How Network Orgs Are Re-invigorating Change

Organizing 2.0/501 Tech NYCMay 2012

Who we are

About Communicopia

About us

We are a boutique digital consultancy working

globally for change. We lead transformational

digital projects that help social mission

organizations increase their impact &

effectiveness in a networked world.

Our clients

Include Human Rights Watch, NRDC, Net

Impact, City of Vancouver, the UN Foundation,

The Elders, & the TckTckTck global climate

campaign. We also founded the Web of Change

community.

We live in times of massive systems change

The web & networks are creating new models

Audiences have tuned out

Faith in institutions is at all time low

Complex world. People see connections

They expect more. Want to give more.

Rapid growth of networked orgs

Rise of “free agent” changemakers

The web has changed advocacy comms

Initial web = publishing

Networked web = conversations

The web past & presentTraditional Web Today’s Web

Most institutions lack the people, structure, &

culture to lead in this new world

A term coined by Beth Kanter and Allison Fine

Networked Nonprofits

Simple & Transparent Orgs

Networked nonprofits are easy for outsiders to get in and insiders to get out. They engage people to shape and share their work.

They don’t work harder or longer than other orgs, they work differently. They engage in conversations with people beyond their walls to build relationships that spread their work through the network. Relationship building is a core responsibility of staff. They are all comfortable using social media to encourage two way communications between people.

Networked Nonprofits

Beth’s Three Attributes: Social culture. Transparency. Simplicity.

Other attributes:

•Smaller budget, less reliant on staff-driven model

•Focus on doing one thing well

•Hold back resources to jump on big opportunities

•People working there are ambidextrous + younger

•Listen well. Many are member-driven

•No barriers between “online” and “real world”

Institutions born in a post-institutional age

How are they different?

Driven by policy, run by experts, focused on elites

Traditional Nonprofits

Create & promote policy solutions

Find the right policy answers. Run a lot of long

term campaigns promoting or defending them.

Expert based culture

Program / policy professionals drive the ship.

The “real work” of the institution. Senior

leaders were often wonks previously, not

managers.

“Grass-tops” audiences

Communications & campaigns typically

targeted at senior decision makers or media.

Policy

Traditional Nonprofits

•Very silo’d structures: deputies compete for resources,

disincentives to collaborate, even turf wars

•Hierarchical, top down cultures: young/web ppl not asked

•Small donor fundraising drives “regular people” work &

owns the lists. Sometimes even runs parallel programs

•Typically very protective of & conservative with brand

•Incentive to always promote their own experts/reports/wins,

acting somewhat narcissistically

•Often work in isolation, or in cumbersome coalitions

Additional attributes

Nonprofits & Online

Online = List Building: We run campaigns to grow our lists,

ask for simple online actions, & convert activists to donors.

Online programs are often made up of:

•Email lists bought from big providers

•Facebook friends gained via advertising

•Cookie cutter, endless online “crisis” actions. Clicktivism

•No personalized communications; no engagement ladders

(no programs to support higher engagement)

•Don’t know what supporters care about; don’t ask

People are a means to an end

Online is a faux grassroots strategy

NGO’s struggle with digitalOnline is separate: Run within one silo, it struggles to keep

up with publishing demands, much less drive new campaign

models based on engagement

Other challenges:

•Dept that does “real world” is separate from “online”

•Online lives in communications, driven by content needs

•Communications is under-invested in across the sector

•Culturally, staff built careers being experts, being perfect,

being professional, being the best, having control

It’s not about “pounding the list”

Network orgs are built around a high

engagement model.

People lie at the core of their Theory of Change

Network Orgs

Social culture

Co-create or improve solutions along with

partners & people outside their walls.

Transparent model

Openly share theory of change. Comfortable

with emergence, testing, & learning in public.

Simple focus

A clear goal and limited program areas. Also

stronger investment in comms, messaging, UX.

People

The model suits our timesModel maps directly to web values: More conversational

style. Meets people on their terms. Enables self-organizing

systems. Offers meaningful participation.

Other benefits:

•Complex world, difficult issues take many players

•Can stretch fewer resources a long way

•Engages talents locked up in our communities

•Can turn on a dime; focus big attention on opportunities

•Innovation doesn’t always come from experts; front lines

Maybe we centralized too much social change in NGO’s

The limits of network orgsNot a panacea: Network orgs often lack the scale, reach, or

capacity to really drive an agenda that doesn’t already exist

Other limits:

•Don’t do the grinding, long term policy framework work;

don’t have experts to do it

•Can be seen as “ambulance chasers”

•Hard to have impact without large scale of community

•Difficult to fund; don’t fit into existing models

•What is the sustainable business model?

Small isn’t always beautiful

Lets look at some stories.

Let’s stay connected

Jason Mogus

@mogusmoves

Thanks for listening. I also ramble here:

Communicopia

communicopia.com

twitter.com/communicopia

facebook.com/communicopia