-       Is your contacts database a mess or just not as good at segmenting target audiences as you’d like?

-       Do you feel like you spend too much time cutting and pasting information and formatting across different communications tools and wish there were a better way to manage your eNewsletters, direct email communications and social media efforts?

-       Are you interested in learning about ways your peers are using new technologies to move their constituencies to action?

PPC members told us that they wanted the next learning session to focus on Communications Integration: What are the best methods and technologies to coordinate communications efforts so that work flow and content for website, e-newsletters and social media are seamless but not repetitive?

PPC is gathering representatives from the most prominent companies offering services in this area – Convio, Blackbaud and Network for Good – to answer your questions and get you thinking concretely about how to streamline your communications and marketing efforts.  Many of you are already using some of the services offered by these companies, so we hope you will bring your insights and experiences to share with the group.

Here is the summary information on the next PPC-NYC meeting:

What: Brown-bag lunch (that means bring your own lunch!)

When: Thursday, September 16, 2010; 12:00 – 2:00 p.m. (informal networking from 12:00-12:30, program begins at 12:30)

Where: Ford Foundation, 320 East 43^rd Street (between 1^st & 2^nd Ave), New York, NY

Topic: Communications Integration. What are the latest methods and technologies for coordinating communications efforts so that work flow and content for website, e-newsletters and social media are seamless but not repetitive?

RSVP: Space is limited.  Please let me know that you are coming by emailing me at mremaley [at] ppcnyc [dot] org

There was a time when almost all foundations simply made grants to social services, the arts and other community improvement efforts and avoided direct involvement in public policy.  Those days are long gone.

Many of the most well-known foundations are flexing their muscles and attempting to influence policy in myriad ways – from producing health news that increases understanding of necessary system reforms to supporting cross-agency communication and coordination to improve metropolitan land-use policies and practice. Aggressive and innovative communications are central to the strategies employed by these increasingly influential foundations.

How do the foundations most highly-identified with public policy work use communications to advance their efforts and what can the rest of us learn from their experiences?

That is the subject of a new discussion paper from the University of Southern California’s Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy, “The Communications Supercharge: How Foundations are Using Communications to Boost Policy Engagement.”

The discussion paper is relatively short and straightforward with important insights, so it is definitely recommended reading. To my mind, its most important contribution is its breakdown of the varied ways in which communications practice is employed, which helps the reader think more clearly about one’s own efforts and the possibilities for more innovative communications practice.

The discussion paper looks first at practices within grantmaking programs that support communications efforts of grantees and then at practices that build the communications prowess of the foundations themselves, and which constitute the more direct efforts to use communications to influence public policy. And really, it is this second area that is new to most foundations.

Here is how “Supercharge” breaks it down (the discussion paper includes fuller explanations and concrete examples):

Five Strategies to Boost Policy Impact within the Grantmaking Work of the Foundation

-       Build communications support into the budget for a larger program.
-       Give grants or contracts specifically for communications.
-       Provide expert consulting support to grantees, beyond the grant.
-       Offer communications capacity-building to grantees.
-       Train program officers on communications.

Five Strategies Beyond the Grant Program to Boost Policy Impact

-       Sponsor convenings.
-       Do direct media outreach.
-       Use the CEO’s bully pulpit.
-       Establish communications departments within the foundations.(In my opinion, this one is actually mislabeled based on the explanation and examples. What they really mean is establishing a media production unit within the foundation.)
-       Build a cause brand.

I talked with Marcia Sharp, the discussion paper author and Principal of Millennium Communications Group, about what the discussion paper’s research means for the field of philanthropy.  “One thing to realize,” Sharp said, “is that when we look at the sum total of a foundation’s communications efforts, we should be looking at both the efforts of the communications department itself and the communications efforts supported through grantmaking programs. I would love to see a full accounting that tallies all of that.”

The name of the discussion paper came from a quote from one of the 18 communications leaders interviewed in the research: “My focus is transitioning… to the larger strategic communications needs of the program areas and the foundation, and asking the question: how does communications really supercharge what we are doing?”  As discussion papers are designed to do, this one is best at helping the reader ask questions of one’s own practice rather than laying out any sort of definitive roadmap to public policy impact.

I asked Sharp what she thought was the most surprising finding produced by the research.  She said it was fascinating that even these foundations that were trying to use communications in innovative ways to impact public policy were operating with such small numbers of communications staff relative to the size of the budgets involved. The paper itself discusses that topic in broad strokes and identifies the qualities that communications directors say are essential for communications staff working in foundations today – and it’s a pretty long list!

Toward the end of my conversation with Sharp, I wondered aloud, “As foundations become more aggressive and sophisticated in their public policy communications efforts, producing reports, convening panels, creating multi-media that influences public action, is there really any difference between these kinds of foundations and what we generally think of as think tanks?”

Sharp says that, while drawing that line of connection is an interesting area for discussion, foundations will always be different from think tanks because they are not just producing reports and trying to influence public policy, they are also using their resources to support programs that are making a huge difference in communities.

