Why No Outrage about Facebook’s Privacy Settings?

Have you ever been sure that something was going to happen, a movie was going to be a big hit, a diet was going to be the next big fad, people were going to march in the streets, and they it wasn’t and they didn’t? That’s how I feel about the recent changes to Facebook’s privacy settings.

When they were announced a few months ago – to an opt-out system for your data rather than an opt-in one – I expected a huge outpouring of outrage and protest. Three years ago, Facebook users protested so loudly about the Beacon advertising system that Facebook reversed course. And yet, in a huge reversal of default settings there’s hardly a murmer. Why?

What’s really worrisome is that rather than a user and citizen revolt, we have Senators, politicians!, threatening legislation to protect user privacy on social networks. What could be worse for our networked world than politicians fooling around with privacy settings.

Boing Boing has a great post on the timeline of Facebook’s privacy policies. In short, they have gone from here in 2005:

No personal information that you submit to Thefacebook will be available to any user of the Web Site who does not belong to at least one of the groups specified by you in your privacy settings.

To here in 2010:

When you connect with an application or website it will have access to General Information about you. The term General Information includes your and your friends’ names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connections, and any content shared using the Everyone privacy setting. … The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.” … Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only control who can see the connection on your profile page. If you are uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not making) the connection.

It’s the default setting that is the operative phrase here – we’ve gone from private to public for the benefit, really, of Facebook not users.

So, where’s the outrage? Are we numb to the concerns about privacy? Have we just reconciled ourselves to the fact that the only way to keep sites like Facebook free for end users is to sell their data? Really, I don’t know, would love to hear what others have to say.

Social Network Sites Attract Like People – Duh

Mashable has been chock full of an amazing amount of data this week about how we’re using social media. Katya Andresen does a terrific job of highlighting a chunk of it.

One post in particular caught my eye today called “What Social Media Users Want.“  It’s not so much what the article says that is so interseting, it’s what it doesn’t say. In summary it reviews research done by an online advertising firm called Chitka of data collected from the generes of sites receiving traffic from four social networking sites:  – Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and Digg.

The data show that people with similar interests gravitate to particular sites. If entertainment and music are your overriding interests, then you’re likely to be on MySpace. If news and community lights your fire, then Facebook. And if news if your main driver, then Twitter. Surprisingly, Digg is rather evenly split between the different genres – I would have figured the largest interest of Digg users would have been news.

So, people with the same interests gravitate towards similar online communities. Pretty obvious, eh?  What the article doesn’t say, what it refutes eloquently by not bringing it up, is that these data make it very clear that not everyone needs to be on every platform. When we hear that MySpace usage has leveled off or new Twitter users is slowing the inevitable Chicken Little shouting begins about the demise of that platform or that social media tool. How can Facebook be sustainable if not every, single human being is a member, that logic seems to say. Here’s one article like this about Twitter, and another about Myspace.

That’s just silly talk. Social networking sites need a critical mass of people in order to create vibrant, robust conversations. But not everyone has to be on every platform. This is important for nonprofits to understand because it should help them to answer the question that I get nearly every day, “What tools should we use?” And my answer is always the same, “You should use the channels where the people interested in your issues are gathering. And I can’t know where that is, you have to go and try them.” And now I can also point them to the Mashable article to get a better sense of where those conversations may be.

Redlining Online

Ivan Boothe wrote a terrific post last week about Causes taking down its application from MySpace. Causes is an application for use on social networking sites. it enables users to highlight causes that they care about asking friends to join their cause and also to make donations.

Since its launch in 2006, there are around 250,000 Causes on Facebook. A cause does not have to be associated with a specific nonprofit, and most of these, over 200,00 aren’t. They are people who are passionate about something, say the high cost of tuition or global warming writ large, and want their friends to know about it. That leaves about 46,000 causes that are connected to a specific nonprofit organization.I have written before about the meaning of Causes on Facebook.

Last year Causes broadened its reach to MySpace. By shutting down the application on MySpace, Causes is leaving about 184,000 cause enthusiasts out in the cold.  The number of users on MySpace was tiny compared to the reported 30 million active monthly users of Causes on Facebook. And, according to the Facebook Causes blog, the application has helped raise more than $12 million for nonprofits based in the U.S. and Canada. Over $5 million has been raised in 2009 alone.

