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.

The January 2011 meeting of Public Policy Communicators NYC focused on Evaluating New Media Effectiveness – What are the best ways to measure and track the impact of new media efforts?

PPC-NYC member and Fenton Chief Strategy Officer Lisa Witter is a widely recognized leader in helping nonprofit and foundation communicators think through how to take full advantage of social media and systematically collect data providing guideposts to this largely uncharted territory.  She and her Fenton colleagues John Gordon, Hugh McMullen and Julie Leung lead our discussion.

A quick show of hands indicated that almost everyone in the crowd of 50 communications professionals was on Facebook, Twitter and/or YouTube (not surprising given the topic at hand).  But then Witter showed a slide featuring the logos of dozens of other social media that one could be using, some of which are gaining considerable traction in key segments of the general public.  So the first set of questions was, “Why are you using the social media you are? Are you using certain tools because you think you should? Or are you using the tools to achieve specific goals?”

GOALS SHOULD DRIVE TACTICS, not the other way around.

In traditional media relations efforts you don’t send out a stream of press releases every month with nothing particularly insightful to say or any specific audience in mind to say it to. So it is with new media.  Communicators need to start by establishing clarity about the audiences they are trying to reach and what mechanisms those audiences use to get their information.  But the big difference with social media is, of course, that it is not a one-way broadcast mechanism.  These tools are equally, and perhaps more valuably, about listening to audiences and involving them in fulfilling your organizational mission.

One of the main early points of the Fenton team’s presentation was this: Whereas in the past nonprofits were looked to as the “hero” who would save the day in solving social problems and communications reflected that position, now social media is shifting the “hero” status to normal people – and nonprofits must show leadership by engaging followers, fans and friends to participate in addressing societal challenges. Our social media communications and the metrics we use to assess those efforts must reflect the new reality. Therefore, the depth of social media assessment metrics should equal the depth of engagement with your audiences though these channels.

The New Metrics: See, Say, Feel, Do

In traditional media relations efforts we are starting to talk less about the number of reports we print and the number of “media hits” we get as authentic indicators of effectiveness. Instead, thoughtful communications pros are focusing on how effective we are at changing the direction of public conversation. This is also true for new media metrics.

“See” Metrics. The Fenton team first talked about a kind of metrics that I tend to think of as new “old school” ways of measuring social media effectiveness.  “See” metrics track how many followers, friends, fans and subscribers you have, how many page views you get, etc. These measures, like traditional impression and circulation figures in media relations, are all about potential. “See” metrics, say the Fenton team, are a measure of reach, but they are not a measure of success.

“Say” Metrics. This second level of measuring social media focuses on message acceptance.  It looks at things like how many Re-Tweets your messages get, how many “likes” you get, how many of your advocacy emails get forwarded, etc. “Say” metrics are a good indication of messaging success and affinity for your organization or cause.  They are critical to extending your reach and influence.  However, they are still not a true measure of influence.

“Feel” Metrics. This level of metrics gets at the degree to which your messages are being picked up and “remixed” by the public with their own thoughts and feelings.  These include things like Re-Tweets with personalization, posting of your information on Facebook pages with personalized messages, blog posts that pick up your information and comment on it and forwarded advocacy emails that add to your original message. The Fenton team says that “Feel” metrics are a true indication of influence and affinity, and a goldmine for insights on messaging development and identification.  However, “Feel” metrics require significant research and human interpretation – they’re not simplistic numbers.

“Do” Metrics. This is really the ultimate level of measuring new media impact, and certainly the ones that have proven the most elusive for most nonprofits and foundations. These measure how many people have been driven by social media interactions to do things like volunteer, donate, take action, sign up, attend events, send letters, etc. These metrics really indicate the degree to which your social media efforts have helped bring people into the public conversation.  Most of your social media efforts, say the Fenton team, should be focused on serving the Doers. You should use social media tools to be useful, to be relevant and to be social.  But “Do” metrics are not the end of the line.

How do you use social media to serve Doers?

Influence is the holy grail of social media. Influence determines whether people say and feel and do the things you want them to.

You want to build influence with staff, members, volunteers, media and policy makers as well as target audiences within the public. The key to influence: BE USEFUL. Useful is not just having a worthy mission, but giving the audience the information, tools and resources that allow them to carry your mission forward.