As foundations like The Pew Charitable Trusts morph into operating foundations that dedicate most of their resources to influencing public policy, I’m not sure if the distinction holds.  If foundations become spectacularly effective communicators impacting public policy, are they then essentially endowed think tanks that happen to also fund some direct-service programs?

“The Communications Supercharge” is a thought-provoking discussion paper on several dimensions.  Read it and consider whether or not “supercharging” your communications work is right for your organization.

Can games move people in ways that other forms of media like print, interactive websites and video can’t?  Some really smart people in foundations, government and media say it is absolutely true. However, if you are a skeptical communications professional, you probably have a lot of questions about that assertion.

A few weeks back, I came across a valuable piece on “social games” written by Marcia Stepanek in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. The bulk of the piece was an interview with Games for Change chairman Alan Gershenfeld in which he made some very bold claims about the state of the social games movement, including:

“Today, almost every major foundation and major government agency is either funding games or looking at funding games.”

And…

“There are, certainly, a lot of examples of people who have created games that have created behavior change in the real world.”

Now, I believe that I am fairly well tuned-in to what philanthropic and nonprofit leaders are doing and what new forms of communication are gaining traction. I’ve heard a few examples of interesting social games that are indeed intriguing and I am very impressed that the MacArthur Foundation is investing $50 million in its Digital Media and Learning initiatives that have a strong emphasis on games. Still, I don’t think that that the vast majority of social-change leading organizations out there have given games a great deal of consideration.

That’s not to say that they shouldn’t be thinking about the potential of social games.  But we do need to provide more information about who is experimenting with social games, what are some concrete examples of success that point to the real potential of the medium and what are the factors that foundations and nonprofits considering gaming ought to think through before leaping forward.

Thankfully, two exceptionally thoughtful people helped me clarify my own thinking about social games.

First I talked to Jessica Goldfin, a Journalism Program Associate at the Knight Foundation who is immersed in the foundation’s growing commitment to social games.  She told me that Knight’s interest in the medium grew organically out of its Media Innovation Initiative after three of the 2007 Knight News Challenge winners were cutting-edge games that engaged citizens. That was three years ago.  There was no need to persuade Knight’s president Alberto Ibargüen of the medium’s potential, he was actually the major proponent of exploring what social games could accomplish.

While Goldfin herself is passionate about games and their ability to draw people into social problems and get them thinking and acting in new ways, she says that the foundation took an especially deliberate and studied approach to funding in this area.  As Knight sought to develop a strategy for funding games, Goldfin and her colleagues first gathered research and conducted interviews from a variety of sources including experienced game developers, leading academics in the field, the Entertainment Software Association, other funders and Games for Change. From their analysis they constructed a matrix of factors they felt were necessary to consider before funding a game, such as game genre, target audience, platform, time spent in the game, development costs, production length, necessary maintenance, marketing and distribution, and shelf life. “Game development is complicated,” says Goldfin.  “One of the most interesting things we learned is that sometimes the most compelling or successful socially-minded games don’t appear to be ostensibly related to the driving issue, but instead use design to engage people in new experiences. The best of these can create connections that lead to real world action.”

When asked about other foundations and nonprofits that are leaders in the field exploring the power of social games, Goldfin talked about MacArthur’s efforts, the National Science Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson’s Games for Health, ADM’s STEM education game, the UN World Food Programme, USAID and the Obama Administration.

“Games are becoming a dominant form of media,” she said, and then talked about Knight’s work in Macon, GA, and Biloxi, MS, where the Foundation is working with the game design firm Area/Code to create locative games to engage citizens and promote community problem solving.  In Macon, the game in development will use an alternative form of local currency to connect residents to each other and to their community. In Biloxi, the game will focus on increasing awareness and changing habits toward disaster preparation.”

According to Goldfin, there are lots of innovative social games that are getting traction.  She named the multiple games being used effectively in educational curriculum by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s iCivics initiative; an initiative of the World Wide Web Foundation that teaches kids how to create their own games; the World Bank Institute’s Evoke and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s Budget Ball game, among several that foundation has created.

She also talked about several of the leading game development companies doing innovative work on social games including Area/Code, Filament Games and Persuasive Games.

Next I talked to Games for Change’s new Co-President Asi Burak. He says that games have the power to bring people into a social condition that other forms of media cannot, that they “allow people to make real, meaningful choices and to get feedback on those choices.”  He described media like print and video as “linear/passive media” and said that those forms mostly project from a single, scripted perspective, whereas games allow people to explore multiple perspectives in an immersive way.  “It is quite powerful to put a person in another’s shoes. And, you can let people experience failure in a safe environment that allows for solution creation they wouldn’t otherwise experience.”

