I don’t see myself using it too frequently, but I will definitely use it to post some updates from the Statewide Philanthropy Conference here in NC on August 7. You can be sure I will also issue a few Tweets as well!

If you want more information or to grab the app yourself visit: iphone.wordpress.net

I am sure it is not intentional. In fact, I am pretty sure it is an outgrowth of a passionate mission focus and aided by a lack of resources – chiefly staff time. And while staff time is a factor every organization must allocate judiciously, I am one who advocates that new and growing nonprofits give communication planning a larger portion of both the time and budget pies.

Larger nonprofits already have a dedicated team of staff who focus on little else. Which doesn’t mean they get it right all the time, but does beg the question: how did they get that big in the first place? Well, good leadership and a compelling mission for sure… and a good bit of well-planned and well-executed communications.

In general, smaller nonprofits find themselves in a continual resource crunch. Built and staffed by individuals who are dedicated to the mission, they carefully allocate resources to maximize mission impact. In my experience, this typically means lots of programs and services, and little overhead. You’ll see a pretty flat administrative structure – just the basics. And, you’ll see administrators who wear multiple hats. Often, the management of the organization’s website, newsletter and print advertising are an add-on - or “other duties as assigned” for a staff member who manages multiple responsibilities.

Out of necessity the person handles each communication task ‘just in time’ and in isolation from the others. In the end the public gets mixed messages or simply does not get to know the nonprofit because its image, its brand is just too confusing. Logo placement and size may not be consistent from piece to piece. Other communication elements frequently will vary such as core messages, topics, imagery, tone, and color palette; ultimately to the detriment of the organization’s success in building the awareness.  What is ultimately created is Brand Confusion. But, fear not, this too shall pass; with the application of a few financial and staff resources.

Now, I don’t have time in this brief post to cover all the basics of strategic communications planning. The good news is: these topics are covered at length on other sites. I will, however, be launching a series here entitled Communications Chiropractic. Posts will cover some topics like aligning messages with your mission, branding your organization, strategic communications planning on a shoe string, and using theme-based communications. I promise, if you follow them you will not only begin to build that awareness you want and deserve, it will boost your fundraising revenue too. So, keep an eye out for those posts to start in mid August.

So, with the first major step in the re-branding process under our collective belts I recommended that the committee determine ways to share the results with the membership. The committee agreed and planned several firm communication actions to take place.

Let’s imagine, however, that since the committee meeting the Executive Director begins to feel uncomfortable with sharing the survey results in totality. Perhaps he is concerned that some of the comments would be taken out of context or that the few comments that are critical would provide cannon fodder for any would-be detractors.

As a consultant I don’t get to make the ultimate decision, but I do have to feel comfortable with my recommendation. So, what should I do? Suggest editing the comments? What about only sharing a summary or highlights? Perhaps we should just keep quiet and maybe no one will ever ask about the results of the survey.

If you know me, being a Strange Bird and all, I wouldn’t feel comfortable with any of those options. My recommendation: share the results with an appropriate introduction on how to read the results and sincerely thank all participants for their time and input. What else could I do?

I think it is occasionally overlooked that part of the motivation for a participant to complete a survey is their interest in learning the results. Further, by sharing those results with the participants and those who, for whatever reason, didn’t complete the survey an organization demonstrates a few important character traits. Specifically:

• the organization operates in a transparent manner
• it values feedback that is both supportive as well as feedback that identifies opportunities for improvement
• publicly sharing opportunities for improvement identified by its members [or customers] displays a commitment to customer satisfaction as a prime organizational goal

Moreover, this Strange Bird also believes that sharing the positive and not-so-positive results brings members closer to the organization and helps them form a more meaningful relationship with it; and after all, that is what the whole branding effort is about – forging those deeper relationships with members. Comments at both ends of the spectrum provide opportunities for dialog, opportunities to build understanding and delve into the areas where people ultimately find common ground.

Some people tell me that I see the world through rose colored glasses. I am the first to admit I am a ‘glass half-full’ kind of guy.  They tell me that I should not have so much faith in my fellow man and that, at my age, I should be more jaded than I appear to be. You see, I believe in open processes. I trust that, when given the opportunity a reasonable person will always choose a reasonable course; and really, that is who these members are…reasonable people, business people.

If we were dealing with inmates of a psychiatric ward we probably wouldn’t be doing a survey in the first place. So, I ask you – what would you recommend? Aside from being a Strange Bird am I just daft? This blog IS and open forum. You are free to comment and they’ll be posted here for all to see. Go for it. I trust you!

For me, Web 2.0 marks an evolution [or revolution depending on your POV] in the way people and organizations approach and utilize the internet. As the new approaches have gained some traction it has sparked considerable technology growth and, and has resulted in the misconception of an ‘upgraded’ internet. Web 2.0 isn’t a new version, it is a new approach and a set of tools for using the web to communicate, collaborate, build relationships, create communities, and ultimately innovate.

By way of disclaimer, this is simply my reflection on the question posed and not the result of any scholarly research into the subject. But, it seems to me that, at first, the internet was a tool that greatly expanded our horizons. It pushed us all out onto a global platform where communication happened at the speed of light. Where both trustworthy entities and scoundrels alike could market their wares in search of the almighty dollar. I like to think of it as slightly more sophisticated, but in simplistic view, a global flea market. A market that valued content over the content creators and celebrated uniqueness above all else.

