to keep you from driving your career off a cliff."  Hurst believes a better approach to creating a "decent organizational social media policy is finding the right balance between minimizing risk and maximizing opportunity."

For instance, he argues that instead of creating a set of restrictions, such as forbidding what words staff "can use in a tweet," Hurst says employees should be trusted to do these four things:

• Associate their social media page with their employer if a significant amount of the links or content they're posting is related to their professional obligations;
• Note prominently in their profiles that their views don't necessarily reflect the views of their employer;
• Not post stuff that's going to land them in the society section of the local newspaper; or the police blotter;
• Fan, friend, follow, etc. your organization's social media pages. The price for playing.

You can read the full post here.

--Bruce Trachtenberg

Watch This Space

In just a week, the Fall 2009 Communications Network Annual Conference kicks off at the Ford Foundation in New York City.  We are expecting about 230 people--a terrific mix of foundation communications professionals and program staff, individuals who work for foundation associations and other nonprofits, as well as some from communications firms that work with both foundations and nonprofits. (And they are a patient bunch--our conference sold out in 3 weeks, way back in mid-May!)

We've put together a stellar lineup of speakers and panel presentations, all focused on helping conference attendees excel at using communications--everything from new and emerging technologies to the tried and true--to advance the work of their organizations and philanthropy overall.

To help conference attendees stay on top of the many sessions and discussions that will be occurring simultaneously over the course of the conference and to give those not attending a flavor of what's taking place, we've recruited a crack team of bloggers, tweeters and video cam users. We're calling them our "Gorilla Squad."  They'll be observing and reporting on what they see and hear and we'll be posting regular updates to our blog.

So, we invite you--beginning on October 14--to keep checking this space regularly for conference reports and updates.  Also, you can follow us on Twitter at #comnet09. Whether you are attending or observing from afar, don't hesitate to offer your comments or even pose questions you'd like answered.

For more information about the conference, including the agenda, discussion topics, and list of attendees, click here.

We also want take this opportunity to thank this year's sponsors:  The Atlantic Philanthropies, The California HealthCare Foundation, Ford Foundation, Open Society Institute, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, DeSantis Breindel, Hattaway Communications, and Lipman Hearne.

--Bruce Trachtenberg

Different Yes, But Revolutionary Change?

In a recent mailing, communications consultant Doug Gould, president of Douglas Gould and Company, poses a provocative question to people involved in public interest communications: Are the communications changes we are experiencing revolutionary?

Answering his own question, Gould writes: “sadly" they are not.

While noting that the “the traditional business models of public relations and advertising have been upended by the rapid shift to Web-based communications and the explosion of the blogosphere, all at the expense of collapsing traditional media,” he adds:

…organizations that need to advance policy in the public interest should know - this is not revolution. The crucial fundamentals remain the same; we just have to build on trends of the last 15 years, in particular, media consolidation at the top and fragmentation at the bottom. Until the financial crisis, newspapers and other media were merging into news and entertainment conglomerates. Simultaneously, many Web-based specialty publications and blogs offered more places to acquire information, albeit without the verification applied by traditional media.

Gould maintains that the changes we are experiencing are mainly “about delivery systems.” In fact,  according to research his and another firm conducted “the mother lodes of information that feed the bulk of blog posts are ‘old media’ stalwarts such as The New York Times and NPR.”

Yes, It's That Easy!

In his 2001 memoir, legendary television news producer, Don Hewitt, attributed the success of 60 Minutes to "...four words every kid in the world knows: Tell me a story. It's that easy."

Although Hewitt was talking about a television news program, my friend Joanne Edgar believes there's a lot foundations can learn from the 60 Minutes formula for success.  In a letter that appeared in the Chronicle of Philanthropy last week, Edgar, who is a communications strategist and a former foundation communications director, argues that grant makers that tell stories will have a greater chance at success than those that don't.  She writes: 

Foundations are in the business of improving people's lives. Even foundations that fund pure scientific research are doing so with the end goal of making the world a better place. Data and analysis are important ingredients of success. But if we do not capture the personal and institutional stories that illustrate change, we miss a key opportunity to advance our goals. If we do not tell the stories of what works — or if we do not acknowledge what does not work — we lose the opportunity to expand our lessons.