He noted Alan Gershenfeld’s previous comments on how several foundations that are funding games are becoming “accidental publishers,” and may not be aware just how complicated game development can be. It’s not like producing a video, which is fairly straightforward and the product can be played on many platforms.  Games production is exceedingly complex and the technologies for every platform are different – so you can’t produce a single game product that runs on the web, on a game console and on the various mobile platforms for iPhone, Android, etc.  Therefore, foundations and nonprofits interested in doing games need to take the time to really think through who they are trying to reach, what platforms the audience uses (and in what context) and what concrete social change they want to move toward.

In the coming months, Games for Change is going to be putting on their website a lot more information and advice for foundations and nonprofits looking to get into games, including a list of developers, case studies and key issues to consider.  They are also going to offer consulting services to those who would like more hands-on guidance.

He gave a very helpful list of “Eight Steps” in the game development process that any serious organization should discuss and detail before even beginning to reach out to potential game developers:

1. Audience. You should define your audience in very fine detail.  What is the age of the audience? What is their geographic location? What language do they speak? What is their socio-economic status? What is their gaming ability?
2. Context. Where would the audience be playing the game, in front of a computer, on the subway, on a mobile phone in Tehran? Would the player be assisted by a moderator or a teacher?
3. Goals. This is all about the impact you want to make.  What do you want users to take away from the game? Do you want your audience to take action in the real world? Donate? Learn specific information or skills? Have a change in perception?
4. Platform. This is strongly tied to audience, context and goals.  A game that runs on iPhone will appeal to a certain audience.  If you’re trying to reach young, poor African men, then an SMS-based game is more realistic.
5. Financial model and sustainability. You can’t just budget for the cost of creating a game. You need to budget for ongoing maintenance and upgrading of the game itself as well as costs for dissemination and publicizing the game beyond its launch.
6. Game Design. Not until this point can you fully consider the actual construction of the game and what “gameplay” will be taking place on the screen.  All the other decisions in the steps before should feed into the action on the screen that might be appealing to users and drive the impact goals you defined.
7. Execution. Given all the decisions that have been considered in the previous steps, who might be the best development team to partner with?  Plus, who are the other partners that would be key to distribution efforts and other aspects of sustainability?
8. Assessment. Developing concrete metrics of desired impact is important and obviously should be strongly linked to the goals of step 3.  Discussing the metrics is important, but so is planning how information will be collected and the costs associated with evaluation.

I asked Burak about some of the best examples of leaders in the field.  He also named MacArthur Foundation, the Knight Foundation, the World Bank Institute, and iCivics, but added USAID, the European Union and a host of U.S. government agencies.

At this point, I felt like I had heard a lot of really important information about what to consider and what some of the leading organizations are doing. But I still had questions about demonstrable impact.  I had asked both Goldfin and Burak to name an example of a game that had really created some significant social improvement.  Burak talked about how the “Darfur is Dying” game had generated “50,000 actions” (in the form of letters to legislators) and about an organization in India that had partnered with mobile carriers to embed an HIV awareness game on 64 million devices that had actually generated 10 million sessions.

Both Goldfin and Burak are strong believers in the importance of dedicating funds to evaluate the impact of games and are confident that research and experience will eventually substantiate the power of social games.

Goldfin and Burak also both said that the future of social games is surely in mobile platforms – games that are played on phones and other small devices.  More and more nonprofits and foundations are indeed creating iPhone and Android “apps” that provide consumers quick access to programmatic information, so perhaps social games are the next wave.

In the end, I came away from these conversations even more intrigued by the possibilities that social games present.  The complexity of the process for creating and disseminating them is daunting, but I think many nonprofits and foundations are up to the challenge.  I will definitely be keeping my eyes open for examples of success in this medium and maybe even playing a few social games myself to get a feel for what works.

Are you trying to build a sense of community among diverse audiences across multiple locations?

Then take note of what the Daniels Fund learned from a recent experiment using simulcast technology.

The Denver-based Daniels Fund was founded in 2000 upon the death of benefactor and cable TV pioneer Bill Daniels.  The foundation’s work covers seven program areas as well as two separate scholarship programs, all of which is pursued in four states: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.  With populations spread out across some of the largest states in the nation in rural and urban areas, building a sense of community and common purpose among the foundation’s many constituencies has been a challenge.  But with the Daniels Fund 10th Anniversary approaching, the foundation saw and opportunity to bring people together in an innovative way.

The concept was fairly simple: Do an anniversary event, but do it in eight different locations at the same time and link the participants together through simulcast, AND make the simulcast available live to anyone who can’t be in one of those eight locations.  The successful execution, which took place on June 17, was anything but simple and was the product of a year of intense planning.

As with just about any complex endeavor, partnerships were key to this undertaking’s success.  With it’s grantmaking in Business Ethics, the Daniels Fund had established, deep relationships with eight university business schools across the region and those universities served as the hosts for live events that were to be linked through simulcast.  Early in the planning, the Daniels Fund reached out to Rocky Mountain PBS, which had a great deal of experience doing simulcast and public engagement.

