• From 2005 to 2009, newspaper online traffic doubled and digital revenue grew to 6 million. But that hardly offset the losses among newspaper companies of billion in the print side of the business. “Print dollars being replaced by digital dimes,” Waldman characterized the situation.
• Spending in newsrooms on reporting staff dropped by 1/3, to a level not seen since before the early 1970s.
• Coverage of public affairs – especially focusing on courts, schools, legal affairs, state house, education, etc. – has deeply diminished.
• Fewer people cover more (more counties, more beats, more duties—tweet, blog, write, etc.)
• With fewer staff, traditional media have shifted coverage towards more easily reported institutions and reporting “official accounts of events” drawn from press releases.
• Stories that require intensive investigation and longer time-frames – like misuse of tax dollars – are increasingly rare.
• While the volume of local TV news has increased, the quality has arguably diminished, with a greater orientation toward “if it bleeds it leads.” TV news has more coverage of crime and less public affairs.  TV news is not filling the print newspaper gap.
• At the same time, radio, magazines and cable news are all reducing staff.

• Traditional media find partnerships with nonprofits to produce news problematic because they generally assume that nonprofits will apply their own slant and advocacy objectives to any news that is produced.
• Kaiser Health News is a valuable model. But initially, some papers wouldn’t use it because they worried the reporting would tilt towards a specific policy agenda. But it has ultimately come to be seen as legitimate, unbiased news source. Full coverage of health issues from multiple perspectives has been key.
• Other forms of nonprofit journalism need ongoing support in the same funding model as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
• Might traditional journalism outlets be converted to nonprofit status? Could that solve the problem?  No, says Waldman, because most are now owned by private equity firms or in bankruptcy. Those who have stakes want to try to eek out some profit from what they’ve got left, so converting to nonprofit is very unlikely.
• Community foundations might be the logical entities to support community coverage, and some have expressed interest in funding local media. But boards and donors tend to shy from controversy. Perhaps a solution would be to create a larger statewide pool of money to cover local news.
• On the plus side for nonprofits and foundations, traditional public relations strategies are more important than ever because strapped newspapers are using press releases nonprofit staff to find information. They’re also using online search to research issues and often use press releases generated by nonprofits.
• Yes, social media is playing an increasingly important role in how people get their information, but there is also a greater need than ever for filtering of information, and the traditional print media still performs that role to a great degree.
• One way of supporting nonprofit journalism might be to use the money generated from FCC auctions of spectrum.
• Another possibility might be for foundations to support journalism “fellows” at traditional media – so, for example, a foundation would support a fellow to report on education or the environment at a newspaper.  The fellow would be within the supervision of the newspaper but funded in part by the foundation.

• Panel discussions
• Nonpartisan issue guides
• Mobile App versions of issue guides
• White papers/Fact sheets/Issue backgrounders
• Developing a separate (c)(4) to further separate basic operations and political work
• OpEds
• Fact-checking political speech – acting in “truth squad” role/Debunking myths
• Public opinion surveys
• Developing “talking points” among like-minded organizations so that all partners speak with a coordinated voice
• Targeting issue advocacy to geographic areas where key races are taking place
• Issue framing – working to change the terms of debate to favor one’s position, e.g. “Economic Security” rather than “jobs” or “poverty”
• Spokesperson training
• Coalition building
• Creating “Action Briefs” that are essentially just repurposing meeting notes
• Developing compelling stories of people effected by social issues to use in communications
• Disseminating “Take Action” messages to the organization’s constituencies
• Blogging about issues surfacing in election debates
• Creating easily digestible charts and infographics to be used in communications campaigns

1. In your own mind, boil down your article topic to its essence – just a few key words. These are the words with which you will start your research.
2. Start a keyword “glossary.”  This is just so you have a record of your research for future reference, since you will probably want to use certain terms that seem like good prospects many times in the future.  Just create a table (can be in Excel or Google Docs or whatever spreadsheet program you like), and create column headings for “Keywords,” “Competition,” “Global Monthly Searches,” “Local Monthly Searches” and “Comments.”
3. Start your keyword research.  Go to Google Adwords’ keyword tool. Enter in the “Word or phrase” box the key words your article is about and hit “search.” Or, if you are wanting to refine the title and/or metadata for an already existing post on your site, paste the URL into the “website” box and hit “search.” This will bring up a long list of terms associated with your search criteria. This process can also be used when pulling search terms from your competitors’ sites, you simply enter the URL that is similar to your top and hit “search.”
4. Determine which keywords have both high search volume AND low competition. The terms from the search returns you should be most interested in, says Murphy, are those that have “low” competition and high numbers of global monthly searches. (Murphy also noted the term “Longtail Keywords,” which is commonly used to describe these terms.) For those terms that have those indications, click the box on the right for each one and then use the “download” box at the top of the table to download a CSV for Excel file, then just open that up and copy and paste the information into your Glossary for safe keeping and future reference.
5. Put those keywords into practice. Once you have done your keyword search, you not only have a better sense of what are the terms that people search on but also which have relatively little completion in terms of other sites that use those terms. Rework your article title and/or metadata/opening paragraph to give prominence to those terms.

This post originally appeared on the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog.

More and more philanthropic professionals are accepting the idea that their organizations should be transparent and, in part because those who founded the organization took major tax benefits when it was established, have some accountability to the public. Many of our field's big thinkers are making a compelling case that public accountability in philanthropy should be a core value in our work. But when it comes to accountability, what if foundations and the public are talking about entirely different things?

New research from Public Agenda and the Kettering Foundation presents evidence that the public and leaders across many sectors hold strikingly different ideas about what it means to be accountable. The report, "Don't Count Us Out: How an Overreliance on Accountability Could Undermine the Public's Confidence in Schools, Business, Government and More," is based on new public opinion research. It outlines the key dimensions of accountability as the public defines it and contrasts the public's perspective with prevailing leadership views. Although it isn't mentioned in the subtitle, the report explores the ramifications for foundations, too.