Stories help grant makers and grantees argue successfully for replication of successful reform. Daniel Pink points out in his book A Whole New Mind: "When our lives are brimming with information and data, it's not enough to marshal an effective argument. Someone somewhere will inevitably track down a counterpoint to rebut your point. The essence of persuasion, communication, and self-understanding has become the ability also to fashion a compelling narrative."

Let's Shout Out Our Work On Diversity and Inclusiveness

Guest Post: Paul Bachleitner

Some aspects of foundation work are harder to bring to the public's attention than others.  For a number of foundation communications officers, promoting their organizations' efforts to advance diversity and inclusiveness ranks at the top of the list.  And while this work is too important for us to allow it to fall beneath the radar of public awareness and discourse, convincing CEOs, staff, and boards to serve as visible ambassadors on the politically murky issue of race sometimes can be a tough internal sell. In addition, finding ways to connect with the public and with communities of color may also require some different approaches than your standard outreach. 

Yet, as I learned over the course of producing the Diversity in Philanthropy Project (DPP) case study, good examples abound of how foundations have found creative ways to bring attention to this important work.  In talking with with communications officers at the Ford, Marguerite Casey, Packard, C.S. Mott, and The Denver foundations, I also heard about the challenges they faced and how they overcame them. Their responses are detailed in the DPP case study, which will be published in the Fall, and ahead of the Communications Network Annual Conference, where I, along with several foundation colleagues, will be presenting on the topic.

To get a conversation going now, I'd like to use this post to call attention to some of the more innovative approaches to communicating about diversity and inclusiveness and to see if you have thoughts and experiences of your own to add.

Down With Deficits

Deficit has become a scary word to a lot of people.  And not just those with an eye on the economy and our nation's growing debt.  It turns out that In philanthropic circles some people are also warning of deficits unique to our sector.

For instance, for a few years now, my friend Mark Sedway, who runs the Philanthropy Awareness Initiative, has been talking about the dangers to philanthropy from what his group calls the "awareness deficit."  According to Sedway, the term describes the fact (based on polling data) that a large number of "engaged Americans show limited knowledge of foundations and struggle to identify their impact on communities or issues they care about."  To Sedway and a number of others, this awareness deficit could create a "perfect storm" for philanthropy "as rising legislative and regulatory scrutiny of foundations is compounded by continued ignorance of their work and value among policymakers."  In other words, the very people who are in a position to influence the direction of future policy decisions aren't going to be of much help to philanthropy because they don't know what it is, what it does, who it's helping, or why they should care.  

Just the other day I came across what Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA) CEO and President Melissa Berman calls the "trust deficit," a development that she says could be "crippling" for the philanthropic and charitable sectors. She says just as the economic meltdown caused banks and consumers to stop trusting each other and the wealthy to mistrust their investment advisors, a combination of factors, including the Madoff scandal and  drop in foundation assets, has given rise to distrust in the philanthropic sector. 

Writing earlier this year in the RPA newsletter Linkages, she says "Nonprofits now have far more cause to worry that a donor's pledge has no meaning. Donors now have to worry that nonprofits have not invested their money with proper safeguards." Berman says that these concerns have existed before "but they've never been so pervasive--and corrosive." She adds, "Once trust weakens, the slightest tremors cause sharper collapse, and the rebuilding process can take forever."

Also, the Chronicle of of Philanthropy quoted remarks Berman made during a discussion of this topic -- specifically the threat she believes the "trust deficit" poses -- at the Council on Foundation's Annual Conference in May.  She said, "If we’re in a situation in which foundations can’t be trusted as appropriate stewards of private resources for public good, then the very sort of ‘license to operate’ that everybody in philanthropy enjoys is under threat.”

Who's Responsible for Communicating About Our Work? All of Us

One of the themes we never tire of repeating at the Communications Network is that communications is a foundation responsibility, and shared by the entire organization. But it's usually communications staff members who deliver this message -- and sometimes to their skeptical colleagues. In this post, regular contributor, Elizabeth Miller of the Overbrook Foundation  in New York City, herself a program associate, makes the case for open, strategic and regular foundation communications.