Rocky Mountain PBS did much more than just produce the simulcast event. They also used existing footage and photos, conducted new interviews and produced a video that aired during the simulcast that inspired viewers with the story of Bill Daniels legacy and tied together much of the varied work supported by the foundation.

“Rocky Mountain PBS was amazing,” said Daniels Fund VP of Communications Peter Droege.  “PBS not only produced a complex simulcast without a hitch, they produced a number of videos for the event that will have enduring value for our organization.  Their commitment to the community and quality of production really showed through at every step of the way.  They are, for sure, the hardest working people in show business.”

Any communications director knows how challenging it can be to produce a big event that is very important to the organization.  Now think about producing eight of those events taking place at the exact same time and linking them together.  The strategy included having Daniels Fund board members serve as MCs at each of the eight event sites. The board of the Daniels Fund is made up of high profile business and civic leaders, so the presence of board members at the local events was seen as a sign of the foundation’s commitment to local communities.

A large number of nonprofit and communities leaders turned out at each celebration site that had its own short program before being connected to the simulcast.  This enabled the foundation to build a sense of togetherness within each location even before brining everyone together over the web across the region.

“That sense of coming together was really important for us,” Droege said. “We had folks who were grantees in one program area who knew nothing about our involvement in another.  We had scholarship students who didn’t really know about the grantmaking.  And with the inspiring video and an event that brought so many different people together we were able to make strides in fostering a greater sense of connectedness and identification with the Daniels Fund.”

All together, there were over 2,500 people at the live events and another 2,000 who logged on to watch the simulcast live.  Try getting that many people together for an event that isn’t the Super Bowl!  Perhaps the most important audience among the attendees and simulcast viewers were current and past Daniels Fund scholars.  The Fund aims to provide not just dollars for individuals’ education, but to imbue the awardees with a sense of carrying on Bill Daniels’ legacy.  So the 257 new scholars who were all present at the event certainly came away feeling like they were part of a community that expected them to achieve and give back.

Not only did the simulcast function to bring Daniels Fund constituencies together and helped the foundation tell the story of its impact over the previous 10 years to key audiences, it was also useful to the media.  Denver’s NBC affiliate 9News produced a stellar segment on the event using the simulcast footage without ever sending a crew to any of the sites.  Rocky Mountain PBS continues to host the video on its site and may produce a segment for general broadcasting.

“We are definitely going to do more of this in the future,” Droege says.  “The emerging technology is making amazing things possible and foundations should really be thinking about experimenting with what’s possible. Maybe consider starting with a small experiment with technology like bringing in a  board member from a remote location when they can’t be there in person. It really is a great way to increase involvement and engagement.”

Droege first started experimenting with live webcasts some time ago using WebEx to host an online press conference.  He found that media people loved it and he was able to convey information and take questions very efficiently.  So he saw the 10th Anniversary simulcast as the next big leap.  Initially, they planned to do an 8-way simulcast with feeds from each site, but concerns about the technical complexity and cost led to focusing on the largest site using a one-way simulcast to let the other sites see and hear what was going on there.

The Daniels Fund is excited about doing more live web casts.  In fact, they are converting an unused closet in their offices into a “Video Capture Studio” where they will do interviews and other live video feeds for a variety of foundation supported initiatives.  “The technology is becoming more user-friendly.  Communications people and foundation leaders should definitely give it a try and start thinking creatively about the many possibilities for using it to advance their work.”

These new tools require an investment of time, and some financial resources, too.  But according to the Daniels Fund, it is well worth the effort.

I recommend that you read the post in full, but here is a bit of it to give you a taste of what it contains:

Solutions Storytelling: Messaging to Mobilize Support for Children’s Issues, contains plenty of good news and it has lots of facts to back them up.  By way of background, this research was conducted on behalf of Child Advocacy 360, a group founded by Hershel Sarbin to close the gap that he says exists “between good work and the kind of communication from youth serving and child advocacy organizations that would underscore the power of good news journalism and success stories to effect community, state, and national change in social policy…The research, which was conducted by the Topos Partnership, working with Douglas Gould & Company, takes what’s been Sarbin’s long-held belief and backs it up with verifiable findings.  Although the data is focused on programs that serve kids, it doesn’t take much of a leap to see how some of the same insights the research provides could also help anyone involved in social change communications. From online survey interviews with 2,006 registered voters nationwide, six focus group sessions with voters in three states, and TalkBack Testing, in which 240 participants were tested on their ability to repeat the core of a message and pass it on to others, here’s some of the important findings about how to communicate effectively, including what to do and what to avoid…

Check out the full post for the specifics on how you should be telling your stories.  It is well worth the 10 minutes it will take to read the post, which also has links to the full research report.

This is another in an ongoing series of posts in partnership with The Communications Network.  It originally appeared on that site.