For philanthropic professionals, the implications are significant – both for their foundations and the institutions they support. There are several pros and cons in the research for those foundations already committed to transparency and accountability. For those foundations on the fence about accountability, the research reinforces the fact that the public expects institutions to be accountable, but raises questions about just what that means.

There are several key points from the research that philanthropic professionals will want to consider:

Accountability requires ethics.

For foundations, the biggest "pro" in this research is that the public sees accountability first as a dimension of ethics and responsibility.  Foundations – especially those with an orientation toward accountability and transparency – will likely fair well with the public in this regard. On the "con" side, many leaders who see accountability measures as the principal way to ensure that their institutions meet their obligations to the public may be putting too much faith in how much the public values the setting of benchmarks, collecting data, measuring performance, disclosing information, and organizing system-wide reforms. Those mechanisms, while often valuable as management tools, fall far short of relieving the public's most potent concerns, especially their fears about an ethical decline in our society. Foundations that demonstrate they are acting responsibly and ethically will be thought by the public to be accountable more than those that simply talk about benchmarks.

More information does not equal more trust.

Typically, people know almost nothing about specific measures, and they rarely see them as clear-cut evidence of effectiveness. Many Americans are deeply skeptical about the accuracy and importance of quantitative measures. Most are suspicious of the ways in which numbers can be manipulated or tell only half the story. So on the "pro" side, this research is good news for those foundations that have become adept at getting their message out with personal stories of those affected by their programs. For those that are still trying to talk about their impact with lists of grants made and lots of data, the "cons" in this research may be quite jarring. Many members of the public feel confused and overwhelmed by the detailed information flying past them in the name of "disclosure" and "transparency." Many fear they are being manipulated by the complex presentations. More and more statistics do not reassure, so in fact, more information can actually lead to less public trust. It's not that they don't want accountability and information from foundations, but a whole lot of data (without any qualitative context) isn't reassuring to them.

Responsiveness is just as important as benchmarks.

For the public, being able to reach someone who listens to you and treats your ideas and questions respectfully is a fundamental dimension of accountability. This may be the biggest challenge for foundations in this research, since even the most transparent rarely open the door more than a crack to let the general public in to give feedback on the funding programs aimed at them. For most people, not being able to talk to someone is a signal that the institution doesn't genuinely care about those they serve. Foundations are particularly opaque to the public. The message is clear for those in philanthropy and other sectors who may fear being besieged by community input: the public wants a better balance and authentic mechanisms that allow them to be heard. On the "pro" side, those foundations that do seek community input and can demonstrate they are listening will likely be afforded a great deal of public trust. Foundations that rate well on the Foundation Center's Glasspockets measures of transparency, especially those dealing with grantee surveys and grantee feedback, can probably feel some relief that they will likely be considered accountable in the public's eyes.

The public expects to be held accountable, too.

For most Americans, the return to real accountability is not the job of leaders alone. Time and again, people in focus groups spoke about their own responsibilities and the near impossibility of solving problems without a broad base of responsibility at every level of society. Many foundations already get this. Institutions that embrace the idea of a public role in fostering institutional accountability must think creatively and proactively about how typical citizens can contribute their knowledge and actions to fulfill the organization's mission. The report emphasizes that giving people more and more information or giving them more and more choices without truly considering public priorities and concerns is likely to backfire.

The "Don't Count Us Out" report is getting a lot of attention in policy circles. The Washington Post's education columnist Jay Mathews said, "Its message is vital. Accountability is a key word in our national debate… The Public Agenda/Kettering report may have exposed the greatest obstacle to getting our kids the educations they deserve." And The Nonprofit Quarterly said, "The authors suggest that there is one other area that needs equal attention: philanthropy, which they say has 'fewer true accountability mechanisms than any other field.' However, there is one dimension of accountability in which philanthropy may be the strongest: the 'publicly stated moral convictions of its leaders.' How to measure that will, perhaps, be the biggest challenge of all."

For foundation professionals involved in communicating the results of their organizations' work, the first thing to recognize is simply the different orientation of your audience. The second is to understand that people expect more than just statistics and analyses of results to feel that the foundation is indeed accountable. Many foundations are hesitant to allow outsiders to even have easy e-mail access to staff (another Glasspockets transparency measure). So allowing the public to give feedback on the programs that are directed at them may seem like a radical idea to some. Many foundations are already doing grantee surveys and allowing public commentary on their blogs. These are likely to go a long way in engendering trust with the public.

Many foundations have already realized that telling stories is a more effective means of communicating with people than rolling off statistics and spewing facts. When it comes to demonstrating our foundations' accountability, it may be time to consider the idea that bringing the public into the process is as important as enumerating outcomes.

-- Michael Hamill Remaley

by Michael Remaley, HAMILL REMALEY breakthrough communications & Public Policy Communicators – NYC

Among the many important and practical ideas that have stayed with me since last week’s Communications Network conference in Boston, perhaps the most penetrating has been one advanced by Eli Pariser in the first plenary. He spoke stirringly about a range of issues revolving around the themes of his book The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You.  The idea that really struck me was the connection he made between the mutating corporations controlling information and the great food-industrial complex that has had such an immense impact on our lives over the past 60 years.

My friend and colleague Lucas Held also talked about how this idea hit home for him at the conference. Over the past week, as I’ve clicked “like” several times and chosen which stories I wanted to read online, I’ve done so with Eli’s voice in the back of my head.

Pariser’s food/information corollary is brilliant. The comparison of the food industry and the companies controlling our information intake provides an exceedingly useful means of examining the existential conundrums we face in our daily information consumption.

As a hardcore fitness freak, I must admit that I have been condescending and judgmental toward those who are overweight. Even though I know that there are many elements of our system and policies that conspire against those who are overweight – food policy that makes sugars and grains cheap, transportation policies that keep people in cars, family histories that induce unhealthy diets and sedentary living – I still tend to blame individuals for their poor choices.

We now face a similar set of issues and questions around information intake and how we exercise our roles as engaged citizens. If the links you see and the results of your searches are basically the product of your previous explorations, do we have anyone but ourselves to blame for the quality of the information that these companies present us?