There’s no question about it: foundations are quickly learning that the ability to effectively communicate their work, whether it’s calling for a request for proposals or producing an annual report highlighting grants awarded, can be one of the driving factors for strategically advancing their missions. 

When I first came to The Overbrook Foundation nearly five years ago, I had no idea that one of my most important roles would be to serve as “communications central.” What started out as a small part of my daily activities has become one of the most, if not the most, important jobs of what I do for the Foundation. Oh, and did I mention that my major responsibility is managing a portfolio of grants?

It’s hard not to see the huge importance of this work, which is why it is important to take it seriously and do it right. Unless you are strategic, it is hard to communicate with the public effectively – whomever you define that “public” to be – through the din of the Internet and other media. And whether your organization defines your public as your current grantees, potential grantees, other funders, or the  general public, will guide how your institution communicates with them. It may seem daunting to look at your day-to-day work and figure out how best to accomplish the goal of strategic communication.

Hooray for 'Annals of Accountability'

Over at Philantopic, the Foundation Center's Mitch Nauffts has begun a new series, Annals of Accountability.  He looks for and cites examples of foundations and individual donors stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for their words and their works. In his first post in the series, he saluted 87-year-old Robert I. Lappin for "making good on his $5 million promise to restore the retirement savings of sixty employees at his company and foundation who lost their nest eggs to convicted financial scammer Bernard L. Madoff."  In his second post, reprinted below, Mitch wisely shows the connection between transparency and accountability -- something that should warm the hearts of all communication professionals in philanthropy.

Thanks, Mitch, for keeping folks on their toes.

--Bruce Trachtenberg

Annals of Accountability: Kresge Foundation
By Mitch Nauffts

One of my favorite philanthropic "reads" over the last year or so has been Rip Rapson, president of the Kresge Foundation in Troy, Michigan. Starting shortly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers last September -- an event that both signaled and helped kick off a new and more serious phase of the global economic crisis -- Rapson has penned a series of "open letters" (here, here, and here) to the philanthropic and nonprofit communities about Kresge's response to the deepening crisis.

In his latest missive, Rapson notes that

since February, the economic pressures facing families and nonprofit organizations have intensified. The number of individuals out of work and families displaced from their homes continue to mount at staggering rates. Nonprofits continue their struggles to balance mounting costs, escalating demand, and diminishing revenues.

What's Better: Feeling Good or Making A Good Point?

In trying to get the word out -- or be heard -- there's a line that you have to walk between being effective and being overly aggressive. If you cross that line, people will then focus more on how you are saying it rather than what you are saying.  

A good example of going too far -- despite its success in boosting sales to teens -- was Coca Cola's "Buddies" ad. The company was forced to pull it off the air ahead of schedule after getting complaints that caused some Coke insiders to worry that it was damaging the drink maker's "wholesale image."  As the Wall Street Journal reported in 2004, the TV spot featured "two friends taking a break from a game of hoops. The first guy to the fridge gulps his Coke, then uses his friend's can to cool off, pressing it to his forehead, neck and stomach before sticking it sideways in his armpit. When the friend arrives, he is handed the second Coke and starts swigging it with no clue where it had been." 

A good example of how to be hard-hitting but still stay within the lines is the MTV Staying Alive Campaign. Supported by several foundations, including the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the campaign draws on great advertising talent to produce a number of powerful and provocative public service spots designed to educate young people about safe sex.  For some, these ads can make for uncomfortable viewing.  But they seem to work.

I was reminded about these ads, some which I hadn't seen for a while and some new to me, after reading a column last week by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times.  In his piece, Kristof chided humanitarian groups for failing to effectively market their causes and not borrowing lessons from Madison Avenue about what works. 

Kristof wrote that:

"Any brand of toothpaste is peddled with far more sophistication than the life-saving work of aid groups...If a toothpaste company had these miserable results in its messaging, it would go back to the drawing board. That’s what bleeding hearts need to do as well."