According to the Fenton team, content drives influence.  That’s why your expertise (and I would add your opinion), stories and data are more important than ever.  But that’s not to say you should be yelling all you know all day and expect to get traction in social media.

The Fenton team made the good point that social media is sort of like a party. Who do you want a party?  A person who stands up and screams his opinion and makes everyone miserable?  Or a “cool DJ,” who is knowledgeable to start with, but listens to what people want to hear, responds to the feelings of the crowd and gives their audience what they can really groove to. To be a cool DJ, your organization has to establish a system for creating an authentic loop that starts with listening, then sharing what you have, creating new works based on what you have and what you’re hearing, promoting the thinking and products of fellow creatives, and feeding back into the loop by listening to what your hear.

These are the specifics they provided on the “Cool DJ” loop approach:

LISTEN to what people are talking about on blogs, social media, and Old Media
SHARE interesting and useful content you find with your audiences
CREATE something interesting – an opinionated blog post, video, or graphic
PROMOTE content appropriately to bloggers or websites

Fenton then used a brief case study on American Jewish World Service to show just how this “Cool DJ” approach can play out for a nonprofit. They detailed exactly how AJWS listened to a controversial discussion involving Monsanto occurring online, then simply added to the conversation by taking what they knew and adding some pointed questions to Monsanto.  Their “creation” was essentially a simple remix, but they used AJWS’s expertise on the subject to enter the conversation and followed it through on a variety of channels, eventually resulting in their contribution to the discussion being widely disseminated and editorialized on a diverse array of sites, and forced Monsanto to issue an official response.  This single piece of content led to an increase in Twitter followers up by 100, retweets and mentions up from 11 to 63 from the previous month, Facebook fans increased by 60, engagement up 50% from previous month, increased ‘footprint’ – at least 27 more AJWS blog posts outside the site than before, and at least 1,000 clicks to AJWS advocacy forums from blog posts and social media engagement. See more details on the case study in the Fenton presentation, click here.

The Fenton team then gave some additional tips, like using very specific hashtags on Twitter, responding quickly to posts and queries from followers with useful information, and making sure that you’re not treating Facebook and Twitter audiences the same and posting monotonous information.

The Importance of Monitoring

One of the key points during the conversation was the importance of daily monitoring of what is being said about your organization, the topics of concern to your organization and what other key thought leaders on your topic are saying.  “You need to be listening to the conversation before you jump in and start talking.” On Twitter especially you need to weave your messages into the existing conversations to maximize influence. It was noted that Google Reader is one of the most important and powerful tools for monitoring what is going on across the internet/social media. The Fenton team provided an exceedingly valuable list* of listening and tracking sites that I am sure many PPC members will be checking out if they haven’t already.

Questions had been asked by the group throughout the presentation, but as the Q&A took off, it became clear that there were many questions about how to staff this kind of effort and what, if anything, could be moved down on the workload priority list to do this kind of measurement and social media monitoring.

Witter had noted early on that a recent Pew report indicates that social media is changing the way people live their lives, interact with others and receive information, and that our new communication practice simply needs to reflect that.

Some of the other practical tips that came out during the Q&A included:

-Don’t have a bunch of “logos” talking on behalf of your organization. It’s better to have just one “logo”/organizational Twitter feed and then empower many individuals in your organization to Tweet what they know and care about.

-Social media is the crisis communications professional’s best friend – but you have to be in it and active in conversation before crisis hits.

-If you are still doing lots of press releases, it may not be the best use of your time.  Sure, the process of honing a message and creating a short, effective headline continues to be extremely valuable, but actual press releases are antiquated and annoy many journalists.

-Look for ways to use social media to reward and reinforce your audience’s actions.

-Even though you get 140 characters on Twitter, it’s best to aim for 90 characters and a shortened URL so that followers have room to Re-Tweet with personalized additions.

-Blog posts are in some ways more effective in social media than video because followers really can’t chop up and talk through video as they can with your blog posts.

-It is very important to follow the reporters who cover your issues.

As is usually the case with PPC sessions, the conversation could have spilled over into several more hours and many were left wanting more.  Alas, we’ll have to pick up the conversation another day (or on Twitter, Facebook and other new media!)

*Fenton’s recommended sites for Listening & Tracking:

Google Alerts: Collects the daily, weekly or monthly mentions of particular keywords. You can receive these alerts in your email inbox or through your Google Reader.