The PR flacks of the food industrial complex have for years told us that they simply produce the products that consumers want. But we’ve come to realize that what they have been selling us for more than half a century is not what our bodies need but what provides instant gratification and maximum profit for the companies. Pariser has performed an Upton Sinclair-like service by illuminating the fact that Facebook, Google, Amazon and the other powers of the Algorithm-Industrial-Complex are in a similar position to impact our lives.

In the past week, I’ve been clicking on more political postings, “like”-ing negative stories that I want more people to read and trying to spend less time online looking at items that are merely entertaining. Still, just as with the food industry, I know that my own healthy choices may have little impact on the rest of the world. So the question is, how can we create a system that encourages healthy information consumption and the exercise of active citizenship without limiting or otherwise “censoring” people’s access to LOLcats, TMZ and Ashton Kutcher’s Twitter feed.

I’ve been giving it a lot of thought since I heard Pariser’s message, but I still can’t offer any viable solutions. I suppose the first thing to do, just like the healthy eating/exercise problem, is raise awareness. But looking at our nation’s success in that realm, I’m skeptical of our ability to make progress through awareness alone. Perhaps we need to get the successful anti-smoking campaign people on this issue. I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this.

Earlier this year, the Communications Network published the results of a survey of communications practitioners at foundations across the country.  The survey provides a helpful glimpse of the kind of work foundation communicators do, as well as the challenges they face. But there’s more to the story than the work itself, and to help round out the picture, we’ve started a new feature called A Quick Word With… Over the course of the series, we’ll invite people from different foundations — all sizes and types — to tell us about themselves, their work and where they draw their inspiration.

We kick off the series with Gail Fuller, director of communications, Rockefeller Brothers Fund in New York City.

A recent communications success you’re proud of? Redesign of our Web site, which launched in December.

The target audiences for your communications efforts? Primarily grantees and applicants, with limited media focus. My interest is in highlighting the work of our grantees, and bringing greater awareness to our interests—democratic practice, peacebuilding and sustainable development.

What did you want to be when you grew up? The fanciful side of me thought of being a real-life Jane Marple or Hercule Poirot.  The other side of me, which loves to write, thought I’d become a children’s author. Of those, one I hope to still fulfill.

RBF’s site has many slideshows. Do you find them to be particularly effective? My fascination with slideshows began with The New York  Times’ One in 8 Million slidecasts. I find slidecasts effective and cost-efficient; and a simple way to tell the sometimes complex stories of our work.

Is RBF into new media? With the launch of our new site, we also launched Twitter and Facebook pages. We felt it was important to create an official Facebook page that drives visitors to our Web site. However, Twitter has been our primary social media focus.

Do you do an annual communications plan? When I joined the RBF in 2005, I conducted a communications audit and created a two-year communications plan; and two years later I repeated that process. Having gone through many program reviews and having a much better sense of the Fund, I no longer create a formal annual communications plan. Instead as the yearly RBF goals are set, I develop communications objectives and strategies that help meet those goals.

Your undergraduate major? Speech Communications from Wake Forest University.

Your favorite underappreciated journalist? Amy Goodman comes to mind first. Democracy Now! is a wonderful source for global news.

Does RBF evaluate communications? We conduct surveys with our trustees, staff, grantees, and applicants; and we also participate in the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s perception surveys. As RBF’s first communications director, my job actually evolved from a 2004 CEP survey.

As a major funder of “Democratic Practice,” how does RBF define “public engagement”? We shifted from a goal that focused specifically on civic engagement to strengthening our democracy by looking at the democrat deficits—a decline in civic engagement; reduced participation in the formal institutions of democracy, and declining trust in all institutions, especially institutions of government—that impede us.

Last big improvement made to your Website? Complete Web site redesign in 2010. The additions of moderated comments, a blog, and Twitter link were key steps for the Fund in engaging with our key audiences.

Favorite communications tool more foundation communicators should use? Follow grantees via Twitter. We are able to track real-time news about and from our grantees.

Last nonfiction book you read? The Al Jazeera Effect: How the New Global Media Are Reshaping World Politics. As events unfolded in Egypt, it was interesting to follow Al Jazeera and the greater role international media is playing in informing the world of current events.

Most interesting locale RBF has taken you? South Africa in 2006. It was a wonderful experience, and helped shape the grantee communications work I would later undertake in South Africa and NYC.

Something you learned recently from a communications colleague? I received wonderful advice from colleagues last year on social media that helped shape my report and presentation to the board; and it was the catalyst for moving us forward into the social media realm

RBF ever talked publicly about failure? Yes. Following both CEP grantee surveys—in 2004 and 2010—we shared our results on our Web site; and identified key weaknesses to address.

