An update on online publishing

I was pleased to host a Webinar via the Communications Network earlier today on the subject of online publishing. Many organizations have moved partially or entirely away from print, but there remains the need for compelling storytelling and producing content that can be consumed in a similar way that audiences read print publications.

There's anxiety within many organizations about the explosion of social media and the challenges in capturing real stories and making emotional connections with audiences in, for example, 140 characters or less. And there's still that whole annual report thing and thinking about ways to make it relevant in the evolving online age.

Enter Michael Hoffman, CEO of See3 Communications, a Chicago-based online strategy firm, who took Webinar participants through some fantastic examples of how nonprofits and foundations have created either new online publications or vastly upgraded digital versions of print publications such as annual reports. Featuring the ability to incorporate multimedia, these publications offer a robust reader experience and bring an uptick in audience engagement.

Michael also took us through some of the newer trends and tools for online publishing, such as Treesaver, and provided some great tips on how to produce content for online publications that maps well to audience online behavior and expectations.

Kudos all around to presenters and participants, who posed some good questions during the Q&A that closed the session. You can view a recording of the full Webinar here.

Monitor your territory

As social media becomes more ubiquitous organizations need to better understand how their issues are being influenced in online conversations. There’s a lot of talk about “listening” to discussions taking place online and, particularly for organizations that serve broad constituencies, monitoring social media to gain a better understanding of how issues are playing out.

Before Twitter and Facebook and other social networks launched, it took organizations considerable effort to gain an understanding of where their audiences or communities stood on their issues, or to understand what issues their audiences deemed important. Whether through polling, focus groups, community meetings, or other feedback loops, organizations had to spend considerable time and energy to understand the landscape on which they were operating.

Without applying too much magic to the often messy and increasingly complex world of social networking, and understanding that offline influence doesn’t map directly to online activity, there are new opportunities for organizations to mine the online world to better understand sentiments about their issues and to identify strategies for constructive online participation.

Tools to monitor the online space – social networks, blogs, mainstream media – are becoming increasingly sophisticated and can provide sharp pictures of the content and interactions taking place about specific issues and organizations. These can be used for initial scans to gain an understanding of the current landscape and also for ongoing monitoring to track the direction of conversations.

Grantmaking foundations, for instance, can gain an understanding of how they may or may not be influencing the issues on which they are focused, or how active their grantees are in participating in online discussions. Community foundations can gain a deeper understanding of the key influencers in their communities and how community problems and solutions to those problems are being discussed.

Opportunities exist for program staff, in particular, to deepen their understanding of how their grantmaking issues are being captured, who the key influencers are, and how they might shape online communications initiatives that help further their programmatic goals.

Grantmaking foundations have traditionally lagged behind other sectors when it comes to utilizing shiny new technology tools for communications and public outreach. This has hurt their ability to monitor issues and develop strategies to react in ways that ensure their voices are being heard. Sophisticated new online monitoring tools, and the expertise to interpret the data and develop strategies for online participation and outreach, go a long way toward leveling the playing field for foundations and their grantees and increasing their impact on the issues they care about.

Your modern journalism

I'm two decades removed from journalism school and interviews for jobs that, had I accepted, would've required my eating Ramen noodles until I could convince the Chicago Tribune or Sun-Times to take me on, so I may not be the most astute observer of trends within the fourth estate. However, three journalism-related stories popped up the past few weeks that I think provide a window into the evolving nature of what we commonly refer to as "journalism."

First, to howls of laughter from the blogosphere, the Public Editor of the New York Times asked readers if it was the paper's job to fact check quotes included in its news articles:

... how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? Are there other problems that The Times would face that I haven’t mentioned here?

The post reflects what seems to be a genuine dilemma about basic journalism practice at the most respected major daily in the country. Perhaps the Gray Lady should aim a little lower, something closer to truthiness. Or maybe the Times  is just a victim of the nature of today's discourse, in which calling for a nominal tax rise on billionaires makes one a socialist.

The Media Guy at Ad Age highlights the loosey goosey game of "telephone" that occurs as online news outlets avoid being the last to report on the latest celebrity drug bust, extramarital shenanigans or outright fakery. So-and-so reports that so-and-so reports and so on:

The source of the story about Ad Age's non-existent sexy ad poll was the Daily Mail, the second-biggest newspaper in Britain, which got punk'd by an enterprising publicist. A ripple effect ensued, with news outlets around the world quoting from the Daily Mail's false report.

High-minded social media experts call this content curation.