I have been to more book parties over the years than I can count.  Usually they are fairly tedious affairs and I spend my time looking at my watch trying to figure out how long I need to stay before slipping out inconspicuously.  But at the celebration for a new book “Zilch,” I wanted to stay until they kicked me out.  Here’s why…

“Zilch: The Power of Zero in Business” is, obviously, aimed at the business market. I agreed to go to the book party mostly because the event was taking place at One Beacon Court, one of NYC’s most coveted new apartment towers, so I could check out how the other half lives.  I’m human, I covet.  The building, which houses Bloomberg News on the lower levels, is an architectural gem and the apartments were reputed to be quite spectacular.

The apartment itself was gorgeous, but I barely paused to pick up a lavender-infused summery cocktail as I made a bee-line to one of the floor-to-ceiling windows looking out over the view from the 54^th floor penthouse.  I was mesmerized.

So it is a testament to the power and importance of the book’s core messages that I actually forgot about the view as soon as author Nancy Lublin began to speak to the crowd.  Her message is all about nonprofit creativity and how to do more with less.

As the book’s introduction says, “After years of being told that we in the not-for-profit sector need to be more structured, more profitable, more strategic and more like organizations in the corporate world, the pendulum is now swinging in the other direction. Now we not-for-profits have much to offer organizations that are willing to listen and learn.”

I have long felt that the aggrandizement of the business sector needed to be brought into line with reality (AIG, BP, need I say more), so this is a rallying cry that I can really get behind.  She makes a very strong case that companies now strapped for cash can learn a lot from non-profits that have always had to do their marketing, branding and mission advancement on a shoestring budget.

Lublin has strong credentials to make this case.  As noted so eloquently on the book jacket: “As the founder of Dress for Success, which provides low-income women with interview suits and career development training, she turned a $5,000 inheritance into a global franchise.  Then, as CEO of DoSomething.org, she helped turn a struggling startup into one of the largest and most successful youth volunteer groups in the world. Now she draws on her experiences as well as interviews with other ‘rock star’ leaders of flourishing not-for-profits – including Wendy Kopp of Teach for America, Darell Hammond of KaBOOM! Greg Baldwin of VolunteerMatch.org, and John Lilly of Mozilla.”

Her chapters explore how creative people can do more with less cash to throw at people, comprehensive branding, utilizing external people, asking smart questions, focusing on customers, maximizing the board, empowering staff, using your organization’s story, realigning your finances, bartering with what you have and generally applying innovation to your work.

I talked to Nancy for a while, and she said this to me, “Not-for-profits and foundations don’t actually make anything. We sell a service or a feeling–and we’re usually selling it to one person (donor) while giving the benefit to another (client). Can you imagine selling a tube of toothpaste to one person–but another one takes it home? How AWESOME a salesperson is that?! Well, that is how not-for-profits have to communicate every day. Its about doing more with less…way less.”

At this point, you may be asking, if businesses have so much to learn from nonprofits and I am a nonprofit or foundation person reading this post, why should I be interested in this book?  Well frankly, while Lublin has done a great job of finding examples where business can learn a great deal from nonprofits, the vast majority of foundations and nonprofits still have much to learn on these topics from leaders in our field.

The book certainly got my creative wheels turning.  I especially liked the very first chapter about helping folks in your organization find inspiration in their work rather than motivation from a paycheck.  A later chapter on finances also had some very concrete advice that I will carry with me for a long time.

The party itself was a great example of Lublin’s premise of doing more with less. The fancy apartment isn’t hers, but she utilized her connections and convinced those who believe in her mission to help her out.  I came for the view, but stayed for the book’s important insights.  That’s the power of Zilch.

This is the another in a long-term series of posts for Communications Network, and appeared originally on its site.

Earlier this week I had the pleasure of joining many fellow Communications Network members for a webinar in which PowerPoint was put on trial.  It was a fun format in which the presenters truly relished their roles as prosecuting and defending attorneys. Strong cases were made by both sides.

The counts laid out against PowerPoint:

•                PowerPoint has changed the way we communicate for the worse.

•                PowerPoint, by its very nature, forces presenters to create bad presentations.

•                PowerPoint should be banned from use by all doers-of-good.

Colin Rowan prosecuted with gusto.  He showed several examples of typically atrocious PowerPoint slides with huge amounts of text and confusing visuals, including the now infamous Department of Defense chart of Afghanistan strategy.  He quoted and endorsed the charge made by Edward Tufte, information design expert, that PowerPoint forces a “relentless sequentiality” that alters the nature of information relationships in addition to contributing significantly to mind-numbingly boring presentations.  He predicted (accurately) that the defense would say that it is your (the PowerPoint user) fault that presentations turn out poorly and that the software itself is programmed for ease and flexibility that simply isn’t used.  But, said Rowan, mediocrity really is built into the functionality of PowerPoint itself.

Andy Goodman took up a vigorous defense of PowerPoint.  In an apt analogy, he compared the blame assigned PowerPoint to that which is often ascribed to guns, and he basically sounded the NRA defense: “It’s not PowerPoint that kills presentations, it is people that kill presentations.” From my point of view, I think it is a perfect analogy, although not a flattering one for PowerPoint, since many webinar participants may have agreed with me that guns are inherently dangerous and ought to be available for only very specific purposes by highly trained experts.  So if PowerPoint is a weapon that can be used for good or evil, should it really be in the hands of those who have no idea how to use it?