Got a novel deep down inside you? Yes, and I have several journals with story ideas and characters that have over taken my closet. My next birthday milestone in five years will be 50. Hoping to have made a dent in writing a children’s book—since I missed the milestones at 30 and 40.]]> http://www.ppcnyc.org/2011/09/354/feed/ 0 http://www.ppcnyc.org/2011/08/what-we-learned-making-the-most-of-google-analytics/ http://www.ppcnyc.org/2011/08/what-we-learned-making-the-most-of-google-analytics/#comments Mon, 01 Aug 2011 19:48:11 +0000 Michael Hamill Remaley http://www.ppcnyc.org/?p=345 On Wednesday, July 27, Public Policy Communicators NYC members met to focus on the topic “Making the Most of Google Analytics.”  The session was billed as an opportunity to go beyond the basic mechanics of using this essential tool to how communicators can utilize its functions to better understand target audiences and the messages that appeal to them.  We definitely went beyond Analytics 101 to the next stage of learning, and many came away saying they had lots of new information with which to experiment. Our discussion leader Greg Olson, an AdWords account manager at Google, working out of the Cambridge office and a member of the Google Analytics specialist team that trains and supports this office, was joined by Jai Sen, a digital media strategy consultant who has worked with several PPC-NYC members in developing their online strategies, to extend the scope of the conversation. Olson started with a brief overview to make sure we were all on the same page.  In a show of hands, almost all in the room were using Google Analytics already, almost everyone in the room raised their hands to indicate that they were doing the analytics themselves (as opposed to being fed reports by I.T. staff), but only a small number had gone beyond the basic reports of number of page views for each URL on their site. He said the Google Analytics platform can be used to: -       Measure the engagement of users on the site -       Make marketing campaigns more effective and accountable -       Help determine if the content you’re creating is effective -       Develop better awareness of when and why visitors are entering and leaving your site -       Use Google Analytics to compare response to different versions of content, for example sending two different versions of an email and measuring which one got a better response -       Improve audience interaction with your organization on the site He started by encouraging nonprofits and foundations to take a step back and focus first on their organizations’ objectives and really question how the website is supposed to support the mission of the organization.  He used the example of PPC member Connecticut Health Foundation, which has the mission of improving the health status of everyone in the state by focusing on children’s mental health, health policy and advocacy, oral health and racial and ethnic health disparities.  CT Health Foundation’s Jenn Whinnem added that their primary audiences are grant seekers and health policy professionals in the state who work on those issues.  She said that her organization was happy with the numbers of grant seekers coming to the site and the information they were accessing, but wanted to bring more policy information seekers to the site and extend their time on site.  Olson said that there were many tools associated with Google Analytics that could help in better understanding how they are doing in reaching that objective and how effective the organization’s communications are in contributing to it. Sen agreed with Olson’s point that the most important thing to do is make sure there is a clear discussion of overall communications strategy in order to get to a good plan for measurement. Strategy and measurement should function as a loop, with measurement leading to optimization and vice versa. An analytics snapshot can give an organization a sense of what users are actually consuming, providing insight into where the focus should be on content creation. Olson said that an important step in that process is to really set key performance indicators for the organization’s objectives. Organizations should ask themselves what would be an actual measure of success.  For example with CT Health Foundation, what is the size and scope of the health policy professional community and what numbers or types of those coming to the site would constitute progress? And, since the organization is already happy with the number of grant applicants, the focus of the Google Analytics work would focus on URLs that were NOT associated with the  /grants/how-to-apply/ subdirectory where grant application information resides. The next thing to do, Olson said, was to set defined targets, within a concrete timeframe, for example “to increase page views from ‘information seeker’ visits by X% in the third quarter of this year.” Once your organization has gained clarity about the types and number of visitors you aim to bring to your site and what you want them to do there, you can much better utilize Google Analytics to guide your work. There are four basic categories of questions about visitors and related analytics measures to apply, he said. They are:

1. Where do they come from? -- Traffic sources
2. Where do they spend their time? -- Content reports
3. Are they taking the right actions? -- Goal tracking
4. Is visitor behavior changing? -- Alerts and intelligence

• A 'thank you' page after a user has submitted information through a form. This can track newsletter signups, donation receipts, email list subscriptions, job application forms, or contact forms.
• An 'About us' page
• A particular report, press release, news article or blog post.
• A page that leads visitor to a “contact your congressman” function

• Google Analytics main page: www.google.com/analytics
• Google Analytics blog: www.analytics.blogspot.com
• Google Conversion University: http://www.google.com/support/conversionuniversity/
• Google Analytics in 60 Seconds: YouTube video series with 60-second videos focusing on different applications of Google Analytics. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=85CE2D27BC6FD84B

Earlier this year, the Communications Network published the results of a survey of communications practitioners at foundations across the country.  The survey provides a helpful glimpse of the kind of work foundation communicators do, as well as the challenges they face. But there’s more to the story than the work itself, and to help round out the picture, we’ve started a new feature called A Quick Word With… Over the course of the series, we’ll invite people from different foundations — all sizes and types — to tell us about themselves, their work and where they draw their inspiration.

We kick off the series with Gail Fuller, director of communications, Rockefeller Brothers Fund in New York City.

A recent communications success you’re proud of? Redesign of our Web site, which launched in December.

The target audiences for your communications efforts? Primarily grantees and applicants, with limited media focus. My interest is in highlighting the work of our grantees, and bringing greater awareness to our interests—democratic practice, peacebuilding and sustainable development.

What did you want to be when you grew up? The fanciful side of me thought of being a real-life Jane Marple or Hercule Poirot.  The other side of me, which loves to write, thought I’d become a children’s author. Of those, one I hope to still fulfill.

RBF’s site has many slideshows. Do you find them to be particularly effective? My fascination with slideshows began with The New York  Times’ One in 8 Million slidecasts. I find slidecasts effective and cost-efficient; and a simple way to tell the sometimes complex stories of our work.

Is RBF into new media? With the launch of our new site, we also launched Twitter and Facebook pages. We felt it was important to create an official Facebook page that drives visitors to our Web site. However, Twitter has been our primary social media focus.

Do you do an annual communications plan? When I joined the RBF in 2005, I conducted a communications audit and created a two-year communications plan; and two years later I repeated that process. Having gone through many program reviews and having a much better sense of the Fund, I no longer create a formal annual communications plan. Instead as the yearly RBF goals are set, I develop communications objectives and strategies that help meet those goals.

Your undergraduate major? Speech Communications from Wake Forest University.

Your favorite underappreciated journalist? Amy Goodman comes to mind first. Democracy Now! is a wonderful source for global news.

Does RBF evaluate communications? We conduct surveys with our trustees, staff, grantees, and applicants; and we also participate in the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s perception surveys. As RBF’s first communications director, my job actually evolved from a 2004 CEP survey.

As a major funder of “Democratic Practice,” how does RBF define “public engagement”? We shifted from a goal that focused specifically on civic engagement to strengthening our democracy by looking at the democrat deficits—a decline in civic engagement; reduced participation in the formal institutions of democracy, and declining trust in all institutions, especially institutions of government—that impede us.

Last big improvement made to your Website? Complete Web site redesign in 2010. The additions of moderated comments, a blog, and Twitter link were key steps for the Fund in engaging with our key audiences.

Favorite communications tool more foundation communicators should use? Follow grantees via Twitter. We are able to track real-time news about and from our grantees.

