Excellent topic — and thanks for pointing to the live discussion with Beth. She and Jonathan Colman presented some great ideas during that conversation.

The great thing that social media tools do is they open up a two-way conversation. My industry, for instance, has long been a largely one-way medium. We’d go out,conduct interviews, gather information, and
tell you what we found.

Today, it’s much different. We still go out and report, but readers now have the opportunity to talk back and amplify what is written through comments.

We can engage people on Facebook and twitter. We can hold online discussions in which we can put readers in touch with other readers. The smart news organizations are definitely using these tools as ways to listen to their audience and to push the discussion in new directions.

But they are also marketing themselves. We are using twitter, for instance, to point out our latest news and blog posts. We are using Facebook to alert folks about our live discussions. And we’re finding that we’re able to reach a whole new group of visitors to our Web site whom have never seen our work before.

Wow, your take on this is brilliant. Thanks for sharing. You really understood what I was saying! Thanks.

According to Merriam Webster online, “promotion” means:
1: the act or fact of being raised in position or rank : preferment
2: the act of furthering the growth or development of something; especially : the furtherance of the acceptance and sale of merchandise through advertising, publicity, or discounting

So logically, every time a nonprofit staffer posts on a blog or sends a tweet that is work-related, it’s promotion.

And yes, Twitter can be abusive, one-way communication. So can blogs and direct mail and phone solicitations and face-to-face calls. (Ever had to endure lunch with a boorish person who talked nonstop about themselves?)

People won’t follow someone on Twitter unless their tweets are at least mildly interesting. Whether it’s personal or professional, make it count.

The bottom line is that social networks are for both talking AND listening. Real communication (and good manners) would seem to demand that nonprofits do both. Social networks like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and others are great places for nonprofit leaders to see AND be seen.

As Simone Joyaux says, “It’s not what you’re selling. It’s what I’m buying.

We were recently faced with the question of how to use social networking as a communication channel – and the reality that social media is way down on our priorities list as it is for most groups, as you point out. We recently ‘discovered’ that a Facebook cause had been started for our organization about a year ago and how has 16,000+ ‘members.’ We were grateful that the cause administrator did a great job of expressing our mission and values. An intern had established a skeletal organizational profile for us under a staffer (not on the NPO section)- and had also done some research on social networking and online communities for us. It was a few donations trickled in this spring which tipped us off to the existence of the cause. We claimed the cause, established an organizational entry in the NPO directly – and connected with the founder/manager of that cause. We also connected him with one of our donors who had set up another cause for us earlier this year…

Result: the conversation is started, connections made, and at least there’s a basis for supporting this volunteer network as they have demand and we have capacity. It’s not really any higher a priority … but continuing to understand what, how and how often communication can move through this network for mutual benefit is a higher priority. We see it as a volunteer-driven resource with certain types of limited returns – and will invest in it accordingly.

What’s perplexing is the view that social networks online are any different than off line. As you say, what gives this community any special status? Sure, we don’t want our friends giving out addresses and phone numbers so we can be solicited or market to by any cause. But if we’re doing a charity run, wouldn’t social networks be the first ones to notify and ask to support something meaningful?

What I find more troublesome on Facebook are the causes that utilize a bait and switch tactic – that is, the title of the cause uses a known campaign or organization, but the beneficiary organization of that cause is not related in any direct way. That said, in many cases this can’t be attributed to the NPO itself, but rather to one of its supporters. And, we can’t get too indignant since it’s a buyer beware, opt-in environment that should be self-policing to a large extent.

Appreciate your blog and resources. Sorry for the long post!