Social Mention: Measures the social media traction of a topic or keyword.

Compete.com: Provides ballpark estimates on the traffic of popular sites.

Google Adwords/Keyword: Tests the popularity of your keywords, finds alternative keywords that may be more popular and make your content more SEO-friendly.

WTHashtag: Provides definitions for and measures the tracking of a hashtag.

Google Trends: Tracks trending topics by country, city and language and finds the articles that are driving interest. Searches for relative popularity of your issue or organization and compares it to other issues or organizations.

YourOpenBook.org: Searches Facebook for conversations on any topic.

Blekko: A search engine that helps you cut through the noise and find the most relevant information.

Netvibes: Collects the feeds of multiple blogs/sites and displays them in a dashboard format for easy reading.

Topsy: Tracks the flow of content across the Twitterverse.  Good way to find influentials.

Bit.ly [or J.mp]: A URL shortener site that also measures number of clicks, where people are clicking through and conversations around the site.

Google Analytics: Tracks traffic levels, its increase, traffic sources, trafficked key terms and/or phrases.

Feedburner: Measures the number of RSS and e-mail subscribers.

Tweetburner: Tracks the number of clicks on the links that you send out via Twitter, also shows how active your Twitter followers are with your content.

The subject that edged out the others and will be the focus of our January 24, 2001 meeting will be:

Evaluating New Media Effectiveness – What are the best ways to measure and track the impact of new media efforts?

Like many of you, I ventured into worlds of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube a few years ago to advance my organization’s voice.  Since then, we’ve learned that social media isn’t just a new way to distribute press releases, but an immensely valuable set of tools for listening to multiple audiences and potentially advancing programmatic goals. But while everyone seems to agree that communicators need to be using new media, few seem to have a handle on what constitutes success and how to figure out if you’re doing it well.

PPC-NYC member and Fenton Communications Chief Strategy Officer Lisa Witter is a widely recognized leader in helping nonprofit and foundation communicators think through how to take full advantage of social media and systematically collect data providing guideposts to this largely uncharted territory.  She an her Fenton colleague John Gordon will walk as through a discussion that I expect will help us all bring more clarity, confidence and efficiency to our new media efforts.

Here are the specifics on the next meeting:

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

When:              Monday, January 24, 2011; 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:              Evaluating New Media Effectiveness. Lisa Witter and John Gordon of Fenton Communications will lead off the discussion.

RSVP:            Space is limited and our last several sessions had waiting lists, so please let me know that you are coming by emailing me at mremaley [at] ppcnyc [dot] org

Lisa Witter is a social entrepreneur, communications strategist, author, blogger and social commentator with deep expertise in the not-for-profit field, philanthropy, politics, women’s issues, health, social marketing, new media, international development, corporate social responsibility, and leveraging pop culture for social change. In 2010 she was named one the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders. As chief strategy officer of Fenton, the largest public interest communications firm in the country, she heads-up the firm’s work in innovation and co-leads the practices in women’s issues, health, social entrepreneurship and global affairs.

John Gordon is Fenton’s Vice President of Digital and has been an innovator in online engagement for over 15 years, with extensive experience developing integrated communications and marketing strategies for not-for-profits, political candidates and socially-minded businesses. Gordon was formerly the director of new media at Spitfire Strategies, where he helped clients such as the Hewlett Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Joint Ocean Commission use new media to drive supporters, win campaigns and build capacity. While at Spitfire, Gordon worked with the President of the firm to develop a comprehensive step-by-step guidebook to help non-profits plan public policy, advocacy, and social marketing campaigns.

We would like to again thank all of the wonderful folks at the Ford Foundation – and especially PPC-NYC regular attendees Fiona Guthrie and Alfred Ironside – for helping make this learning series happen.  They’ve been exceptionally supportive and we are extremely grateful. Also, the Communications Network’s Bruce Trachtenberg has been essential to this organization’s success from the very beginning.

I hope to see you on January 24.

The September 2010 meeting of Public Policy Communicators NYC focused on “Communications Integration.” We examined what are some of the best methods and technologies to coordinate communications efforts so that work flow and content for websites, e-newsletters and social media are seamless and but not repetitive.  We had thoughtful presentations from systems experts representing Convio, Blackbaud and Network for Good, on streamlining marketing and communications efforts, which was followed by 45 minutes of Q&A that brought forth many great inquiries from PPC attendees.