Last nonfiction book you read? The Al Jazeera Effect: How the New Global Media Are Reshaping World Politics. As events unfolded in Egypt, it was interesting to follow Al Jazeera and the greater role international media is playing in informing the world of current events.

Most interesting locale RBF has taken you? South Africa in 2006. It was a wonderful experience, and helped shape the grantee communications work I would later undertake in South Africa and NYC.

Something you learned recently from a communications colleague? I received wonderful advice from colleagues last year on social media that helped shape my report and presentation to the board; and it was the catalyst for moving us forward into the social media realm

RBF ever talked publicly about failure? Yes. Following both CEP grantee surveys—in 2004 and 2010—we shared our results on our Web site; and identified key weaknesses to address.

Got a novel deep down inside you? Yes, and I have several journals with story ideas and characters that have over taken my closet. My next birthday milestone in five years will be 50. Hoping to have made a dent in writing a children’s book—since I missed the milestones at 30 and 40.]]> http://www.ppcnyc.org/2011/09/354/feed/ 0 http://www.ppcnyc.org Nonprofit and Foundation Communications Professionals Asking Questions and Sharing What They Know Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:33:06 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.ppcnyc.org/2012/06/what-we-learned-the-potential-of-nonprofit-journalism/ http://www.ppcnyc.org/2012/06/what-we-learned-the-potential-of-nonprofit-journalism/#comments Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:33:06 +0000 Michael Hamill Remaley http://www.ppcnyc.org/?p=383 On May 15, 2012, PPC-NYC members met to explore the topic “Foundation and Nonprofit Websites as Genuine News Outlets – What are the models, the biggest successes and the possibilities for the future?” Our discussion leader, Steven Waldman, was most recently FCC Senior Advisor to the Chairman and is the author of the report “Information Needs of Communities.” The Dismal State of Journalism The discussion started with Waldman detailing the condition of investigative journalism, community reporting, in-depth issue coverage and the traditional news media in general. Some key facts:

• From 2005 to 2009, newspaper online traffic doubled and digital revenue grew to 6 million. But that hardly offset the losses among newspaper companies of billion in the print side of the business. “Print dollars being replaced by digital dimes,” Waldman characterized the situation.
• Spending in newsrooms on reporting staff dropped by 1/3, to a level not seen since before the early 1970s.
• Coverage of public affairs – especially focusing on courts, schools, legal affairs, state house, education, etc. – has deeply diminished.
• Fewer people cover more (more counties, more beats, more duties—tweet, blog, write, etc.)
• With fewer staff, traditional media have shifted coverage towards more easily reported institutions and reporting “official accounts of events” drawn from press releases.
• Stories that require intensive investigation and longer time-frames – like misuse of tax dollars – are increasingly rare.
• While the volume of local TV news has increased, the quality has arguably diminished, with a greater orientation toward “if it bleeds it leads.” TV news has more coverage of crime and less public affairs.  TV news is not filling the print newspaper gap.
• At the same time, radio, magazines and cable news are all reducing staff.

• Traditional media find partnerships with nonprofits to produce news problematic because they generally assume that nonprofits will apply their own slant and advocacy objectives to any news that is produced.
• Kaiser Health News is a valuable model. But initially, some papers wouldn’t use it because they worried the reporting would tilt towards a specific policy agenda. But it has ultimately come to be seen as legitimate, unbiased news source. Full coverage of health issues from multiple perspectives has been key.
• Other forms of nonprofit journalism need ongoing support in the same funding model as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
• Might traditional journalism outlets be converted to nonprofit status? Could that solve the problem?  No, says Waldman, because most are now owned by private equity firms or in bankruptcy. Those who have stakes want to try to eek out some profit from what they’ve got left, so converting to nonprofit is very unlikely.
• Community foundations might be the logical entities to support community coverage, and some have expressed interest in funding local media. But boards and donors tend to shy from controversy. Perhaps a solution would be to create a larger statewide pool of money to cover local news.
• On the plus side for nonprofits and foundations, traditional public relations strategies are more important than ever because strapped newspapers are using press releases nonprofit staff to find information. They’re also using online search to research issues and often use press releases generated by nonprofits.
• Yes, social media is playing an increasingly important role in how people get their information, but there is also a greater need than ever for filtering of information, and the traditional print media still performs that role to a great degree.
• One way of supporting nonprofit journalism might be to use the money generated from FCC auctions of spectrum.
• Another possibility might be for foundations to support journalism “fellows” at traditional media – so, for example, a foundation would support a fellow to report on education or the environment at a newspaper.  The fellow would be within the supervision of the newspaper but funded in part by the foundation.

• Panel discussions
• Nonpartisan issue guides
• Mobile App versions of issue guides
• White papers/Fact sheets/Issue backgrounders
• Developing a separate (c)(4) to further separate basic operations and political work
• OpEds
• Fact-checking political speech – acting in “truth squad” role/Debunking myths
• Public opinion surveys
• Developing “talking points” among like-minded organizations so that all partners speak with a coordinated voice
• Targeting issue advocacy to geographic areas where key races are taking place
• Issue framing – working to change the terms of debate to favor one’s position, e.g. “Economic Security” rather than “jobs” or “poverty”
• Spokesperson training
• Coalition building
• Creating “Action Briefs” that are essentially just repurposing meeting notes
• Developing compelling stories of people effected by social issues to use in communications
• Disseminating “Take Action” messages to the organization’s constituencies
• Blogging about issues surfacing in election debates
• Creating easily digestible charts and infographics to be used in communications campaigns

