Postscript

Because I like to give credit where credit is due, I wanted to thank the author of the Huffington Post piece that got me so riled up, where he called out my organization as not embracing social media enough. I responded (you can read that here) and he followed up with this post:

Thanks for the comment. I certainly didn't mean to classify CRS as an organization that is "doing it wrong." Perhaps it was a bit myopic to make broad generalizations about the reach of an organization solely through its number of Twitter followers, but as far as social media services go in terms of self-promotion, Twitter is king.

I'm happy CRS is seeing increasing traffic from Facebook and YouTube, and am happy to mention these gains in my article.

Jonathan Daniel Harris - we're cool. Thanks for the correction. We may not totally agree on the importance of Twitter vs. Facebook, but I respect the point you were making and agree wholeheartedly.

Bad day?

So it's one thing to have a bad day. Nothing major, just too much on my plate and not enough time to deal with all of it.

But it's quote another for a blog you love (Huffington post) to single out the work you do and tell the world you are not doing it well, while referencing a book written by bloggers you read all the time. What??!!!

The post was promoting a new book by Beth Kanter and Allison Fine, called "The Networked Nonprofit." I haven't read it yet, but I am sure that it is stellar...they are both phenoms and I read them both regularly. I suspect I would agree with 99% of what is in those pages. Nothing wrong with that. But here's the part that ruined my day:

It's a skill that, remarkably, many groups still struggle to master. Think of how impossible it is, in 2010, to think "promotion" without Twitter, Facebook and online partners. Yet, even major organizations can often fail to capture a motivated online audience. Catholic Relief Services, one of the most prominent nonprofits in the country, for example, has just over 4,000 followers on Twitter. Compare this to the more plugged-in UNICEF, which now boasts well over 100,000.

Once the shock wore off, I drafted this response:

Great blog post, but as the Online Community Manager for Catholic Relief Services, I have to admit it ruffled my feathers. While I will concede that there is always room for improvement, I feel the need to point out that comparing a Catholic agency with UNICEF is hardly an fair comparison. UNICEF's celebrity Goodwill Ambassadors like Mia Farrow, Orlando Bloom and Ricky Martin often have their own fan base on Twitter and ask followers to support UNICEF.

I'm honored that you categorized CRS as "one of the most prominent nonprofits in the country", but a more apt description is that we are more a "best kept secret". We are working diligently to remedy that and it is working; our unaided awareness has doubled over the last year. Clearly our presence in social media and the social, viral platform it provides has helped.

True, 4k followers on Twitter isn't breaking any records, but our audience appears to have chosen Facebook instead. Our rapidly growing page is now over 21,000 and is a community of extremely informed and engaged supporters who comment on our posts. Using Google analytics, we know they visit our website to read the stories we post on FB. We are also using YouTube more and integrating videos in many of our e-mail campaigns with great response.

I think to look at Twitter as the sole mark of an organizations tech and social media savvy is only part of the picture. What say you, HuffPo friends?

Now I'm curious what you think? Obviously, as there are only 1.5 people in this entire organization responsible for all of our ePhilanthropy efforts (that includes online fundraising, e-mail appeals, mobile campaigns as well as social networking). Needless to say we're spread a bit thin and maybe I got a little over-defensive.

Or maybe not.

Could we be doing more with our Twitter channel? Of course. Thing is, it's not a popularity contest. If it was, we'd lose...hands down. I'm much more interested in building a community of CRS evangelists - people who love what we do and want to tell everyone they know. I'm stressing quality over a quantity of supporters and really cultivating those relationships. Isn't that the point of Kanter and Fine's book? To stop looking at numbers and start looking at the whole picture of what we are accomplishing with these efforts.

The rest of the post goes on to explain how the nonprofits who have the most success often utilize free agents with large constituencies of their own. Jeff Brooks had a great post on this yesterday, comparing this happening as just as likely as getting hit by lightening or winning the lottery.

Still, any free agents out there want to help get the word of CRS out? You can follow us at @CatholicRelief.

See?

Today on HuffPo:

New Facebook Privacy Option Will Offer Simplified Settings

May 31st - Day to Quit Facebook?

Now, hold on just a minute.

Quit Facebook? There's a website asking you to join their cause and pledge to do just that.

Seriously?

Okay, I agree the recent changes to the privacy settings on Facebook have gone too far. And having been tinkering around in the privacy settings for years, I also agree that the language has gone from really easy to understand, to nearly impossible to make heads or tails of.

And pre-checking a box that opts-me in to a setting that opens up my privacy without asking me first? Pretty lame, Zukerberg. Read some of the problems with these new settings, here.

But I'll be the first to say this throwing-the-baby-out approach is not the answer.