As the trial moved forward, the prosecution claimed that the PowerPoint template – with its blah title and ever-shrinking text format – is a major part of the problem. The defense countered that you don’t have to use the template – in fact, it’s best to just start with a blank slate.  Further, use of illustrative pictures and only minimal, but engaging text makes for high impact.  Rowan objected that high quality images from sources like Getty and Corbis cost a lot of money, which puts them out of the reach of nonprofits and foundations. Not true, said Goodman.  And he named many spots to obtain low-cost or no-cost images: iStockPhoto.com, stockXchange, Liquid Library, PunchStock.com and Snapfish.com. He said Flickr’s Creative Commons section is a great source for completely free photos. He noted that the Wikipedia discussion of public domain image resources is a good place to start.

The prosecution then took up the topic of complexity, asserting that many of us work in fields and on issues that are so complex that they don’t lend themselves to the simple charts and illustrative pictures that Goodman said should be used in PowerPoint presentations.  He said, essentially, that most social policy folks are “too smart” to be able to think about good design(!?!?!).

The defense again used the prosecution’s examples of poorly designed slides to show how, with just a little bit of time, thought and logic, the very same information could be presented in exponentially more compelling ways.  He said that there are very simple techniques that are entirely learnable – even by the smartest among us.

The Q&A portion of the webinar produced many important inquiries about…

•                How to get program people to think about presentation design as they are composing so that communications people don’t get stuck trying to make sense of things later;

•                When should PowerPoint absolutely NOT be used;

•                What are the maximum number of words that should reasonably go on a slide; and

•                What other presentation tools might be of better use than PowerPoint in particular situations.

All of these questions were answered adroitly by the presentation leaders and can be heard in full on the webinar playback (to which I recommend listing!)

In the end, the jury (all the webinar participants) cast its votes and rendered its verdict on the charges against PowerPoint.

•                Has PP changed the way we communicate for the worse? – the jury found PowerPoint GUILTY.  (67% said guilty, 33% said not guilty).

•                Does PP force presenters to create bad presentations? – the jury found PowerPoint NOT GUILTY.  (17% said guilty, 83% said not guilty)

•                Should PP be banned from use by all doers-of-good? – the jury gave PowerPoint a REPRIEVE. (Only 7% said it should be banned, 93% said it should not be banned)

The jury essentially let PowerPoint off the hook, free to incite mayhem in lecture halls and panel discussions from coast to coast.  The argument that the weapon itself was not guilty of the innumerable, indescribably heinous crimes perpetrated by deadly tedious presenters over the years clearly resonated as the defense’s examples of a few heroic uses of PowerPoint to save an otherwise defenseless speaker won the day.

Knowing that PowerPoint will now be with us for the foreseeable future, we owe it to ourselves to learn how to use it responsibly*.  Not unlike the NRA’s gun safety classes, The Goodman Center can help you learn how to not shoot yourself in the foot.  Andy, I don’t know how you sleep at night.

*The presenters also named several resources for those who want to read more about how to create effective presentations, including:

“Presentation Zen” by Garr Reynolds

“Slide:Ology” by Nancy Duarte

“Beyond Bullet Points” by Cliff Atkinson“The Back Channel” by Cliff Atkinson-

“Why Bad Presentations Happen to Good Causes” FREE by Andy Goodman

The Communications Network Annual Conference is open to nonmember nonprofits and foundations. I have been involved with Communications Network for several years and have long been impressed with its programming.  And of course, Communications Network was a crucial founding partner in the development of Public Policy Communicators NYC.  While the conference tends to attract a majority of attendees who work for and with foundations, ComNet events are also open to others, such as nonprofits organizations that are involved in public interest communications.

Communications Network Conference

Sept. 29-Oct. 1, Los Angeles

Sign Up Before It Sells Out (Again!)

You can start registering today for the Fall 2010 Conference. But don’t wait. Last year we sold out in just three weeks, and already 150 of our 300 spaces are reserved.

Here are the facts:

This year’s event takes place September 29-October 1 at the JW Marriott Hotel in Los Angeles, and is being held in partnership with our community foundation colleagues who are members of CommA.

The conference is being held in an exciting part of the city known as L.A. Live, the destination place for entertainment, dining and sports. The hotel is new — it only opened in February.

The most important reason to be with us this year in LA is that, in response to terrific comments we received about our past conferences and suggestions to make future ones even better, we’ve put together what we think is a great program and, in keeping with tradition, are doing things a little differently this year.

We’ve dispensed with panel presentations (with one or two exceptions).  In their place, we’ve recruited a stellar lineup of speakers. And not just one or two, like in past years.  So far, we have five high-profile speakers, and may have more by September. They are James Surowiecki, Steve Lopez, Tracy Gary, Neal Baer, and Sendhil Mullainathan. If some names aren’t familiar to you, after you read about them below, you’ll certainly want to hear them. And you’ll be glad you did.