1. In your own mind, boil down your article topic to its essence – just a few key words. These are the words with which you will start your research.
2. Start a keyword “glossary.”  This is just so you have a record of your research for future reference, since you will probably want to use certain terms that seem like good prospects many times in the future.  Just create a table (can be in Excel or Google Docs or whatever spreadsheet program you like), and create column headings for “Keywords,” “Competition,” “Global Monthly Searches,” “Local Monthly Searches” and “Comments.”
3. Start your keyword research.  Go to Google Adwords’ keyword tool. Enter in the “Word or phrase” box the key words your article is about and hit “search.” Or, if you are wanting to refine the title and/or metadata for an already existing post on your site, paste the URL into the “website” box and hit “search.” This will bring up a long list of terms associated with your search criteria. This process can also be used when pulling search terms from your competitors’ sites, you simply enter the URL that is similar to your top and hit “search.”
4. Determine which keywords have both high search volume AND low competition. The terms from the search returns you should be most interested in, says Murphy, are those that have “low” competition and high numbers of global monthly searches. (Murphy also noted the term “Longtail Keywords,” which is commonly used to describe these terms.) For those terms that have those indications, click the box on the right for each one and then use the “download” box at the top of the table to download a CSV for Excel file, then just open that up and copy and paste the information into your Glossary for safe keeping and future reference.
5. Put those keywords into practice. Once you have done your keyword search, you not only have a better sense of what are the terms that people search on but also which have relatively little completion in terms of other sites that use those terms. Rework your article title and/or metadata/opening paragraph to give prominence to those terms.

This post originally appeared on the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog.

More and more philanthropic professionals are accepting the idea that their organizations should be transparent and, in part because those who founded the organization took major tax benefits when it was established, have some accountability to the public. Many of our field's big thinkers are making a compelling case that public accountability in philanthropy should be a core value in our work. But when it comes to accountability, what if foundations and the public are talking about entirely different things?

New research from Public Agenda and the Kettering Foundation presents evidence that the public and leaders across many sectors hold strikingly different ideas about what it means to be accountable. The report, "Don't Count Us Out: How an Overreliance on Accountability Could Undermine the Public's Confidence in Schools, Business, Government and More," is based on new public opinion research. It outlines the key dimensions of accountability as the public defines it and contrasts the public's perspective with prevailing leadership views. Although it isn't mentioned in the subtitle, the report explores the ramifications for foundations, too.

For philanthropic professionals, the implications are significant – both for their foundations and the institutions they support. There are several pros and cons in the research for those foundations already committed to transparency and accountability. For those foundations on the fence about accountability, the research reinforces the fact that the public expects institutions to be accountable, but raises questions about just what that means.

There are several key points from the research that philanthropic professionals will want to consider:

Accountability requires ethics.

For foundations, the biggest "pro" in this research is that the public sees accountability first as a dimension of ethics and responsibility.  Foundations – especially those with an orientation toward accountability and transparency – will likely fair well with the public in this regard. On the "con" side, many leaders who see accountability measures as the principal way to ensure that their institutions meet their obligations to the public may be putting too much faith in how much the public values the setting of benchmarks, collecting data, measuring performance, disclosing information, and organizing system-wide reforms. Those mechanisms, while often valuable as management tools, fall far short of relieving the public's most potent concerns, especially their fears about an ethical decline in our society. Foundations that demonstrate they are acting responsibly and ethically will be thought by the public to be accountable more than those that simply talk about benchmarks.

More information does not equal more trust.

Typically, people know almost nothing about specific measures, and they rarely see them as clear-cut evidence of effectiveness. Many Americans are deeply skeptical about the accuracy and importance of quantitative measures. Most are suspicious of the ways in which numbers can be manipulated or tell only half the story. So on the "pro" side, this research is good news for those foundations that have become adept at getting their message out with personal stories of those affected by their programs. For those that are still trying to talk about their impact with lists of grants made and lots of data, the "cons" in this research may be quite jarring. Many members of the public feel confused and overwhelmed by the detailed information flying past them in the name of "disclosure" and "transparency." Many fear they are being manipulated by the complex presentations. More and more statistics do not reassure, so in fact, more information can actually lead to less public trust. It's not that they don't want accountability and information from foundations, but a whole lot of data (without any qualitative context) isn't reassuring to them.

Responsiveness is just as important as benchmarks.

For the public, being able to reach someone who listens to you and treats your ideas and questions respectfully is a fundamental dimension of accountability. This may be the biggest challenge for foundations in this research, since even the most transparent rarely open the door more than a crack to let the general public in to give feedback on the funding programs aimed at them. For most people, not being able to talk to someone is a signal that the institution doesn't genuinely care about those they serve. Foundations are particularly opaque to the public. The message is clear for those in philanthropy and other sectors who may fear being besieged by community input: the public wants a better balance and authentic mechanisms that allow them to be heard. On the "pro" side, those foundations that do seek community input and can demonstrate they are listening will likely be afforded a great deal of public trust. Foundations that rate well on the Foundation Center's Glasspockets measures of transparency, especially those dealing with grantee surveys and grantee feedback, can probably feel some relief that they will likely be considered accountable in the public's eyes.

The public expects to be held accountable, too.

For most Americans, the return to real accountability is not the job of leaders alone. Time and again, people in focus groups spoke about their own responsibilities and the near impossibility of solving problems without a broad base of responsibility at every level of society. Many foundations already get this. Institutions that embrace the idea of a public role in fostering institutional accountability must think creatively and proactively about how typical citizens can contribute their knowledge and actions to fulfill the organization's mission. The report emphasizes that giving people more and more information or giving them more and more choices without truly considering public priorities and concerns is likely to backfire.

The "Don't Count Us Out" report is getting a lot of attention in policy circles. The Washington Post's education columnist Jay Mathews said, "Its message is vital. Accountability is a key word in our national debate… The Public Agenda/Kettering report may have exposed the greatest obstacle to getting our kids the educations they deserve." And The Nonprofit Quarterly said, "The authors suggest that there is one other area that needs equal attention: philanthropy, which they say has 'fewer true accountability mechanisms than any other field.' However, there is one dimension of accountability in which philanthropy may be the strongest: the 'publicly stated moral convictions of its leaders.' How to measure that will, perhaps, be the biggest challenge of all."

For foundation professionals involved in communicating the results of their organizations' work, the first thing to recognize is simply the different orientation of your audience. The second is to understand that people expect more than just statistics and analyses of results to feel that the foundation is indeed accountable. Many foundations are hesitant to allow outsiders to even have easy e-mail access to staff (another Glasspockets transparency measure). So allowing the public to give feedback on the programs that are directed at them may seem like a radical idea to some. Many foundations are already doing grantee surveys and allowing public commentary on their blogs. These are likely to go a long way in engendering trust with the public.