During the early stages, the cost and/or level of technical skill required to be on that stage kept most of us on the sidelines. We shared our experiences via email, some found niche groups aligned with their interests and participated in message boards. Still others toyed with the emerging technologies and added some depth and breadth to the stage.

The “Web 2.0″ movement or phenomenon [if you want to call it that] represents a reversal in our approach to the internet and an explosion in tools that allow us all to participate. We all spent several years reaching out, pushing boundaries, and checking out what is happening across the globe while striving for a way to declare our uniqueness. But, now we’ve rebounded. Having been out there for a while we found we are more alike than we are different. Uniqueness has and always will be ‘in,’ but now ‘commonality’ is a very important concept as well!
Today, instead of looking beyond our communities for a way to grow, we are looking within our existing communities to do that very same thing. It seems we’ve been re-awakened to the notion that relationships really do matter and that maintaining them on a global scale is just too draining. Nifty tools like LinkedIn, or Classmates, MySpace and FaceBook can really help out but it all takes time, and on an individual level, keeping the relationships active and nurtured means far less than global proportions in your friends lists.

Web 2.0 also allows us to build communities in a different way. We can gather around those things that make us alike and share our experiences. Blogs, podcast, and vlogging technology offers the opportunity for anyone to publish their thoughts, dreams and passions. RSS newsfeeds allow us not only to gather information more quickly but also deliver and syndicate our own content. Community sites like this MySpace and Facebook, allow us to wear our affiliations like a badge, to proudly share for all to see with a primary goal of finding and cultivating similar believers rather than converting heathens.

That’s not to say that converting heathens is off the radar. Of course that and the pursuit of the almighty dollar are still key motivators. But, it is a whole lot easier to sell your widgets to a prospect when you can turn around and say, “it is working for these xxxxx people who subscribe to our service, participate in our group, connect to our MySpace page” and so forth. Commonalities, therefore, become a fulcrum to attract others to your products or services or whatever it is that fuels your passion.

Web 2.0 is also a boon for advertisers and marketers like me. In the past it required some considerable research [and research dollars] to find effective ways to reach targeted segments of the population. Niche groups with special needs were especially tough to reach. Today, people self-select and pretty much wear a target on their back. If I am selling deep sea fishing equipment, there are any number of websites and online communities that are talking about nothing else. The same goes for guava growers, anyone dealing with a rare disease, and people who jump out of airplanes for fun. The point is…you can find almost any niche market so much easier than ever before.

Bottom line? Web 2.0 is a necessary step in the evolution of the internet as a communications platform. A platform that is now much better at bringing people together, celebrating their uniqueness as well as their commonalities, and accepting and distributing each individual’s and organization’s contributions equally well. A colleague of mine observed that, ‘web 1.0 was about content and web 2.0 is about people.” I say, ‘finally!”

Of course I am not speaking literally. But I was recently reminded of the, ‘many hats we all wear’ during a recent Association of Fundraising Professionals breakfast meeting. On this particular morning Mr. Terry Barber, Vice President and Senior Strategist for the Grizzard Communication Group was in attendance to share some thoughts in his presentation “Build your Brand and they will come.” I attended the meeting because of the obvious connection between the topic and my goals as a consultant and I expected I’d learn a thing or two from someone like Mr. Barber.

Well, I did learn a thing or two but what my mind has been constantly regurgitating since that morning is Mr. Barber’s reflections on the typical, and often disastrous, split within organizations that occurs between the staff in the development department and those staff in the marketing department. It is true for some reason that these are two groups are frequently at odds with each other.  Sometimes more than “just at odds” too.  It can get bad - akin to the Hatfield McCoy feuds - all out war.

While we are at this point it is worth also mentioning that it is common also for tensions to exist between the development and finance departments and, if there is a separate public relations office, well they aren’t left out of development non-seeing-eye-to-eye-ism either. But for this piece, let’s just focus on development and marketing.

I’ve heard it from other fundraisers and I’ve experienced the split in the organizations where I have worked; but, no matter how prevalent it is, it just doesn’t make sense to me. Not when you look at the big picture. When I was a part of this type of organizational dysfunction I tried multiple ways to build bridges and to change the situation; sometimes with success and, sadly, sometimes without. I don’t claim to by a psychologist, so I can’t tell you what fosters this type of competition and distrust between departments in the same organization, nor could I tell you sure fire ways to get over it if you are dealing with it. But, Mr. Barber suggested a solution and deserves some credit for it.

He advised that although these divisions exist within our organizations that we should seek common ground in which to operate more cooperatively. Make sense so far? Further he suggested that if the marketing and development departments can put aside their differences, even if only for just a short while, there are three key areas in which they should band together in common cause and by doing so will have a much greater impact on their organizations.

The three areas?  Mr. Barber called them “brand drivers.”  He suggested finding common ground to:

1. Spark Imagination: Tell your story and envision your mission as met.
2. Build Integrity: Your organization’s authenticity is at the heart of its success.
3. Inspire: Put a face to your cause and drive for ‘mission accomplished.’

Mr. Barber didn’t say it would be easy.  But, I believe if you can get your two departments talking about these three things they’ll find they will be much more effective and might even come to like one another after all.  Let’s hope!