This stirred quite a bit of commentary last week with very thoughtful pieces from Ivan as mentioned above, Amy Sample Ward, and Sean Stannard-Stockton. They noted the lack of robustness of the Causes application on MySpace compared to Facebook, the lack of conversation by and from Causes about why they made the decision, what it means for MySpace users, and the risk that nonprofit organizations take when they use third party applications like Causes to help build community online.

But there was one argument in particular that really resonated with me. When I first heard the news, I immediately began to think about a terrific, provocative talk that danah boyd gave last summer at the Personal Democracy Forum. It was appropriately titled, “The Not So Hidden Politics of Class Online.” Here is the video from her talk. She talked about the emerging online divides by race and class that are appearing, particularly the differences between the college-oriented people on Facebook and the non-college population on MySpace.

danah’s talk resonated with a post by Justin Maasa entitled “Social Networking Redlining.” Redlining was the practice of banks to steer their mortgages to people of certain races and ethnicities in certain neighborhoods. In other words, a way to keep African Americans out of certain neighborhoods was for banks not to lend them mortgages. This short post really summed up something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately, the tension between the natural friending that happens on social networking sites that create cliques and silos and that can’t be avoided, and the institutional boundaries that are being created between sites like Facebook and MySpace.It is the institutional boundaries that nonprofit organizations should be fighting the hardest to try to breach.

Causes made a business decision, they were not making, or foreseeing, a return on investment for the application on MySpace. That’s entirely their right. The problem from a social change point of view are the number of nonprofit organizations that are shying away from MySpace in favor of Facebook. some assume from the popular press that MySpace is dying – it isn’t. Some assume that it isn’t cool to be on MySpace now. Or worse, they are focusing their organizational efforts towards Facebook because that’s where they hang out in their off time, that’s where their friends and family are socializing.

Social change needs to happen everywhere. Nonprofit organizations are charged with making it happen, intentionally, in easy places and harder places. MySpace may be a more challenging environment for some nonprofit organizations but it doesn’t mean that they don’t need to be there. Perhaps it means that they need to be there even more, to help raise awareness of issue, listen to what people are saying, and help to organize. Only by intentionally reaching out to communities that are too often overlooked will nonprofit organizations be able to help take down the boundaries that are keeping the voices of marginalized communities from being heard.

I’m glad that this issue was raised and led to a constructive conversation about the need for nonprofits not to overlook MySpace. Thanks to everyone for participating in an interesting dialogue.

 

 

Facebook Is Run by Jewish & Asian Mothers

According to Mashable, if you want to deactivate your Facebook account you will get the following guilt-ridden message, “Are you sure you want to deactivate your account, [friend name] will miss you.” This message is accompanied by five photos of friends who, presumably, would miss you terribly if you were gone.

Did Facebook focus group this approach with a sample of Jewish and Chinese mothers who are the world best guilt givers?

Seriously, it’s hard to know whether to to be appaled or impressed. On the one hand, it is a clever marketing approach. On the other hand, it seems to me that someone who deactivates from their account are very aware of the friends that they no longer want to connect with on this particular social media channel.

But there is a larger issue here, and it is the ongoing passive aggressive relationship that Facebook has with its users. The struggle that they are groping their way through as to how to maintain their momentum of adding new users as an astonishing pace, increase its valuation in order to make itself increasingly attractive to advertisers and potential buyers is, at times, uncomfortable to watch.

I have written about the discomforting disconnect between the corporate face of Facebook and the robust, Facebook social network that we, the customers and users and their raison d’etre, experience every day.  And this is yet another example of it.

Why shouldn’t people be allowed to leave Facebook easily and guilt free?

People come and go in social networks – and they should be encouraged to do both. Networks need to be easily accesible to newcomers, and by the same token it is important that they be allowed to leave when they want to. Facebook really needs to begin to reconcile it’s financial interests with it’s responsibilities as a host to people’s personal social networks. Maybe a few minutes with Craig Newmark might help to clarify the difference.

My advice to the Facebook folks (because I know they’ve been waiting for my advice!) is make it as easy to go as it was to enter, and give people very, very good reasons for wanting to rejoin.

Note: Based on feedback fromLisa C. Hoang on Twitter, the title of this piece was changed from Chinese to Asian mothers.