Many foundations have already realized that telling stories is a more effective means of communicating with people than rolling off statistics and spewing facts. When it comes to demonstrating our foundations' accountability, it may be time to consider the idea that bringing the public into the process is as important as enumerating outcomes.

-- Michael Hamill Remaley

by Michael Remaley, HAMILL REMALEY breakthrough communications & Public Policy Communicators – NYC

Among the many important and practical ideas that have stayed with me since last week’s Communications Network conference in Boston, perhaps the most penetrating has been one advanced by Eli Pariser in the first plenary. He spoke stirringly about a range of issues revolving around the themes of his book The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You.  The idea that really struck me was the connection he made between the mutating corporations controlling information and the great food-industrial complex that has had such an immense impact on our lives over the past 60 years.

My friend and colleague Lucas Held also talked about how this idea hit home for him at the conference. Over the past week, as I’ve clicked “like” several times and chosen which stories I wanted to read online, I’ve done so with Eli’s voice in the back of my head.

Pariser’s food/information corollary is brilliant. The comparison of the food industry and the companies controlling our information intake provides an exceedingly useful means of examining the existential conundrums we face in our daily information consumption.

As a hardcore fitness freak, I must admit that I have been condescending and judgmental toward those who are overweight. Even though I know that there are many elements of our system and policies that conspire against those who are overweight – food policy that makes sugars and grains cheap, transportation policies that keep people in cars, family histories that induce unhealthy diets and sedentary living – I still tend to blame individuals for their poor choices.

We now face a similar set of issues and questions around information intake and how we exercise our roles as engaged citizens. If the links you see and the results of your searches are basically the product of your previous explorations, do we have anyone but ourselves to blame for the quality of the information that these companies present us?

The PR flacks of the food industrial complex have for years told us that they simply produce the products that consumers want. But we’ve come to realize that what they have been selling us for more than half a century is not what our bodies need but what provides instant gratification and maximum profit for the companies. Pariser has performed an Upton Sinclair-like service by illuminating the fact that Facebook, Google, Amazon and the other powers of the Algorithm-Industrial-Complex are in a similar position to impact our lives.

In the past week, I’ve been clicking on more political postings, “like”-ing negative stories that I want more people to read and trying to spend less time online looking at items that are merely entertaining. Still, just as with the food industry, I know that my own healthy choices may have little impact on the rest of the world. So the question is, how can we create a system that encourages healthy information consumption and the exercise of active citizenship without limiting or otherwise “censoring” people’s access to LOLcats, TMZ and Ashton Kutcher’s Twitter feed.

I’ve been giving it a lot of thought since I heard Pariser’s message, but I still can’t offer any viable solutions. I suppose the first thing to do, just like the healthy eating/exercise problem, is raise awareness. But looking at our nation’s success in that realm, I’m skeptical of our ability to make progress through awareness alone. Perhaps we need to get the successful anti-smoking campaign people on this issue. I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this.

Earlier this year, the Communications Network published the results of a survey of communications practitioners at foundations across the country.  The survey provides a helpful glimpse of the kind of work foundation communicators do, as well as the challenges they face. But there’s more to the story than the work itself, and to help round out the picture, we’ve started a new feature called A Quick Word With… Over the course of the series, we’ll invite people from different foundations — all sizes and types — to tell us about themselves, their work and where they draw their inspiration.

We kick off the series with Gail Fuller, director of communications, Rockefeller Brothers Fund in New York City.

A recent communications success you’re proud of? Redesign of our Web site, which launched in December.

The target audiences for your communications efforts? Primarily grantees and applicants, with limited media focus. My interest is in highlighting the work of our grantees, and bringing greater awareness to our interests—democratic practice, peacebuilding and sustainable development.

What did you want to be when you grew up? The fanciful side of me thought of being a real-life Jane Marple or Hercule Poirot.  The other side of me, which loves to write, thought I’d become a children’s author. Of those, one I hope to still fulfill.

RBF’s site has many slideshows. Do you find them to be particularly effective? My fascination with slideshows began with The New York  Times’ One in 8 Million slidecasts. I find slidecasts effective and cost-efficient; and a simple way to tell the sometimes complex stories of our work.

Is RBF into new media? With the launch of our new site, we also launched Twitter and Facebook pages. We felt it was important to create an official Facebook page that drives visitors to our Web site. However, Twitter has been our primary social media focus.

Do you do an annual communications plan? When I joined the RBF in 2005, I conducted a communications audit and created a two-year communications plan; and two years later I repeated that process. Having gone through many program reviews and having a much better sense of the Fund, I no longer create a formal annual communications plan. Instead as the yearly RBF goals are set, I develop communications objectives and strategies that help meet those goals.

Your undergraduate major? Speech Communications from Wake Forest University.

Your favorite underappreciated journalist? Amy Goodman comes to mind first. Democracy Now! is a wonderful source for global news.

Does RBF evaluate communications? We conduct surveys with our trustees, staff, grantees, and applicants; and we also participate in the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s perception surveys. As RBF’s first communications director, my job actually evolved from a 2004 CEP survey.

As a major funder of “Democratic Practice,” how does RBF define “public engagement”? We shifted from a goal that focused specifically on civic engagement to strengthening our democracy by looking at the democrat deficits—a decline in civic engagement; reduced participation in the formal institutions of democracy, and declining trust in all institutions, especially institutions of government—that impede us.

Last big improvement made to your Website? Complete Web site redesign in 2010. The additions of moderated comments, a blog, and Twitter link were key steps for the Fund in engaging with our key audiences.

Favorite communications tool more foundation communicators should use? Follow grantees via Twitter. We are able to track real-time news about and from our grantees.

Last nonfiction book you read? The Al Jazeera Effect: How the New Global Media Are Reshaping World Politics. As events unfolded in Egypt, it was interesting to follow Al Jazeera and the greater role international media is playing in informing the world of current events.