In preparing for the session, we had asked each of the presenters to cover the same basic territory but from their own perspectives.  We asked them to:

-       Define the key terms that are often thrown around (i.e. CRM)
-       Talk generally about the range of options that are out there for bringing more efficiency and effectiveness to communications efforts (not just “donate now” functions, but online community building, functions that assist in advocacy and guide constituencies to action, ticketing/events management online, etc.)
-       Talk about how new technologies and services can help organizations better coordinate their social networking efforts and help save time
-       Quickly note the services their companies offer that can help get the job done

First up, Blackbaud’s Brooks Matthews and his colleague Jeff O’Toole.
(Contact Brooks at: 843.343.9442 or brooks.matthews@blackbaud.com)

The Blackbuad team emphasized something they called “TrueCRM” v. basic CRM.  There are lots of Customer Relationship Management systems out there, but TrueCRM is a system like Blackbaud’s that provides real-time data flow between your organization’s website and your CRM system so that there are seamless connections that thread your online information exchanges, email marketing, web content management and web strategy. This kind of “TrueCRM” system should ideally also be woven together with the organization’s utilization of data analytics, fundraising, relationship cultivation, membership development, events management, donor cultivation, advocacy and direct mail.

From Blackbaud’s perspective, there are 5 Key Components of Effective Communications:

1. Integrating online and offline communications systems
2. Learning about your supporters’ communications preferences
3. Targeting and personalizing all communications
4. Reporting on communications outcomes, which is key to determining future strategy
5. Diversifying communications methods.

Many organizations have their information in separate silos, Matthews said, and this is a big challenge for them.  In talking about the first point, O’Toole showed a screen-shot of a Blackbaud client’s database interface.  It showed over a dozen tabs that allowed the user to slice and dice data about an individual’s interactions with the nonprofit.  These tabs included: bio, addresses, salutations/affiliations (etc.), relationships, appeals, notes, gifts, attributes, media, actions, honor/memorial, prospect and NetCommunity. As O’Toole talked about a typical communicator’s needs around information integration, he showed how the system allowed the user to see in real-time exactly what kind of information the individual had received, how they had responded to the information (if at all) and how the individual was interacting with the organization through a variety of media.

As Blackbaud proceeded through its presentation, they showed how their system could be used to personalize messages to targeted audiences and to develop a better understanding of how messages are received.  They emphasized the importance of having a system that allows the organization to easily create reports on data flow and constituent response – not just whether or not certain pieces of communications had moved individuals to make donations, but whether or not they had shared information with others or taken other actions that are important to organizations trying to spread their messages beyond their established constituencies.  They finished their presentation with a short discussion of how their system could be used to track and utilize information about the organization’s social network viewers on sites like Facebook and YouTube.

Next up, Convio’s Christian Varano.
(Contact Christian at: 570.573.4659 or cvarano@convio.com)

In Convio’s presentation Christian first talked about how most organizations maintain several systems for tracking information, but which aren’t integrated.  These include a basic CRM or other donor management database, a direct mail database, a CMS system for managing website information, an email point tool, separate online fundraising tools, a system for managing an online store, an ERP/Finance/GL system, and an events tool.  An integrated system, such as one that could be provided by Convio, can tie all of those systems together to help build relationships and drive response rates higher. An integrated communications system recognizes key linkages with fundraising and other functions. It helps the organizations segment by demographics, by issue or by other chosen variables. And this ability to easily manage data is key to crafting and sending communications messages that build relationships.

One Convio slide showed a quote that many nonprofits may have heard on more than one occasion: “I only hear from them when they want money,” said the annoyed donor.  Convio’s presentation emphasized that an integrated communications system pulls information from online marketing elements (such as online fundraising, advocacy, e-commerce, peer-to-peer networks and special events) as well as offline marketing elements (such as campaigns, traditional fundraising, volunteer management, contact management and events) to form a fuller picture that can be viewed from many angles, as well as from either 1,000 feet up or the microscopic level.

Varano said that most clients come to Convio with a scattered set of existing systems that have grown up as technology evolved. He said Convio strives to create “holistic platform” solutions that help organizations personalize communications and establish ongoing dialogue with constituencies. These platforms also help organizations avoid spamming their audiences, which is the frequent result of messages coming out of an organization’s many communications silos.