Causes on Facebook: An Update and Lessons

The latest edition of my Social Good podcast was posted yesterday. The topic this month is the Causes application on Facebook, where things stand and how to be successful using it. My guests were Joe Green the co-founder of Causes and Amy Eldridge, the founder and executive director of Love Without Boundaries. I first heard about Amy’s group through the research that Beth and I did for the Giving Challenge assessment effort for The Case Foundation.

Causes just had its two year anniversary. To date about 200,000 Causes have been created, and about 50,000 of those have been created for a specific nonprofit organization. And this just in from the Causes folks today, they surpassed $10 million in total donations using the application.

As you’ll hear Amy and Joe caution, uses Causes takes the same persistence and elbow grease that all fundraising efforts require. In addition, here are a few lessons learned from their experiences:

• As I mentioned Causes and Facebook are not ATM machines. Successful efforts have built relationships with their supporters.
• Successful efforts have been time limited, urgent campaigns that have engaged people — and then let them go when the campaign is over.
• Causes augments, doesn’t replace, your other fundraising efforts.
• It’s important to know when to lay fallow and spend your energy building your community and raising awareness of your Cause rather than trying fruitlessly to fundraise.

Now the Washington Post Dissess Bloggers!

On Wednesday the Washington Post dissed the Causes application on Facebook with a lazy, inaccurate article. Last night, they dissed those of blogging about it, too!

There has been quite an uproar about the lazy article in the Washington Post about the Causes application on Facebook last Wednesday. A lot of people have read and commented on my post about the inaccuracies of the article, the fact that it was a rehash from last year, and the need to reframe the Causes application for which I am very grateful. I have really enjoyed the conversation and learned that I could have been more accurate in my initial assessment in two ways: 1. The incredible growth of new Facebook users who are women over 50 has raised the average age of Facebook users overall to over 25 for the first time (which should be good news for Causes!); 2. The 8,000 Causes users who have partnered with Network for Good are not the only groups that can raise money on the site. Others can sign up for donations as well, however, the reality is that those 8,000 have raised the overwhelmingly amount of donations using Causes.

As these posts and conversations were whipping through the tubes, Michael Ames, the Tech Hermit, took the initiative to reach out to the Washington Post writers directly and ask for their feedback on the inaccuracies in their article and the feeling that the article covered no new ground.  He received a startling response, here is the entire email exchange:

Kim/Megan,

On twitter and in the blog world that deals with development and social media, you guys are getting hammered on a couple of points.

1. Old information rehashed. Nothing new here, what prompted you restirring this year old conversation?

2. You focused on wrong stats. Network for good only works with a 8000 causes that have used causes to also ask for donations. 242,000 causes aren’t asking for money, aren’t registered with network for good in order to ask for money. You evaluation is off because you confuse causes with intentional fundraising.

3. You blanket sweep the word “ineffective” with donations being your only metric. The development sysle measures effectivesness in very different ways. Some causes are about advocacy, not donations. Some cause are about both, but don’t use the cause app to ask for money.

Either way, you are getting dismissed.
If you are having trouble finding where the conversation is dismissing you, let me know, I’ll steer you to the most influential of the bloggers who are leading the charge against your analysis.

Michael

The response…

Hi Michael,

We’re well aware of the blog chatter out there. We stand by the reporting, obviously, and dispute the alleged factual inaccuracies. While it’s true that only 8,000 nonprofts with Causes pages have signed up with Network for Good, it is incorrect to say that those are the only ones who can raise money through the site — just by having a Causes page, a nonprofit can receive donations through Network for Good without signing up or doing anything special While not all of those nonprofits got into Causes with the goal of raising money (a point we made in the article, quoting the Nature Conservancy), those who DO hope to fundraise through the application have not raised much — thus our point that it’s ineffective as a fundraising mechanism. That doesn’t mean it’s a worthless operation, just that it hasn’t shown a ton of progress on the fundraising part of its mission.

As for the point about it being old news, I don’t think that’s true except among a small number of social media types. I know similar topics have been undertaken on a number of nonprofit/social media blogs for as long as Causes has existed (we quoted the author of one of those blog posts), but the vast majority of our readers don’t follow those blogs, and we thought it was important to bring an analysis to the general readership. Others are free to disagree on that point, but that was my perspective when I decided to crunch some of those numbers.

