Archive for the ‘Charity’ Category

Going beyond ‘Not for Profit’. Thoughts from The Third Sector Conference.

 

There’s been an intensive look at the state of social media in the Third Sector going on at the Not For Profit Social Media Conference in London this week and the hashtag’s been #nfpsm for anyone who wants to check it out.

Here’s me and Steve talking a little about this, with many thanks to the marvellous David Wilcox who never eases to amaze me about the things he can do with an ipad. Thanks and appreciation go to everyone who put on and was a part of the making of the forum into a significant stock-taking event, both at the venue and online.

It certainly was a conference full of friends. Steve Bridger did a fabulous keynote and Lucy Buck and Kirsty Stephenson spoke about how the Child’s i Foundation’s campaign to save Joey was so successful through its approach to using social media.

Standing back and taking a look at how the whole thing rolled, it’s encouraging to see how much social media’s being adopted and it was also obvious there’s still a long way to go. The journey from managing social media to being a social organisation, packed with social leaders able to inspire, support and solve big problems collaboratively, is full of opportunity as well as some substantial challenges.

On the opportunity side, much of what’s being done now is largely proprietary and off-the shelf; there’s a road map to follow which is comforting but that also contains the danger of being a bit ‘me too’ in terms of social brand marketing.

NFP’s now have a great basis on which to build on what they’re doing by developing truly differentiated social brand strategies and identities as part of the way they do things. They can develop social values and social cultures capable of creating communities of purpose, belonging and compelling points of difference.

On the challenge side, the scope to welcome, accommodate and adapt to marketing activity coming in from outside the organisation and to embrace the experiences of supporters and volunteers into ongoing product, service and process design has yet to be started in earnest.

Organisations do find it hard to adapt to and embrace all the experiences of those connected with NFPs at the moment much beyond listening and in that sense there’s still a hangover from the old days and sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’ to grapple with. I look forward to the day when, for example, community participants in Not for Profits come to these events and talk directly and spontaneously about the difference that their one is making, to them.

Ultimately we think there’s no inside or outside in a social organisation. Yet the architecture of participation at this point is not quite the collaborative dialogue it’s capable of becoming. It’s still about target audiences instead of target moments. Job descriptions remain fixed, corporate reputations struggle with how to accommodate and integrate personal profiles into their own, the scope to build on the kind of affinity that can reshape organisational structure so it’s more fluid is limited. Hopping over the walls of internal departments to contribute to initiatives is often regarded as too provocative and challenging to the status quo.

Making meaning by being better connected at a deep and more intimate social level is a big ask for many brands. Old sector divisions and boundary lines between commercial and not for profit are clearly evident too, just the name of the Third Sector Conference also suggests that. We do rely and need these labels and definitions to a degree as things to hang our hats on of course, but the question around how much these labels help or hinder organisations should be asked as part of where this all goes from here.

Doing the work on business modelling that we do, we know there’s a point to taking another look at the whole way Not for Profits view themselves. To be socially successful as user-centric organisations there isn’t one that shouldn’t be thinking about how they can make their core purpose come alive in the minds of the people who are connected to them as ‘not only for profit’ and ‘beyond profit’ organisations whatever they do, so that they’re fully effective. NFP’s can be social businesses in the pursuit of big important causes. For NFP’s there’s an irony in that being well-meaning isn’t necessarily the whole social story. The organisation, its processes and protocols, overarching strategy and social brand positioning, have to be fit for purpose too.

Adding a social media overlay to a brand won’t make it resonate and make a difference to people at a netroots level, and perhaps that’s the cautionary note of the conference. There’s developing revenue streams and network effects in tandem with partners and advocates to think about, different types of relationships and social technology to embed at deep levels, new ways of working to raise the effectiveness, efficiency and value of social knowledge flows and streams of activity. What happens next in terms of commitment, making the business case and the appetite for being social’s going to be crucial.

The State of the Social Brand

Picture by the brilliant Paul Clarke for Headstream

Steve Sponder, Chris Buckley and the great team at Headstream have pulled together an index of Social Brands for the first time this year, the Social Brand 100.