He finished by noting that Convio’s platforms are based on open technology systems, which is important in a technology environment where the popular modes of communications are always changing.  Facebook, Twitter and YouTube may be popular today, he said, but who knows how folks will be communicating in the future and Convio’s open systems will allow for greater flexibility and change in the future.

Our third presenter was Network for Good’s Rebecca Higman
(Contact Rebecca at: 240.223.2648 or rebecca.higman@networkforgood.org)

Rebecca started by noting that Network for Good has a particularly rich understanding of the needs of nonprofits because it is one itself.  She then moved to the core of her presentation that emphasized that the point of communications integration is not to play with fancy software, but to bring greater efficiency AND effectiveness to one’s efforts.  She said that there are lots of new ways to communicate that some might not even know are options that can be integrated, such as tell-a-friend tools, share links (through social media) and online tools for tracking, reporting, “receipting,” donation pages, email outreach, online events, donor databases and more.  All of which can be coordinated with Network for Good systems. NFG has three systems – DonateNow, EmailNow powered by Emma and EventNow powered by givezooks – which can be used together or separately.

From Network for Good’s perspective, the bare essentials of an effective communications effort include:

-       A well-branded, easy to use website
-       The ability to process secure donations
-       An email campaign tool that complies with federal anti-spam laws (this was necessity that Higman emphasized as particularly important)
-       A website analytics tool
-       Great follow-up for online donors and supporters
-       Smooth integration of online and offline efforts
-       Regular reporting on all communications efforts so you can learn and correct as you go.

She said that it was possible for an organization to cobble all those things together, but a system like Network for Good’s makes it very easy and less likely that any of the pieces will fall through the cracks.

Higman moved beyond talking about just the systems, which were not dissimilar to those of the other presenters, to provide several helpful hints for communications and marketing efforts.  One that many meeting participants seemed to jot down was this: Donation appeals should go out at a 1:3 ratio. To avoid sounding like you’re always asking for money, your nonprofit should send at least 3 messages providing news, updates and program information for every one email that asks for a donation.

The Network for Good PowerPoint presentation also included “10 Ways to Amp Up Your Website,” “11 Ways to Amp Up Your Donate Page” and “9 Ways to Amp Up your Email Outreach.”  She also talked about ways of focusing on “superstars” within your constituencies – the 5 percent or so who are the most engaged and active – to help make your organizations case.  Higman gave several examples of how Network for Good’s services can help in that regard, including a brief overview of how it is helping organizations integrate its social network efforts with their other methods of communicating and developing stronger relationships.

The three presenters fielded questions for the next 45 minutes, which yielded rich insights.  One question was about whether or not any of the systems allowed users to integrate information from external media databases nonprofits and foundations commonly use such as Cision, Vocus and Burrelles/Luce. The general consensus from the presenters was that one could download information from those systems and import the information into the organization’s central CRM system, but keeping that information current would be a challenge. And, the nature of communications to media people is generally so different and separate that it didn’t seem to warrant the effort to integrate that information.

Several questions revolved around whether or not organizations subscribing to these integrated systems were expected to ditch all of their existing databases and move all of their information into new systems.  The presenters generally agreed that, while having all data under one unified system might be ideal, it is quite common for organizations to be attached to certain components of their existing systems, but that the new functionality can often be brought in piece by piece to work with existing systems.  Convio’s Varano said, “real integration in one system, that’s the nirvana, but it’s not the reality for most organizations.”

A strong attachment to existing systems and a desire to not “waste” resources that had already been spent on them was a strong undercurrent.  The presenters emphasized that it need not be an all-or-nothing scenario. For most organizations, the presenters seemed to agree, integrating donor databases with a high-functioning email program is the absolute barest necessity. If an organization were to embark on a truly comprehensive effort to work with a firm to design an optimally functioning system that integrates all of the functions discussed over the course of the presentations, it would probably take about nine months from beginning to end. There are a lot of questions to be asked over the course of such a project, but in the end, those answers and the process can dramatically sharpen the organization’s communications efforts.

We promised to make the speakers’ PowerPoint presentations available online.  However, our WordPress-based website won’t allow that much data on a page. So, if you would like to view any of the 3 presentation, please email mremaley [at] ppcnyc [dot] org to request a copy.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

—-

We usually end our PPC sessions by distributing a short survey on possible topics for future meetings.  Since previous surveys indicated a strong interest in the topic of “What Goes Into an Effective Annual Communications Plan?” that will be the topic for our November meeting. I ended the meeting by soliciting recommendations from the group on any potential discussion leaders for that topic. More recommendations are welcome.

