SocialButterfly

The Social Round-Up

Thursday, February 18th, 2010 | The Bulletin | No Comments

I’ve called these round-ups by different names, but the concept is the same–share some of the recent links, resources and info I’ve been reading about social change, social marketing and social media. Now that I’ve finally switched my RSS reader from Bloglines to Google Reader, I find myself there a lot more–even more so than Twitter (gasp). Thus, let’s get on with the show.

******

Social Change

• Industry Forecast: Philanthropy and Social Investing: Blueprint 2010–The great Lucy Bernholz, through her company Blueprint Research & Design and in partnership with Stanford’s Social Innovation Review, recently released “the first ever independent annual industry analysis for philanthropy and social investing.” According to readers, the forecast is full of insights and revelations regarding the business of giving.
• What the World Needs Now–This is a bit of a softer piece, but Mitch Joel of Six Pixels Apart does a great job of inspiring by listing eight areas we should be focusing on and thinking about as we work to change our world for the better. Note: The first item he mentions is that the world needs a “mindshift” — and then points to the happenings in behavioral economics for added insight.
• 5 Ideas Worth Spreading from TED–Nathaniel Whittemore of Change.org’s Social Entrepreneurship Blog is the envy of us all as he got to attend the TED 2010 Conference. If you want to do social change, look at what some of the top thinkers of our time are doing, why they are doing it and how it may influence your own work. From this list, the one that stood out to me was the idea that we need to change our relationship with food. Another, was how Nathaniel describes the moment when Bill Gates spent 18 full minutes publicly sharing his views on climate change.

Social Marketing

• Design Thinking and Behavior Change: The term “design thinking” is everywhere–is anyone else noticing this? So, it comes to no surprise that design thinking meets behavior change thanks to social marketeer Craig Lefebvre who recently put together this helpful 17-slide presentation. Skimming through it alone will get the juices flowing about how disciplines can criss-cross, leading to effective change.
• Authenticity in Corporate Social Responsibility–I know, you’re thinking “CSR is not social marketing.” And you’re right–Social marketing is bigger. However, I include it here because I see CSR as a rising opportunity for social marketing, and Geoff touches on the reason why–authenticity. More companies want to be more intentional and take CSR from something to throw money at to a sustainable, organization-centric value that has impact. Yes, I know “it depends,” but we’ve been keeping the treasures of social marketing in the realms of “just health” for too long. Why couldn’t we take the framework of social marketing and the lessons we’ve learned and apply it to CSR? We can. If it helps, don’t call it CSR. Instead, think of it as more people wanting to do business better.

Social Media and Communications

• 5 Terms that Signify the Future of Mobile Marketing–Ogilvy PR’s Rohit Bhargava shares the five concepts that he thinks will move mobile forward in 2010.
• Buzz vs. Facebook vs. MySpace vs Twitter–Jeremiah Owyang does it again and offers a strong breakdown of these four platforms. It’s the perfect chart that you can pass along to colleagues who want quick yet extensive information on how these platforms relate.
• Can E-Readers and Tablets Save the News?–Not only does this article feature a Missouri J-School Professor (woot-woot!), but the article is deeper than the title suggests. At the heart of it, it talks about online content and digital publishing. Being an e-book reader myself and seeing the expanding number of communication platforms (hello Google Buzz), this article is worth the time to take in and meditate on the value of content and the future role of content vetting and control (via consumers, publishers or media producers).

What about you? What good info have you read lately? Please provide the link in the comments so we can all check it out. Also–if you’re in love with your Google Reader like me, here’s my public profile. Let’s connect.

flickr credit: Benimoto

Tags: authenticity, behavior, buzz, corporate social responsibility, CSR, design thinking, E-Readers, facebook, Google Reader, Mobile Marketing, philanthropy, RSS, RSS reader, social change, social communications, social investing, Social Marketing, Social Media, social platforms, Tablets, TED, twitter

Building a Web Site: Easy as 1, 2 OR 3?

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 | Web Communications | 1 Comment

Today, I heard that fundamentally there are three main purposes of a Web site: 1) informational, 2) transactional and 3) community-based. An Informational Web site is one that is primarily a resource. A transactional Web site has a desired action, which is usually associated with e-commerce. And lastly, a community-based Web site is one that is designed to encourage people to interact, network and share.

I’m not one to put things into boxes and draw hard boundaries, but at first I liked this concept. It’s simple. It’s easy. But, after pondering for a second, I got to thinking: is it relevant? We all know the Web is an evolving beast, which is why I think today’s best Web sites pull the best components from each of these three “types”  to creates a stronger vehicle.

Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t mean that Web sites don’t need to focus. In the world of the Web, I’m seeing the concept of “focusing” becoming increasingly important. For example, these Web sites have focused:

• Wikipedia–Informational
• Amazon–Transactional
• Facebook–Community

But Wikipedia is also a community of editors working together to create a service. Facebook has its own marketplace where transactions are worked out and don’t forget Facebook advertising or monetary exchange through Facebook applications such as Causes. Amazon–though primarily transactional–encourages us to give reviews, rate its products, create gift lists and in essence, build community around the purchases we make. Marinate on that thought for a second and then take this statement into consideration:

Considering current evolutions of the Web and comments such as Shel’s, I’m thinking the text books may need some updating. Web sites still need to focus, but at the same time, they need to add value to the end-consumer, provide products or services or action steps, while also building community. Just take a look around–the sites that we are all using everyday are Web sites that can serve multiple functions. So, get creative. Just because you have a ton of content you have to share, there are ways to not only “inform” people of the content, but also ways to generate actions, make the content interactive and build community. Thus, I answer “all of the above.”