They kindly invited me to be a part of the process and judging panel and discuss the findings to an invited audience on Friday and this post is a collection of reflections and observations from both the event and the report itself.

The Social Brands 100 was a crowd-sourced project in part, with nominations coming in from across the Twitterverse initially that were then assessed by the judging panel and researched by the Headstream team, with Brandwatch as monitoring partners.

It follows in the wake of some significant league tables, most notably Altimeter’s Engaged Brand Index and iCrossing’s Connected Brand Index. I think we’re still only taking the very first steps to where social brand assessment will ultimately lead and the opportunities for data curation and social performance are wide open given the scope for real-time reporting, destructured organization, storytelling and new parameters for value and business management.

As an addition to these resources and the latest statement on the state of the social brand, Headstream’s The Social Brands 100 Index makes for interesting reading for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it tends to suggest that for many social brands the emphasis is still primarily on social media rather than social business.

There are a few notable exceptions of course. Dell, the No 1 brand ranked on the list, took up the social brand mantle in earnest as a result of a public outage of poor customer service from Jeff Jarvis in a tweet in 2007. That moment created a successful turnaround of its business and of brand perceptions, the kind of turnaround Dell would have had to have previously spent a huge amount of advertising to buy, but that word of mouth has fueled instead.

Dell is a good example of social media success and deserves to be at No 1, because without network effects and a deep-level business reappraisal, Dell’s social brand reputation would not have been possible.

Giffgaff, the brand that CNET’s been quoted in the report as describing as ‘O2’s bonkers-barmy crowd-sourced network’, comes in at No4 because it’s reinventing the way a social business can run itself. Starbucks is worth another mention for the way it has been embedding incoming conversation and co-creation into its business model.

Having said that, the vast majority of brands on the list cannot yet be described as businesses that have integrated user partnerships into the way they structure and appraise how business performance is being developed.

Social media is still skin deep for many, and the big tussle at the moment is whether social media will be subsumed into the way things have always been done, (one panelist describes it as ‘just another channel’, for example) or will it be a pivot for the emergence of social business models that offer thicker value in the longer term?

So here’s a question or two: What’s the appropriate blend of transactions and relationships when it comes to doing business in the 21st Century, and how does that vary sector by sector?

One of the key audience moments of the launch event was when during the Q&A Virtuous Bread met MuddyBoots during a conversation exchange. It was a real-time demo of how people as brands are enjoying connecting with one another. So it’s worth considering to what extent is that kind of affinity going to create a world-wide mesh of collaborative business interests in the future and will automated non-friendly transactions still be done by people? Ted Hunt wisely raised the issue of ‘socialwash’ about how deep many brands will allow the impact of social media to be.

The next line of enquiry is how only one charity was mentioned in the Index, the brilliant netroots charity Child’s i Foundation of which I have to disclose I am a Trustee (shameless plug – if you aren’t aware of what we’re doing, please check us out.)

How could this be, that only one charity is nominated, when such a core part of a not-for-profit is its volunteering base? It’s puzzling that this is an entire sector dependant on social and philanthropic participation, yet none of the major charity brands seemed to be recognized as socially engaged ones. One possible explanation is that charity brands have to work that much harder at being recognized for raising the quality of engagement and performance using social media. In a way, there’s a similarity to the Big Society argument, the people involved have always participated. Perhaps this is something for not-for-profits to bear in mind, and public sector organizations; when it comes to being seen to be engaging with people, they themselves have to be the change.

Retail, FMCG and consumer product brands on the other hand (which between them made up 54% of the overall index) are more noticeable for stretching beyond their conventional, transactional ways of inter-acting when they become more social. The move away from broadcast is more palpable. This may be only a temporary state of affairs though, as notions of value shift beyond consumption and, economically speaking, this is highly likely. With no health or pharmaceutical brands in the Index at all, it certainly appears that social definitions of well-being may be changing.