We again live-tweeted the session from our official Twitter account: @PPCNYC.  If you can’t make it out of the office to the next PPC, follow along via Twitter!

Thanks again to all of our presenters for providing a GPS for this challenging communications integration terrain and to all the great PPC members who came and made the discussion so worthwhile.

The folks at the blog Nonprofit Tech 2.0, A Social Media Guide for Nonprofits have written a very helpful blog post on this topic that I would like to recommend.  Titled “HOW TO: Effectively Manage Hate and Anger on Social Media Sites,” the post provides important insights and concrete advice on how to manage social media applications to address gross negativity and hate speech.

Here is some thinking about offensive “contributors” from the post…

These folks are rare, but they sadly exist. They are not interested in discussing the issues. They only join your page to rant and incite. They want a fight. The more people argue with them, the more active they will get on your page. Not only will they bring you down, they will bring the entire community down. I can’t stress that enough. Giving such a person their freedom of hate speech will ruin it for the rest of your community. More people are reading your Status Updates on Facebook than you might think (I have discovered). The vast majority are silent.

When asked, your fans want you to block the haters and racists because at a certain point your fans become so disgusted that they disengage from the Page to avoid seeing the hate. Out of 8,600 fans, I have now had to block a little more than 30. They were blocked for either really foul, hateful language full of 4-letter words, for uploading obviously racist images, or for being repeat offenders

The post goes on to give exact instructions on how to deal with those sorts of people on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace and your own blog.  It also suggests posting “community guidelines” to your online sites and provides a link to an example.

It is a very thoughtful post and essential, quick reading for anyone who is managing an organization’s online presence and monitoring online discussion.

The topic of the day was “How to Use Low-Cost Multi-Media to Maximal Effect,” which was chosen by members at the last PPC meeting before we went on hiatus. While many of our meetings rely simply on the experiences of our own members, this time we had an expert (even though she insisted that I not call her that) to help us think through the topic: Susan Herr, President of PhilanthroMedia.

Susan started with the core point that thinking about what is “low cost” should take a step back from the costs of relatively inexpensive items like video cameras and video editing software, and look more broadly at the many other cost elements associated with producing good multi-media.

Using the example of her work organizing the “Gorilla Engagement Squad” at The Communications Network annual conference, she talked about how inexperienced and experienced camerapersons using Flip Cams and Tweeters could use inexpensive technologies in combination to extend the reach of a conference outside those present, as well as develop relationships among those on-site. But she made clear that the real cost was not the video cameras, etc., but the human resources to plan the video capture strategy, corralling interviewers and interviewees, and putting the pieces together into a compelling story.  It takes a lot of time (and someone fairly experienced in pulling it all together). This link features some of the participants in that effort talking about how it worked: Gorilla Engagement Squad 2009 http://vimeo.com/8174186

Then she talked about Video Skype and using it to produce “Diavlogs,” which, for the uninitiated, are essentially synched video of two people doing an interview showing both on-screen (usually from separate remote locations). The point here was that doing interviews and putting them up online is exceptionally easy and a potentially great way to share ideas/information in a conversational format. But just like any other interview – it has to be interesting to the audience!  Two people talking is easy to produce, but to get people to watch, there has to be great content, on both the interview and interviewee sides.  Here is a link to some examples of diavlogs: Beyond Branding http://vimeo.com/8265230

Next, she explored an example where she herself was a one-person camera crew, working for the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, gathering footage for an effort to get Presidential candidates focused on urban issues.  As an admittedly only “moderately” experienced camera person and interviewer, but having access to a really well-connected producer and experienced logistical coordinator, she was able to interview 10 mayors of major American cities about the challenges facing urban centers and use that footage to produce a compelling, cohesive message, which was picked up by The Nation, netroots bloggers and many well-trafficked .org sites.  The point here was how key a well-connected producer and logistical-coordinator were, not the expense of the technology and other aspects of “video production.”