What do you think? What’s your take? Is building a Web site easy as 1, 2, or 3?

flickr credit: Andreanna

Tags: Amazon, community, Community-Based, content, e-commerce, facebook, focus, informational, interactive, online strategy, transactional, web, Web Communications, Web objective, Web site, Web site building, Web strategy, Wikipedia

Your Facebook Professionalism Policy: Balancing Your Relationships On and Off the Clock

Sunday, August 10th, 2008 | Blog Talk, Social Media | 8 Comments

For many Gen-Yers and young professionals, Facebook started out as a social network. Then, high-schoolers were allowed in. Now, understandably, more and more people are joining that range in age - and in relationship to you. Point in case:

• My friend recently helped her mom create a Facebook account.
• Another commented that all her co-workers want her to become a Facebook friend.
• According to Quantcast, in July 208, 46% of Facebook users are 18-34.
• in July 2007, ComScore reported a 181% growth of users ages 25-34, and a 98% growth in users 35+.

Thus, with Facebook going from social status —> professional network, it begs the question, what are the new the rules of thumb for one’s Facebook account? So I asked followers on Twitter. The results:

1. All or nothing. One of the most popular answers was to go all access with everyone. This route shows to your co-workers and professional network that you own who you are. Nothing to hide. Some also responded that this helps increase the office culture and camaraderie.
2. Oil and water don’t mix. It gets murky. Best to keep Facebook separate. One person commented that you can come to know too much about someone and that can distract from business.
3. Go Half and Half. Others answered saying they prefer to keep professional work colleagues and co-workers at bay by using the ‘limited profile’ feature on Facebook. Or, setting privacy settings so only certain friends or groups can see certain applications, photos or the wall.
4. Work It. Lee Aase, on his blog, Social Media University, suggest a shortcut. While waiting for Facebook to devise a way to better differentiate relationships with a system more sophisticated than the limited profile graph, Aase suggest creating a group for your professional contacts and name it “FirstName LastName Professional Contacts.” Aase explains further on his blog. Or, use Facebook’s friend lists to differentiate Aase also suggests.

No matter what you prefer, it’s best to adopt a strategy early, be wise, cautious and careful. Even those that believed in full access agreed that in the past year, they’ve tweaked their their own personal guidelines. i.e. Adopting the self-policy that one must meet someone in their professional network in person before they cozy up on Facebook.

For me, currently, I adopt a mix between the full access and the limited profile. This is largely for one reasons:

• I want you to get to know me. I have nothing to hide. But, I’d prefer someone get to know me in person, before just reading my profile and making assumptions or place me into some category or description of who they think I might be. It’s one thing to know someone in the office, but it’s another to befriend a person.

Some other guidelines friends mentioned through my Twitter survey. Don’t post:

• Inappropriate pictures (nudity, over-drinking, kissing, dancing, etc.)
• Clean up those pictures from college frat days
• Represent who you are, but be keen to what information sparks controversy
• Don’t use foul language
• Review your privacy settings
• Understand what happens to your profile when you add an application
• When you ‘become a fan’ or join a group, understand some may not get your inner circle’s inside jokes or may think you are endorsing certain ideas/services/products
• If you wouldn’t show it to your mom, you probably don’t want your boss to see.
• Don’t make your profiles busy or hard to read if you want to use it for networking.

What’s your Facebook Professionalism Policy? or, what do you think of mine?

photo credit: Flickr, Amit Gupta (from Newsweek article)

Tags: co-workers, colleagues, facebook, growth, office culture, privacy, professional, professional networking, professionalism, relationships, rules at work, social networking, social networks, work, work life balance, young professionals

Philanthropy: Po-ta-toe, pa-ta-toe?

Monday, January 7th, 2008 | Blog Talk | No Comments

Browsing my facebook groups following my last post on FliP, I found and joined the FLiP facebook group. I noticed one of the discussions posted on the topic: ‘Traditional vs. Social Change Philanthropy.’ For the sake of anonymity, the Poster of the topic wrote as follows:

“On the FLiP homepage there is a great article about how, in many respects, traditional philanthropy is actually reinforcing the status quo. In my comment to that article I quoted Martin Luther King Jr, “Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropists to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice that make philanthropy necessary.”

What are your thoughts on that? Are too many of us in the nonprofit sector offering programmes that are far too reactive, vs actually examining and addressing the socio-economic issues that require our ‘programmes’?”

This discussion topic is followed by another that asks about philanthropy education programs. And, to my surprise and after some research, there are many, and growing: IUPUI’s Center on Philanthropy, NY University School of Philanthropy, Columbia’s MA in fundraising, Hebrew University of Israel’s M.A. in Community Leadership and Philanthropy Studies, Bay Path College in Massachusett’s M.S. in Non-Profit Management and Philanthropy, St. Mary’s graduate program in Philanthropy and Development, and MORE!  The programs listed include degrees surrounding fundraising, non-profit management, leadership, governance, development, philanthropy and othe-related terms….yet social marketing termed programs still lack.

Upon this brief internet browsing, I reflected on what the definition of ‘philanthropy‘ means. Stay with me for a moment, are the terms philanthropy and social marketing interchangeable? What is this term social-change philanthropy? We’ve been talking a lot about the identity crisis in communications, and it appears that there is some overlap. Social marketing does take in the marketing process, but it is also - as the Facebook Poster said - can be applied to looking at socio-economic issues.

Feel free to share as this thought is still developing….how do the two relate to one another and what does this mean for the field of communications or in the non-profit sector?

Tags: education, education programs, facebook, FLiP, Identity Crisis, internet surfing, non-profit sector, philanthropy, Social Marketing