We didn’t invite these people just to talk to you. We invited them to interact with you and to get you thinking about what they have to say. Then you’ll have the opportunity to take those thoughts with you into smaller groups where you can kick them around, challenge and question each other, and also reach some consensus about how to apply the concepts and practices, and some new thoughts that might occur, when you return home.

As always, we’ve built in plenty of time for networking, so you can catch up with old friends, meet new ones, and have time to have some fun.

We’re still tinkering with the program and agenda, but here’s what we have planned so far:

Wednesday, Sept. 29

We’re kicking off this year’s conference in grand style.  Our traditional opening reception (no speakers this year, just fun) will be held on the Target Terrace, located above the GRAMMY Museum, a short walk from the conference hotel.  Working closely with the GRAMMY Foundation, we’re very close to announcing a terrific musical group to perform that evening. More to come about that soon.

Thursday, Sept. 30

When the conference starts up again on Thursday morning, James Surowiecki, financial columnist for The New Yorker, and author of the book, “The Wisdom of Crowds,” will get us all thinking about how to tap into the collective brainpower that exists in online and offline communities and how to put that knowledge to work for our foundations.

Surowiecki will be followed by Los Angeles Times columnist, Steve Lopez, author of “The Soloist,” which was made into the movie by the same name starring Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr.  Lopez will give us a glimpse of the world he sees — and the people in it we need to be thinking about as communicators — from his front-row seat as a columnist who chronicles everything from what life is like on the streets for the homeless to people making a difference in the world today.

Following these two presentations, we’ll divide into smaller groups. With help from a facilitator or discussion leader, we’ll have the chance to kick around what we heard and what it all means. We’ll explore what we can do with the ideas, concepts, and insights presented and any other thoughts the speakers left us pondering.

After breaking for lunch, we’ll hear from “Inspired Philanthropy” author Tracy Gary, someone who has worked for years to help others experience the joy of giving charitable dollars to causes they care about. She’ll help us think about what we can do to engage more people in philanthropy.  As with the earlier presentations, hers will be followed by small group discussions.

For Thursday’s final act, Neal Baer, executive producer of NBC’s “Law and Order Special Victim’s Unit” and former executive producer of “E.R.,” will talk about how foundations can work with the entertainment industry to get out messages about the issues and causes they support, and will set us up for another round of small group discussion.

To put a nice cap on the day’s events, we’ll meet again in the early evening for another networking reception. Details to come.

Friday, Oct. 1

On Friday morning, Sendhil Mullainathan, a Harvard economist (and TED speaker), will share his research, which we’ll get a chance to discuss afterward, on how understanding human behavior can lead to more effective social change communications.

We’re still working on the format and one more session for that morning. Before we end for the day, as is our tradition, we’ll convene again briefly to summarize the conference and to hear an announcement about the dates and location of our 2011 event.

That’s it for now.

To register and ensure yourself a spot before the conference sells out (like it did very quickly last year) click here.

If you have questions, email brucet@comnetwork.org.

This is the second in what is to be a series of posts for

One of the great things about today’s dynamic communications landscape is that the new technologies provide so many opportunities to take your message directly to audiences without having to get past traditional media gatekeepers. Of course there are costs involved, measured in money, human resources and other opportunities. Still, if we’re willing to explore some of these new distribution methods, we may find that we can successfully reach more — if not more important — audiences that can be useful to our organizations and the work we do.

A case in point: more and more foundations and nonprofits are hosting events that are broadcast live on the web.  However, the big question is how successful are they at attracting audiences to these events?  Wouldn’t it be great if there were a channel that would let people tune in and watch what’s on the web?  That would enable some organizations to offer live events that could compete with likes of CNN, Fox News and the BBC for viewership.

Well, it turns out there that someone is already on to this idea and is testing a new service called LiveMatrix that appears to have the potential to serve foundations and nonprofits in just that way.

Full details about the service are on the Technology Review blog.  Some points worth summarizing here are these:

According to Technology Review, LiveMatrix…

…tracks live events on the Web… By providing a listing for the Web that resembles TV timetables, the company hopes to “make the time dimension of the Web searchable,” according to cofounder Nova Spivack.  The company launched today at TechCrunch Disrupt in New York City, sharing more details of the look and feel of the site. In the video below (clicking on the Technology Review link above and viewing the video there is highly recommended), Spivack demonstrates LiveMatrix in action. The company is indexing about 80,000 live events per week to start, and plans to increase that number going forward.

Any organization can start their own channel on the site (similar to YouTube channels, which many nonprofits and foundations now have) and can have their content alongside events hosted by the State Department, NPR and C-SPAN, as well as non-news content producers focused on sports, shopping and other topics.