I hope this is a useful explanation, and I’ll say the same thing to anyone who contacts me. We’re not in the business of responding to criticism on blogs, but if people are interested enough to contact me directly I am more than willing to have a conversation with them. So thanks for writing!

So, the good news was the quick email response.  However the response is breathtaking in its arrogance and dissmissal of online conversations. Wow!!!  You’re “well aware of the blog chatter” and it’s not old news becuase the only folks who would remember the same article from last year are “social media types” but here’s the real kicker, “We’re not in the business of responding to criticism on blogs, but if people are interested enough to contact me directly I am more than willing to have a conversation with them.”
I’m trying to regain my equilibrium here.  Let me walk through this WashPo logic:  1. We’re doing a story on the use of social media to raise money and awareness of causes so we feel free to dismiss those people working in social media. We’re losing our shirt, like the rest of the newspaper world, but we won’t deign to engage in the online conversation. The disdain with which the phrase, “criticism on blogs” is dripping from the screen. So, WashPo writers, you’re above bloggers, which means you’ve decided you’ve above participating in the conversation about your own article. So you write, inaccurately, and then post it, and then walk away but deign to have a few private email conversations (which even you must know will be posted online by the blogger to whom you just sent it) it’s difficult to imagine what business the Post thinks their in — or how they’re going to be in business much longer working this way.  I have often wrote recently that my heart goes out to those papers, their employees and communities that are suffering right now — but, boy, these arrogant journalists make it awfully hard!

Wash Post Disses Causes on Facebook

This morning’s Washington Post article, “To Nonprofits Seeking Cash, Facebook App Isn’t So Green”, takes some not-very-new shots at Causes, the friending and fundraising app on Facebook, while not providing any new insights. From the first sentence, “It seems foolproof: nonprofits using the power of the Internet to raise money through a clever Facebook application. ” my antenna went up because this article was entering Causes and Facebook through the wrong door; the dollar per donor door.

Let’s begin by deconstructing the article itself, which according to my friends at Network For Good, contains a number of inaccuracies.  Causes and Network for Good have a partnership to process donations made through Facebook.  One huge point of ongoing misinterpretation about the number of causes on Facebook requires clarification. There are around 250 thousand causes on the Causes platform. A cause does not have to be associated with a specific nonprofit, and most of these, over 200,00 aren’t. That leaves about 46,000 nonprofits that are connected to a cause. But, of these only 8,000 are using Network for Good, meaning they’ve created an official profile, can use their npo dashboard, and can raise money. Therefore in trying to determine the average size of donations, it is more accurate to use the 8,000 active fundraising efforts for nonprofits rather than the 176,000 used in the Post article. When the universe of causes that includes the Green on Sundays groups is included in the overall cause number,  divided by the total amount of dollars given resulting in an itty bitty average gift. This is enormously skewed by the number of inactive causes on FB or the number of causes who never intended to raise money using Causes.  So, according to Network for Good’s data, 8,000 causes have actively raised money using Causes for a total of $7.5 million — or an average total of donations to each cause of over $930.

The news here is that there isn’t any new news. This issue first surfaced last year.  Beth raised the question then of how much was being raised on Causes and what that means for fundraising via social networks.  Conor also raised similar questions and issues. Givvy took a look at the numbers last year and saw pluses and minuses. The only reason to run with this old news that I can think of is that the the recession has made fundraising more difficult this year,which in turn has made fundraisers more anxious (which I didn’t think was possible since they’re such an anxious bunch to begin with!) and Causes an easy target.

But, looking at the success and drawbacks of Causes to date is helpful in assessing where we are in the Connected Age with fundraising.  Here are a few thoughts about the importance and lessons of Causes to date:

1. Causes enables a lot of people to “support a cause.” In old thinking that meant only one thing: give us money.  But in connected thinking, it means that each one of us is can be more than an ATM for our causes.  Causes on FB enables us to tell our own world – distinct from the world -  about the issues, campaigns, orgs that they are passionate about. We can bring our networks of friends, our ingenuity, our passion, our time, our expertise to support causes.  It enables lots and lots of people to learn about causes and to share them with their friends easily, quickly and inexpensively.