Finally, she showed a new website that she has created as an example of how easy it is to do man/woman-on-the-street interviews on a Flip Cam, along with Flickr to host picture slide shows.  She also talked about the social networking aspect (in this case Facebook) of quickly building an audience when you have simple but compelling content.  This is the site (which is based on a $69 template) that she used as an example: http://www.dapperq.com/

As we opened the conversation up to the group, I added a few thoughts of my own.  First, I made the point that, while everyone wants to produce a “message” video that is witty and gets people’s attention so much so that it goes VIRAL and everyone is convinced of your point, there are lots of other possible uses of video.

This is a classic example of a “message” video (we didn’t show it at the meeting because the video didn’t show well on the projection screen): Lost Generation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E2fAWM6rA&feature=player_embedded

But you can do lots of other stuff with videos and other forms of multi-media, like…

–Highlighting organizational programs showing the programs in action.  Here’s a great teaser from the Anaheim Ballet that meeting participants loved: Anaheim Ballet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2XmRzaCFFY&feature=player_embedded  This is obviously great for arts organizations, but you can do it with panel discussions and other events relevant to policy-related organizations.

–Using multi-media to extend the reach of conferences/panel discussions, etc. (i.e. Philanthromedia’s work on Comnet09, Public Agenda’s policy breakfast series online videos, TED Talks)  Here is one example of a Public Agenda video highlighting programming: America\’s Financial Future http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mapR6TK8_Fo&feature=player_embedded

– To tell an organization’s history (for fundraising purposes)

– To take on powerful interests, critique leaders in a witty way

This is one that participant Michael Falco of Pro-Media Communications offered: ABA Showdown http://www.youtube.com/user/ABAShowdown  It is a great example of “taking it to the streets” and then taking the street online to spread virally.  It got a lot of hits.

– “instructional” : telling people what you want them to do and how to do it, for example: The World Sucks: Help it Suck Less http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeAUQslfFP4&feature=player_embedded

– To recruit volunteers For example: Into Darfur: A Young American\’s Journey http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BQcSyG7bOQ&feature=player_embedded

– To sell a policy direction For example: A New Sound: Green For All http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNszFwmSg2Y&feature=player_embedded

The conversation ranged over a lot of territory after that and people talked about their own experiences producing multi-media, including best ways to produce slideshows.  Fenton Communications’ Lisa Witter offered that the organization Duarte is amazing at producing such multi-media slide shows and maintains a blog called “Slide:ology” at http://blog.duarte.com/

She also shared this very inexpensive, provocative video called Milking Cancer http://vimeo.com/6675967 It was produced for $5,000 – which included the actors and editor.

It was noted by several participants that every organization should have a YouTube channel by now, but that Vimeo is also quite valuable because of the cleanliness of the presentation.

Lots of folks offered other examples.  I apologize that I didn’t catch who offered what.  This one is a good example of using lots of forms of media capture and putting it all together on one cohesive piece: MQ2 http://mq2.org/

The conversation ranged across many of the challenges of utilizing multi-media, but several themes kept reoccurring:

1. The importance of investing wisely in human resources, and knowing what you can do in-house and what you need to pay an expert for.

2. The ultimate fact that you need to start with interesting content or a compelling story.  You can throw lots of stuff up on a website, but if it isn’t witty or emotionally compelling, no one is going to watch it.

3. Dissemination is not to be overlooked.  We only touched on this topic, which should perhaps be revisited in a future session.  But we did talk about how the first step of getting something to “go viral” (after producing something interesting) is to start with your core audience and creating incentives for them to re-post and share through social networking sites.

I hope these notes are helpful.  They capture only a small part of what I learned from my colleagues at the session.  Another thing I learned is that I need to have someone dedicated to taking notes at the session.  Next time.

1. The next topic for the January 21 brown-bag lunch of Public Policy Communicators NYC is “using low-cost multi-media to maximal effect” and this seems like a great example. I don’t know how expensive the animation is, but the video is basically a short lecture presented in an especially engaging way.

2. While the message is delivered in somewhat pedantic terms, it is nonetheless concise and compelling.  The video summarizes the core messages of a book that further substantiates the message and a larger website with lots more information on the topic.

3. I think it is worth wondering, however, if 20 minutes is too long for such a piece.  I watched the whole thing through because I was interested in commenting on this here.  But normally I would not take the time to watch an entire 20 minute video on my computer.

I am interested in hearing what others think of this video, both in terms of the content and the utility of the medium.  I look forward to your comments here or when we meet on January 21.