Social Media Glass Half Full or Half Empty?

I am a techtopian, or so I’ve heard from other people. But, I accept this description only as it applies to social media. Not all technology is beneficial to who we are and how we live. I’m not in love with huge databases and those who use them to catalog everything about me to market products to me or encourage me to vote for a certain candidate. But, I do love the array of inexpensive (particularly, free!) social media tools that increases everyone’s opportunity to participate in conversations and create their own content in text, video, audio — or some combination of all of the above!  Of course, being anything that ends in -topian can lead to enthusiasm that borders on zealousness.

I sometimes launch into advocacy mode with the passion of a suffragist when I read what I believe to be unconsidered criticisms of social media efforts. This happened last week when the Washington Post published a poorly considered article about the “ineffectiveness” of Causes on Facebook. My criticism of the article centered on the fact that the Post had written an identical article to it last year with no new information in this year’s edition, and that their narrow definition of success belied other areas where Causes has been very successful, such as raising awareness of issues by friends connecting with friends to share information about causes.  This was followed by what I thought was a very silly response to the Post writers to the criticism that, “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 had a similar reaction yesterday when I read Matt Bai’s opinion piece about Twitter and politics in the NY Times Magazine.  Bai, a generally very thoughtful chronicler of new media and politics, came to this conclusion about Twitter and politics, “And whatever else Americans may be craving in our politics these days, brevity and immediacy aren’t among them.” Really, American’s don’t want immediacy in their politics, we’d prefer politicians and policies to keep at a far distance?  That blanket statement sums up Bai’s blanket dismissal of politicians using Twitter as entirely banal and counterproductive, lumping all Twitterers into the inane category. Certainly there is more than enough inanity going on on Twitter, but not all of it and certainly not the instances that enable politicians, not their staffers using Twitters as a direct mail piece, to talk directly to interested constituents. I like knowing that Claire McCaskell is a real person who is trying to figure out what to eat for lunch — and trying to fix the health care system.

And that brings me to the pont of my post! At the end of last week, a reader, Alfred Gracombe, posted a comment about the Washington Post flap that read, in part:

While I generally enjoy the content of this blog, it has been a bit dispiriting to see how the dialogue here has evolved. I think it lost its civil tone and the waters have been muddied and the battle lines drawn to the point where it’s not clear what the main points of the disagreement are anymore. And this is coming from someone who would normally be on your side of the argument. I’ve been working in the nonprofit sector for almost 15 years on technology and communications issues. I embrace social media. I’m often frustrated with the mainstream media. But with all due respect, I just don’t feel this is the best way to seek truth and promote healthy, civic dialogue.

And it stopped me short. One thing that is very, very easy to do as a blogger is to slide quickly and irreversably from criticism to sarcasm all the way to snarky. And I appreciate this reader’s thoughtful comment that he felt that I crossed over to the dark side last week.  My frustration boils, and sometimes boils over, with the constant drumbeat from the mainstream media that social media is ruining civilization as we know it; whether it’s Maureen Dowd asking The Twitter guys why they have set out to destroy civilization as we know it (read this delicious satire of Dowd’s column here) , or the Washington Post reporters seemling taking some glee in what they see as the ineffectiveness of Causes, or Matt Bai declaring that politics is doomed because of Twitter.  Theirs is a too-often knee-jerk Chicken Little approach to Twitter or any other social media tools that is in love with the blanket dismissal of their use and utility without taking a more careful and nuanced approach of when, where and how the tools are most useful.  Their instant and overarching dissmisal of the benefits, and more importantly as we’re just beginning this revolution into a new, connected world, the positive potential of social media is disheartening.

My response to Mr. Gracombe is three-fold:

1. I apologize if my posts last week appeared unnecessarily and unconstructively dismissve to you. It certainly wasn’t my intention and takes away from the points I was trying to make;

2. I an open to suggestions of ways to help engage the mainstream media in a more constructive conversation about the benefits of social media, although I suspect this will only happen once their terror of being permanently replaced subsides.  It’s very difficult to talk to people who are petrified that the world as they know it has come to an end — although it already has come to an end for the mainstream media whether they realize it or not. My suggestion to them, if they want to listen!, is that if they stopped panicking for just a minute they’d realize it and, perhaps, embrace new media since the alternative is increasingly irrelevance on their part; and,

3. I have tried to find positive aspects in the criticsm that others have leveled at social media, but this is a good reminder to redouble my efforts to stay again.There is so much good that social media enables and enhances, particularly in the arena of social change, that it is a shame to spend energy, my own and my readers, wallowing in negativity.  Thanks for the reminder Mr. Gracombe!

OK, now onward!

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!

Thin Mints Live On!

The Girl Scouts USA announced a major restructuring yesterday — but, thankfully, the thin mints live on.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Girl Scouts are engaging in a major restructuring to reverse the decline in membership that they, as well as other stalwarts of the 20th century nonprofit membership based organizations, like Boy Scouts and political parties, are experiencing.

I am a huge fan of the Girl Scouts (my mother was president of two counties – we had a lot of  Thin Mints growing up!) although I bristled as a girl at the inflexible structure of the program. But the national organization has always been very innovative and forward leaning, particularly when Francis Hesselbein brought in Peter Drucker in the 1970s to develop formal management structures and leadership training.

Now the challenges are different, the changes have to come from the bottom up. A few highlights of the new effort are:

• A social networking site called LMK (Let Me Know) for girls to create and share content and connect to one another;
• A new curriculum called Journey that replaces the badge system and appears to be a more holistic and natural way of introducing skills and values like recycling and nutrition;
• Greater cultural sensitivity to new immigrant families

As the story in the Post says, “blogs are in, badges are out.” Here’s hoping that girls keep participating in scouting — and that Girl Scouts USA keeps listening to the girls.