If you’re wondering how many foundations and nonprofits are actually doing live web events, you’re not alone.  No one yet is keeping track of the overall numbers of foundation and nonprofit-sponsored events that are broadcast via the Web. But a quick Google search reveals a lot of events live foundation events have taken place recently and several more are scheduled.

For example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation broadcast a speech by the founders last October from Washington, DC, titled “Why We Are Optimists.”  The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation shared a live panel discussion last February from Kansas City, MO, on “Spurring Business Startups and Innovation in Clean Technology.” The Kaiser Family Foundation has a live web series called “Today’s Topics in Health Disparities.” And last March, the United Nations Foundation broadcast a live memorial service to honor 101 UN personnel who perished in the Haiti earthquake. From the descriptions alone,  these events are as interesting, if not more so, than the content of most mainstream news producers. All of these events also have a potentially much larger audience than just those who could be alerted to the event by a press release, a direct email to established audiences or by the old-fashioned AP datebook.

The utility of LiveMatrix for nonprofits and foundations comes down to the site’s demographics and reach.  If they can show that they have traction in reaching so-called “influentials,” it would seem like a no-brainer to plug into.

Given that the site is in beta, it is really hard to predict the future size and demographics of its future audience and how useful the site might be for nonprofits and foundations hosting live events.  It could be the new YouTube, only organized better.  Nonprofits and foundations getting into it early could be among the first to establish channels that get traction and a large following.  There’s lots of potential there and a foundation that is producing lots of content like Kaiser Health News could really make a big splash with it if it takes off.

Just with any technological innovations, there are lots of questions about how useful this new resource will be.  I’m looking forward to updating this post as LiveMatrix moves past its beta stage and begins to market the service broadly.

This is the first in what is to be a series of posts for Communications Network, and appeared originally on its site.  It is also appearing on the Foundation Center site.

I just read an interesting case study about how to engender more substantial media coverage of foundation activities and it helped me think more deeply about both the challenges and potential for helping reporters see that there is a story that goes beyond ”x foundation gave x dollars to do x.”

The case study was written by Theodora Lurie for the Philanthropy Awareness Initiative, as part of its ongoing work with foundations and philanthropy associations to improve communications and outreach to influential Americans.  In the first of what PAI calls its “Moving Beyond the Money” series, Lurie presents an example of a successful foundation effort to garner news coverage that “conveys a broader vision of how foundations make a difference – and identif[ies] the strategies that brought such coverage about.”

It is a short, engaging read that highlights the communications efforts of the Ford Foundation around the announcement of its $50 million program related investment (PRI) in the National Community Stabilization Trust. The large low-interest loan to the Trust will be used to acquire and renovate houses, which will then be sold to moderate and low-income buyers.

The large dollar amount of the Ford investment was probably enough to get the attention of many journalists.  But Ford took advantage of the opportunity to use the attention-grabbing announcement – in May 2009 when the U.S. real estate market was still spiraling downward and the problem of empty houses adding to blight in neighborhoods had many Americans worried – to go beyond the dollars and speak more broadly about Ford’s long-term work in this program area, the potential societal impact of the investment and the nimble, experimental role foundations can play in solving complex problems.

Halfway through reading the case study it occurred to me that only two stories in outlets that have a particularly sophisticated audience (The Wall Street Journaland National Public Radio) might seem like not a particularly stellar achievement if the idea is to communicate the role of foundations to a broader swath of influential Americans. But the amount of coverage (which may be more extensive than the two pieces discussed in the case study) and the composition of the two outlets’ target audience aren’t really the point of the case study.  The point is about how foundations should take more responsibility for – and can find success in – getting more substance into media reports on philanthropy. The case study provides details on how Ford Foundation staff pursued its communications strategy for the PRI announcement and how its well-crafted messages resulted in stories that, though brief, effectively illustrated the foundation’s role as a creative, knowledgeable and influential shaper of societal change – not just a “grant maker.”

The case study makes clear that “there are opportunities to help shape coverage if you prepare well, crystallize your key message points, and train staff who will be speaking with reporters to stay on message. It also helps to get a credible outside endorsement of the value of a grant or project.”

This wise counsel reminded me of a July 2006 opinion piece by Grant Oliphant and Bruce Trachtenberg in The Chronicle of Philanthropy titled “Let’s Not Focus Simply on Size of Buffett’s Gift.” In that piece, the authors, president of the Pittsburgh Foundation and Network executive director, respectively, advised, “when foundations announce that they are supporting new efforts, their news releases should routinely be more explicit about the goals, expected achievements, what success will look like, and when they will be able to demonstrate whether that effort is working (or not). By doing that, reporters might be encouraged to focus more on the potential results of a grant, rather than the fact (or size) of the award itself to the exclusion of all else.”

I am quite interested to read the next in the “Moving Beyond the Money” series. This first one got me thinking about the actual process of harvesting more substantial coverage of foundation impact.  Of course, for foundations to really do this, they need to seed the field with clear statements on medium- and long-term objectives of the projects they support, and take some risks in saying specifically how success will be judged.