2. Episodically, Causes has demonstrated the amazing power of distributed fundraising for causes.  Last year’s Giving Challenge sponsored by the Case Foundation is a perfect example. Beth and I were commissioned by the Foundation to assess the Challenge late last year. We found that the Causes Giving Challenge on Facebook raised a total of $571,686 from 25,795 unique donors for 3,936 causes. That’s an average gift of just over $20, a very respectable amount in the online direct mail world (if one feels compelled to measure things that way). What was important about the Giving Challenge experiment was that it showed what could happen through this mechanism when it was engaged and ignited in the right way; meaning a time limited competition in which the bar set by the Foundation wasn’t the dollars raised by each cause but the number of friends raised. The winners of the Giving Challenge raised significant sums (meaning tens of thousands of dollars, which is a lot of money to small orgs that won) and friends using Causes – most of whom were first time donors to their cause.

3. The Washington Post article calls Causes “largely ineffective.” Well, that depends on how one defines effectiveness. And this is one place where the Causes folks have some culpability because they have raised dollars raised as a critical measure of their application’s success. This is what I call malmeasurement, grabbing onto an easy data point and equating it to success whether it fits or not. Using dollars raised as a critical measure of success has allowed others to hammer Causes without much cause. Remember that the overwhelming number of Facebook users are still under 25 years old. This is very young for donors, and it is unreasonable to expect them to give the number and size gifts of their parents and grandparents.

4. There is a framing issue here. If Causes was judged on awareness only it would get an A+ – there are very few mechanisms that enable communities of people to  learn so much about causes so inexpensively.  So, let’s reframe: what if Causes was judged the number of people who know about a cause who didn’t know about it before; the number of people who increase their involvement with that cause by sharing information with friends about it, organizing an event, blogging and tweeting about it, and so on; the number of people who have self-organized an event for the cause. I’m sure there are other meausres, but you get the point, what measures we use to define success will utlimately define us and while dollars in might be easy to measure it’s not alwasy the best one to use.

This leaves us with is the spigot issue.  I was speaking at a conference last year when a development director asked, “How do I get money out of Facebook?”  Oy, or for my lovely readers from the midwest, Ugh! The broad public perception that Causes is a spigot that when turned on will start a gush of donations to causes needs to change. This does not mean that Causes can’t be useful for raising money, the Giving Challenge is proof of lots of money being raised by lots of activists and causes in a short amount of time.  But as Frogloop noted last year, “The problem is that the same challenges apply in any medium — you need to cut through the noise, develop a list of supporters, get those supporters to pay attention, and encourage those supporters to do something.” This takes work and constancy and resilience and patience – nothing qualities that journalists and online watchers are known for!  The bottom line here is that Causes isn’t just about raising money, it’s also about raising friends and awareness, and in the long run turning loose social ties into stronger ones for a cause may be more important than one-time donations of $10 and $20 dollars right now. Our rush to judge this application effective or ineffective over a very short time period with a primary user base of very young people is off base.

A Compass for Social Media for Social Good

Qui Diaz, Beth Kanter and Geoff Livingston posted a summary of their findings from a recent survey of nonprofit donors and their attitudes about causes and giving online. A common complaint of online giving to date (see previous post about Blackbaud survey here) is that the dollar amounts are too low per donor and donors are tending to be one-time givers. In other words, online donors aren’t the elixir to replace the dying direct mail donors. Here are a few sub-highlights (meaning a summary of their summary) of their survey results from 426 online respondents:

• The axiom that older donors give more because they have more to give doesn’t change because of the mechanism of giving;
• 84 percent of the social media savvy aged 30-49 and 55 percent of those older than 50 used conversational media to discuss philanthropy;
• Seventy-seven percent of those 50 and older and 71 percent aged 30-49 prefer email. Additionally, 45 percent of 30-49 year olds prefer social networks and 31 percent of those over 50 also use social networks;
• Blogs represent the second most viable source of information next to social networks (among both the digital rich and the traditional brackets);
• 81% want information from a highly credible or quality source
  • 77% from a trusted organization
  • 59% would like to interact with other donors
  • 58% want to interact with philanthropic experts
• In summary, nonprofits and charities have a strong opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations (that may lead to contributions) with the social media savvy (30-49 and >50) – especially those who are uncultivated.

Add to this mix the fact that the fastest growing segment of Facebook users are women over 55 and we can see that social networking sites will be rich areas for discussion, organizing and fundraising for causes from now on.