Community rules, and we need to use this power wisely and swiftly. The new changes are not great, but they are also not nearly as bad as the media is making it out to be. Don't panic. There are plenty of blogs that explain these changes and how to set your privacy. Beth's Blog has a great how-to here.

So my recommendation is to take measures to protect your privacy and ride out the storm. There is something interesting about the idea of Open Graph, but I don't think all generations are quite ready for this much sharing...yet.

Storytime

I'm a storyteller. I was born this way. I talk with my hands and I talk reallyreallyfast.

I am unable to tell a story without describing the setting in vivid details and relating all points of view, conversations verbatim, and throw in my own analysis of what is going on. And I write like I talk - sometimes riddled throughout with segueways and descriptors.

I'm sure I drive most people mad with my storytelling ways. "Just get to the point already," I'm sure they are muttering under their breath. But the funny thing is, my stories are so vivid that I have had numerous people retell them back to me - as if the story happened to them, or to some one they refer to as happening to "a friend".

I am a huge fan of Chris Brogan. One of his recent posts is about the importance of storytelling. It got me thinking about how I use stories.

My husband is a chief culprit in stealing my tales. Although that probably stems from the fact we've been together 12 years and he's heard so many of them so many times, he's forgotten he wasn't there for the actual event.

But I've also had friends and coworkers retell my stories in my presence, completely unaware that it was me who told the story in the first place. And they retell the story with an incredible level of detail, with the exception of the fact that it happened to me. What does this mean?

Well, for starters - it proves to me that anchoring works. Two weeks ago I attended a fantastic event in D.C. called Artez Interaction, and got to hear the always brilliant Katya Andresen speak. She talked about anchoring - giving people a psychological anchor so that things make sense. I think in this instance, it is safe to say that because I put all the little details in someone's head, they used both sides of their brain to process the story, so they could visualize it completely in recall mode.

Instead of the person's brain trying to recall a vague story with little detail, they only had to remember a few facts and could visualize the rest to fill in the gaps. Like adding multiple tags to something you add to delicious - it make it easier to find later.

So what does this mean to us?

Beware of overediting. Some editors take away all the flesh and blood of a story in order to make it fit. But if you want something to stick in someone's memory, try your best to paint the picture for them. Maybe someday you'll overhear me telling your story.

David and Goliath?

Well, my mother would have been so proud.

She always taught me to stand up for the little guy, and to stand up for what I truly believe in. So although my organization is the little guy in this scenario, although we typically would never publicly call out a corporation, I felt pretty strongly that we needed to have our voice heard.

Basically we launched a "text-to-connect" campaign the day after the Haiti earthquake because that is the only option for mobile we were currently set up for. Users would text in to the short code and get a call back where they would hear a short recorded message from our president detailing the situation in Haiti, and then they would be connected to our call center where they could get additional information or make a credit card donation - just like they would if they had simply used their cell phone to call our 800#.

For some reason Sprint decided that by doing things this way, we were not in compliance with their terms, but I still don't completely understand their reasoning. We never heard from them directly, but were told the bad news that they were threatening to shut us down from our vendor, Mobile Commons.

We signed a letter, explaining that we are a nationally recognized charity, listed on Guidestar, given an A rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy, ranked 22 in the NonProfit Times Top 100 and ranked 32 in the Chronicle of Philanthropy Annual Top 400 List. The letter went on to detail exactly how our program worked and explained how we were not collecting donations on the short code, but simply using the channel as a conduit to deliver people to our call center - the call center is where the donation transaction happened. We were certain it was all a big understanding and as soon as we explained everything Sprint would back off. But we were told a few days later (by Mobile Commons) that our appeal was rejected by Sprint.

I was asked by Mobile Commons to agree to be interviewed by the New York Times, and I felt strongly enough that we were on the right side of the argument that I was willing to do so. After all, we were trying to raise money to help innocent people in Haiti, not using this campaign to fill our own pockets. Read it for yourself, and tell me what you think.

Catholic Charity and Sprint Tangle Over Texting

By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Published: March 24, 2010

A Catholic charity is still seeking answers after Sprint discontinued a fund-raising effort by text for Haiti.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/technology/25texting.html

Where does the time go?

Been a rough, rough winter. Sadly, two major earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, a death in the family, two blizzards and endless ear infections between my two kids. The last few months have been pretty much a wash.

But Easter is a time of renewal; a time of wiping the slate clean and starting over. I am trying to get my head back in the game and finding new focus. So much to do.

The Haiti earthquake response was like nothing I've ever witnessed - of course, I wasn't working in my current job during the Asian tsunami. Everything happened so fast there was no time to write about it - it was hard enough to keep ahead of it all. I'll be unpacking stories and examples over the next few weeks. But in the meantime, my apologies for abandoning this blog.

I'm back.