It’s strange but the intersection of politics, nonprofits and their issues are very rarely talked about at conferences. I think it’s all background material that nobody likes to talk about because well… it feels unseemly to do so because the nonprofit’s mission is still important despite its ineffective e-advocacy and e-marketing efforts. The deep background that we all agree on seems to be that nonprofit executives are fairly ill-equipped to deal with this sea change in technology and political attitudes. If all of you on this thread don’t mind, contact me at abenamer@nonprofittechblog.org. I’d like to toss some ideas at you in private and see what you think. They’re all related to the nonprofit startup I’m a part of.

Unfortunately, the disaffected people have not “shown-up anywhere” because their is no where for them to show up to….yet. You are correct that Move-on initially captured this disaffected market, and their growth rate was unparalleled in the NP sector. But my anecdotal information tell me that a significant segment of Move-on’s constituents are dissatisfied with results.

My argument is that when an appealing organizational structure arises with strategies that can be effective, we will witness a mass emigration from traditional NP’s, which as you said, are extremely slow to react and change. The clue is in what Suzannah said, namely that “people is what makes the movement move.” I believe the organizations that will capture this disaffected market are those that do no operate under the command-and-control model. As you have so aptly stated, current NP’s are extremely slow to react. So, I expect that these new models will be developed by NP outsiders and by people like Suzannah – former NP execs disenfranchised by a system that puts more energy into accommodating board members, foundations, and VIPs than it does the constituents it serves. The new organizations will be agile, smart, aware, and effectively run by the “people they serve.”

I don’t see how existing NP’s will be able to compete, effectively disaggregating their command-and-control model into a practical and effective social network. Too many egos, to much hierarchy in existing NP’s will cause them to simply bolt-on a social network application to their existing model. But pretending to be a true social network will only work with some constituents, as many will be driven to true flat network where they feel they can actively contribute.

I am going to start one in my state. I left the presidency of my last nonprofit due to disagreements in terms of ‘turning the ship of np strategy around’. I wanted to. They didn’t. I brought in 9, count ‘em, NINE! talented, brilliant young feminists into the leadership, the youngest board the org had ever seen, with talent in web design, organizing, lobbying, college recruitment, group dynamics, event planning, etc., but I will be damned if the other 20 (yes my board was that big) didnt chase them away!

Youth are dying for a chance to have internships that are more than data entry. Most NP’s have them there doing what is essential volunteer work (stuffing envelopes) and not intern work, which should fall just under paid position work but above volunteer work. And there are a ton of professionals out there looking for tax breaks or just a do-good way to spend their retirement. Our plan is to take the professionals in all those things I mentioned above, and plan something like Best Buy’s Geek Squad – where we meet with a nonprofit – figure out what they need in terms of list management, databases, crm, web design, organizing, marketing, fund raising, finance planning etc., and put together a squad for them. The grunt work of event planning, database management, press releases, web work, etc., can be done by the interns who desperately need real world experience. The board would have one person in each of the above specialties, and would recruit people from their field to volunteer their time (and later deduct it!) to planning these initiatives for the np’s.

It’s that sort of thing that change.org needs. A geek squad of planners and an army of interns.

-Suzannah

I completely agree with you! My rant was more of a rant towards the ceo’s in question. tee hee.

I don’t think that the nonprofits are the supernodes anymore. Mostly because they spend way too much time list gathering and not doing a whole lot of the things that really produce change. having a list of donors doesnt do a whole lot. having a list of voters who have been id’d as 1.) in support of your cause and 2.) willing to vote on the basis of it, now that does a lot. going to the governors ball may get you some press, but it isnt going to move a legislator to release funding. however, getting an arsenal of people to the legislators office may get him to release the funding.

cute change.org. i want to pat them on the head.

what they are missing is some SERIOUS strategy in their staff. It’s honestly the same thing that nonprofits are missing. people who know the importance of lists to legislators. people who know things like:

1. one handwritten letter is equal to 50 people who feel that way, vote that way and didnt write a letter (seriously. legislators have staff who calculate this stuph)

2. a phone call makes you twice as likely to do something, a piece of mail makes you three times, and a knock on the door makes you four times as likely to do something – the something being vote, be a member, write a legislator, make a donation, whatever.

this is what i mean.

change.org needs more than nonprofits – it needs some serious ACTIVISTS, what it is missing is the same thing that nonprofits are missing, the toolbox section that is readily available, readily accessible and easily dispersed amongst the youth.

the youth will take action. you just have to give them to tools. right now, we just ask them to fill up our rallies and donor lists. and we wonder why they think they are effective when they ‘boycott voting’. we havent taught them anything!!

just my 2 cents.

The Genocide Information Network strikes me as a nice example of how fast growth can be based around social networking that largely bypasses the traditional orgs.

I agree with Allen that activist-focussed networks are struggling, but i’m sure it’s important to get away from the corporate sites (which, like shopping malls, are only pseudo-public spaces).

Social networks are a global and growing phenomenon, despite the digital divide, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens as they collide with different cultural contexts.

One thing’s for sure – a lot of the young people outside the West are even more in need of the social changes that the NGOs claim to embody. And if they’re not delivering, whether it’s because of their agility deficit or their command-and-control model, then something else will emerge…

FYI, i’ve posted some more notes at social networking and social change.

dan

It’s more of an observation about the nature of social networks but of course, there’s the notion that nonprofits aren’t doing more to become the supernode. And that insight is correct and one I share. How does a change.org or glowfish.org solve that problem? I have no idea besides trying to convince the ED to commit resources towards social networking. This is frankly, very difficult. Despite all the work in the last decade, smaller nonprofits are still not seeing the need for an electronic marketing position in their development department DESPITE the growth we’re seeing in online donations.

You tell me — what’s the fix?