What’s heartening about the Index is that, firstly, it shows that established brands with brand equity and a heritage built up over the years can sit equally well and side by side with young, digital and quintessentially ‘unstructured’ brands like giff gaff and Child’s I and be social brands. The objective for all brands then is how to make the transition as effectively and elegantly with as minimum an amount of operational disruption and as much reputational value as possible.

The second element of the Report worth highlighting is that inclusion within Headstream’s definition of a social brand is that a social brand has a ‘moral centre to its purpose’. By including a crowdsourced element within the nominations, this Index has looked at brands from the user’s perspective as well as from the brand’s point of view. For them, it’s not all about the money even though, when it comes to adopting social media, the CEO might like it to be. So this is an Index that illustrates how social brands require a set of operating objectives they can defend with ‘blatant integrity’ able to handle interest in them from all quarters in order to develop the kind of quality of engagement that makes them stand out for being social.

Of course this touches on the visceral issues of social brand fitness and the critical point of friction in social brand management, the one that every social brand must now incorporate: To what extent will social media start to shape the creation of strategic business opportunities and how social brands develop their business models?

Developing business from this perspective is going to be key in helping social media managers go beyond the channel management of social media into areas of organizational development in a way that brings enhanced value into each and every brand in this Index, and beyond.

A brand to believe in

While it’s long been acknowledged that brands live primarily in the minds of those who perceive them and, as the residual impression one has of a brand, those impressions cannot be owned, it’s interesting how much marketing management still perceives branding as an inside-out kind of exercise.

In the not-for-profit sector, where having a cause to believe in is a large part its DNA, many marketers find it difficult to truly connect with the people for whom the cause has meaning, and where, sadly, institutionalized participation can mean little more than giving at arm’s length.

Child’s i Foundation changes all that. With an inspirational founder, Lucy Buck, and a mission to be a social community first and foremost, Child’s i is dealing with the desperate plight of child abandonment in Uganda where abject poverty means that every year, hundreds of abandoned babies are left to die, by the side of the road, in bus shelters and car parks, by desperate mothers who have lost the means to cope.

Child’s i is a social organization with the spirit of ‘by a community, for a community‘ at its heart. So when it came to thinking about the brand, we looked to our community for guidance about what it is about Child’s i that resonated with them too.

Focused on making connections that move people, with strength of vision and clarity of purpose, Child’s i is an example of just how much can be achieved by doing this. When four of us got together in a room to think about the essence of Child’s i, we had a tweet-up too and what it generated was a fantastic conversation.

Brand Tweet Up

We can believe in brands we’re a part of. Child’s i is a team of fantastic people, with a wide range of diverse skills from all over the world, each with the desire to create a positive change and contribute time, money and love, the kind of contribution that we can all appreciate. It’s a work in progress that we can see happening in real time, and that sense of being in something, a dynamic movement and force for change, is the glue that keeps us participating in the cause together.

As a social organization, with over £100,000 raised so far this year, and with Lucy’s achievement of winning the Vodafone World of Difference Award recently under her belt, Child’s i is creating an impact. The lease on the first transitional centre for abandoned babies is signed and Lucy’s going to Uganda to set it up next week.

I’m honoured to be Child’s i’s Trustee for brand communications and community because it is a brand to believe in and what they can be like. Our brand tweet-up recognized our aspirations, that one day, all charities will be made like this as the next generation of not-for-profits and all brands can be, too, as a manifestations of promises made, as organizations with brands that stand for intentional social benefit and of purpose beyond product that people can really buy into.

Child’s i has immense talent all around it, passionate people that are creating meet-ups and innovative fundraisers, on and offline. It’s the people who show up and contribute that make it special and unique, it creates formative experiences, and the impact of connecting and generating a dynamic solution to a pressing problem is a deeply fulfilling one.

If you’re interested in what we’re doing at Child’s i, please join in by checking out our awesome Buy a Brick wall for our home. We’d love with some delight to welcome you as a part of our community and for you to see the difference that we all can make collectively.