Most interesting locale RBF has taken you? South Africa in 2006. It was a wonderful experience, and helped shape the grantee communications work I would later undertake in South Africa and NYC.

Something you learned recently from a communications colleague? I received wonderful advice from colleagues last year on social media that helped shape my report and presentation to the board; and it was the catalyst for moving us forward into the social media realm

RBF ever talked publicly about failure? Yes. Following both CEP grantee surveys—in 2004 and 2010—we shared our results on our Web site; and identified key weaknesses to address.

Got a novel deep down inside you? Yes, and I have several journals with story ideas and characters that have over taken my closet. My next birthday milestone in five years will be 50. Hoping to have made a dent in writing a children’s book—since I missed the milestones at 30 and 40.]]> http://www.ppcnyc.org/2011/09/354/feed/ 0 http://www.ppcnyc.org/2011/08/what-we-learned-making-the-most-of-google-analytics/ http://www.ppcnyc.org/2011/08/what-we-learned-making-the-most-of-google-analytics/#comments Mon, 01 Aug 2011 19:48:11 +0000 Michael Hamill Remaley http://www.ppcnyc.org/?p=345 On Wednesday, July 27, Public Policy Communicators NYC members met to focus on the topic “Making the Most of Google Analytics.”  The session was billed as an opportunity to go beyond the basic mechanics of using this essential tool to how communicators can utilize its functions to better understand target audiences and the messages that appeal to them.  We definitely went beyond Analytics 101 to the next stage of learning, and many came away saying they had lots of new information with which to experiment. Our discussion leader Greg Olson, an AdWords account manager at Google, working out of the Cambridge office and a member of the Google Analytics specialist team that trains and supports this office, was joined by Jai Sen, a digital media strategy consultant who has worked with several PPC-NYC members in developing their online strategies, to extend the scope of the conversation. Olson started with a brief overview to make sure we were all on the same page.  In a show of hands, almost all in the room were using Google Analytics already, almost everyone in the room raised their hands to indicate that they were doing the analytics themselves (as opposed to being fed reports by I.T. staff), but only a small number had gone beyond the basic reports of number of page views for each URL on their site. He said the Google Analytics platform can be used to: -       Measure the engagement of users on the site -       Make marketing campaigns more effective and accountable -       Help determine if the content you’re creating is effective -       Develop better awareness of when and why visitors are entering and leaving your site -       Use Google Analytics to compare response to different versions of content, for example sending two different versions of an email and measuring which one got a better response -       Improve audience interaction with your organization on the site He started by encouraging nonprofits and foundations to take a step back and focus first on their organizations’ objectives and really question how the website is supposed to support the mission of the organization.  He used the example of PPC member Connecticut Health Foundation, which has the mission of improving the health status of everyone in the state by focusing on children’s mental health, health policy and advocacy, oral health and racial and ethnic health disparities.  CT Health Foundation’s Jenn Whinnem added that their primary audiences are grant seekers and health policy professionals in the state who work on those issues.  She said that her organization was happy with the numbers of grant seekers coming to the site and the information they were accessing, but wanted to bring more policy information seekers to the site and extend their time on site.  Olson said that there were many tools associated with Google Analytics that could help in better understanding how they are doing in reaching that objective and how effective the organization’s communications are in contributing to it. Sen agreed with Olson’s point that the most important thing to do is make sure there is a clear discussion of overall communications strategy in order to get to a good plan for measurement. Strategy and measurement should function as a loop, with measurement leading to optimization and vice versa. An analytics snapshot can give an organization a sense of what users are actually consuming, providing insight into where the focus should be on content creation. Olson said that an important step in that process is to really set key performance indicators for the organization’s objectives. Organizations should ask themselves what would be an actual measure of success.  For example with CT Health Foundation, what is the size and scope of the health policy professional community and what numbers or types of those coming to the site would constitute progress? And, since the organization is already happy with the number of grant applicants, the focus of the Google Analytics work would focus on URLs that were NOT associated with the  /grants/how-to-apply/ subdirectory where grant application information resides. The next thing to do, Olson said, was to set defined targets, within a concrete timeframe, for example “to increase page views from ‘information seeker’ visits by X% in the third quarter of this year.” Once your organization has gained clarity about the types and number of visitors you aim to bring to your site and what you want them to do there, you can much better utilize Google Analytics to guide your work. There are four basic categories of questions about visitors and related analytics measures to apply, he said. They are:

1. Where do they come from? -- Traffic sources
2. Where do they spend their time? -- Content reports
3. Are they taking the right actions? -- Goal tracking
4. Is visitor behavior changing? -- Alerts and intelligence

• A 'thank you' page after a user has submitted information through a form. This can track newsletter signups, donation receipts, email list subscriptions, job application forms, or contact forms.
• An 'About us' page
• A particular report, press release, news article or blog post.
• A page that leads visitor to a “contact your congressman” function

• Google Analytics main page: www.google.com/analytics
• Google Analytics blog: www.analytics.blogspot.com
• Google Conversion University: http://www.google.com/support/conversionuniversity/
• Google Analytics in 60 Seconds: YouTube video series with 60-second videos focusing on different applications of Google Analytics. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=85CE2D27BC6FD84B

1. Where do they come from? -- Traffic sources
2. Where do they spend their time? -- Content reports
3. Are they taking the right actions? -- Goal tracking
4. Is visitor behavior changing? -- Alerts and intelligence

• A 'thank you' page after a user has submitted information through a form. This can track newsletter signups, donation receipts, email list subscriptions, job application forms, or contact forms.
• An 'About us' page
• A particular report, press release, news article or blog post.
• A page that leads visitor to a “contact your congressman” function

• Google Analytics main page: www.google.com/analytics
• Google Analytics blog: www.analytics.blogspot.com
• Google Conversion University: http://www.google.com/support/conversionuniversity/
• Google Analytics in 60 Seconds: YouTube video series with 60-second videos focusing on different applications of Google Analytics. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=85CE2D27BC6FD84B