So, the difficult question for nonprofits right now is: how do we navigate from what has been to what will be while still making payroll? To take that question a bit further, it is really about how you can create the capacity within yourself and your organization for seeing the world as it is but moving towards what it will be. And, for right now in this time of transition, we have to do both.

It is curious to me how often a discussion of social media becomes a zero sum game in people’s minds. If we’re using direct mail we’re not raising money online, or everything that was on land has to go online. The world doesn’t work in such stark black and white contrasts, it is, for better and worse, a continuum of grays.

If you’re struggling wtih how to manage the transition to the connected age of the future for fundraising, here are a few steps to help you get unstuck:

1. Keep doing what works but know and plan like it isn’t going to work forever. In fact, you should plan that this is the last year you’ll be able to do what you’ve done before successfully. You don’t want to get caught totally off guard like newspapers that thought they had much longer to transition from old to new than they really did.
2. Get your conversations going online NOW! Pick one or two places, say Twitter and Facebook, and start talking about your issues and listening to the conversations that folks are having about your cause. Don’t worry if the conversation is small, don’t worry that it isn’t leading to donations right now. You need to practice talking to people online about your cause; these aren’t skills that more traditional orgs have in their DNA.
3. Find one fundraising event or idea to take online this year. Use Facebook to ask your folks for ideas for fundraisers, should we pick a day and everyone does their own thing like Red Nose Day, or should we have one event in person, maybe a lower key breakfast this year instead of a fancy dinner, or maybe a virtual event or contest? Don’t prescribe, listen and learn.

OK, those are you marching orders – get going!

LA Chamber Orchestra Supports GiveList

Whenever people ask me why I am so wildly enthusiastic about the Internet and all things social media, I point to content like the blog post from the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra on Friday about the GiveList. (True confession: I was an enthusiastic but awful french horn player in high school.) Blogger, Lacey Huszcza, saw the tweets on GiveList and began to think about ways that people can support the arts without writing a check. Here is the list of sixteen ways to give to arts organizations from Lacey:

1. Volunteer your time – arts organizations need docents, people to help with administrative time, and people to help with events. Your time can be worth even more than money
2. Call a friend and tell them about your favorite concert or piece of art. Word of mouth is the best way to spread the mission of an organization
3. Write a letter to the editor of the opinion section of your local paper to tell them about the importance of the arts in your community
4. Have a listening party in your home (can be around a broadcast of your favorite symphony or your favorite recording). The holidays are a great time to get together and share great music with friends.
5. Write or call your congressperson to thank them for the increase in the NEA budget for this year, and to encourage them to continue supporting the arts. Find your Congressperson here.
6. If you are a musician or an artist, teach a lesson to a child for free
7. Send CDs of your favorite music to the troops overseas (ok, this one costs a little, but it is a great gift to give someone far away from home)
8. Someone you know probably loves the arts, but is unable to drive. Offer them a ride to his/her favorite concert or museum and see how much joy that brings!
9. Serve on a city level or neighborhoods arts council to help direct funds to arts organizations in need
10. Call your favorite arts organization and offer to distribute brochures to a local coffee shop or bookstore
11. If you are a café/restaurant/bar owner, create a signature dish or drink and name it in honor of your favorite organization
12. Create a wish list of your favorite arts organizations, and ask people to make donations in your name rather than buying you presents for the holidays
13. Attorneys can call California Lawyers for the Arts and offer his or her services
14. Write a blog post about a cause/charity that you are passionate about. Include a link to the cause/charity (OK, I borrowed this great idea from @rogercarr but it’s a good one!)
15. Contribute, audition, comment on or follow the YouTube Symphony Orchestra project
16. If your favorite arts organization has a blog, a facebook page, or some other form of social networking – leave a comment, post on their wall, or just send them an email telling them what you love about that organization.

Thanks, Lacey, and thanks to the many other folks generating such lovely ideas to support people, organizations, and communities!

Social Good Podcast Series is Up!

Social Good, the new podcast series I am hosting for the Chronicle of Philanthropy was just posted on the Chronicle site.

The topic this month is turning friends into supporters using social networking sites.  Jonothan Coleman of Nature Conservancy and Carie Lewis of the Humane Society are my guests.  Hope you enjoy it, I LOVED doing it!

So, subscribe to the podcast on iTunes and if you have any ideas on topics and guests, just send them my way.  Thanks!