Meanwhile, protest around the world has gotten the Economist to think about the ubiquity of live video and how it's shaking up the news business:

Technology turns anyone with a modern mobile phone into a cameraman—and international broadcaster. This is shaking up newsgathering. During the protests against election fraud in Iran in 2009, Access Now, a human-rights group that is adept with technology, received videos that showed many thousands on the streets, whereas CNN, wary of “unofficial” sources, used government-approved footage that made the protests seem far smaller. Now CNN’s “iReport” web page features viewers’ pictures alongside the network’s own; other news channels also often use amateur footage in their reports.

The piece goes on to provide some sage advice from human rights workers on the ground who've used video as part of their organizing efforts, but it also points out the dangers inherent in rising use of mobile video: "When all citizens are potential reporters, they risk being treated as journalists."

Bush Foundation program draws direct links between storytelling and community improvement

Foundations often think of storytelling as a way of highlighting a particular issue and rallying support around around an idea, approach or policy that moves the issue in a preferred direction. This blog post from the Bush Foundation outlines how a storytelling program in a small Tennessee town helps to address community issues and conflicts with some real personal depth:

Every place has its story and when people are invited to tell their stories as part of the fabric of that place, healing, bonding and celebrating can begin

What a nice way to bring people with differing philosophies and experiences together to better understand each other and rally collective support for their community.

Fix your problem

One of the first lessons I learned while working in philanthropy is that the sector, and the institutions that are part of it, don't have problems; admitting so would pierce the veneer of perfection. We have "challenges" to overcome, not stuff that needs fixing.

The problem [or challenge] with looking at our problems as challenges rather than problems is how we shape what we do to get rid of them. Challenges seem daunting and perhaps even a little bit ambiguous, and coming up with strategies to address them can seem bigger than possible; if I'm facing the challenge of my house leaking rainwater it's certainly an option to try and change weather patterns; or I could fix the leaks, one at a time.

Perhaps it's all semantics, but it seems breaking things down into problems helps us build straighter lines to solving them. Today's communications landscape is complex, and we need to simplify the way we shape our communications strategies if we want to see tangible outcomes.

So we have the challenge that our perspective on a particular issue isn't being heard or is being drowned out by the other side. Our problem may be that the most influential journalists or academics don't know we exist. Let's come up with a way to fix that. That might not sound like strategic, or high impact, communications, but it's a straighter line than coming up with a grand strategy and an ambiguous metric purporting to show how far we've pushed our view into the public consciousness.

Let's take our challenges and chop them into bite-sized problems we can fix. It may make it easier to demonstrate success, and just make our lives a little easier as well.

Communications + Program = better

My Communications Network board colleague Minna Jung of the Packard Foundation includes some astute observations in a blog post about how communications and program staff can work more closely together to progress grantmaking agendas:

When we talk about communications with our foundation colleagues, we are usually not just talking about one thing. We aren’t just talking about doing a press release or building a web site or what to do with this enormously thick report that just came out of the evaluation grant, even though we may mention these tactics.  We’re actually talking about strategies.

As in grantmaking strategies, and how communications brainpower can be brought to the table to maybe do a few things program staff hadn't thought of to help a grant or initiative achieve that much more impact.

And as I mentioned in the comments, it takes two to tango. Communicators and communications teams within any organization need to have strong internal brands if they're going to be relied upon for their expertise.

Twitter handles of the 100 largest foundations

Macie Schriner of the C.S. Mott Foundation put together a handy list of Twitter handles for the largest grantmaking foundations based in the United States. For the record, 42 of the top 100 [as listed by the Foundation Center] have some form of Twitter presence. Obviously, you'll find more action on some of these accounts than others. Also, individual staff members of these foundations may be posting about foundation activities via their own Twitter accounts. In the case of the Packard Foundation, it's using the listed Twitter account to post developments related to its new headquarters, currently under construction [worth following for you green building freaks]. Links provided for easy following.

• Foundation to Promote Open Society (NY): (opensociety represents Open Society Foundations)
• The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (CA): 343SecondSt (dedicated project account)
• The Annie E. Casey Foundation (MD): aecfnews
• The Annenberg Foundation (CA): Annenberg_FDN
• Boston Foundation, Inc. (MA): bostonfdn
• Eli & Edythe Broad Foundation (CA): BroadFoundation
• The California Endowment (CA): CalEndow
• Carnegie Corporation of New York (NY): CarnegieCorp
• Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan (MI): cfsem
• The Chicago Community Trust (IL): chitrust
• The Cleveland Foundation (OH): CleveFoundation
• The Columbus Foundation and Affiliated Organizations (OH): colsfoundation
• The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region (DC): communityfndn
• Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (NY): DorisDukeFdn
• Ford Foundation (NY): FordFoundation
• The Rockefeller Foundation (NY): FoundationRock
• Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (WA): gatesfoundation
• Greater Kansas City Community Foundation (MO): gkccf
• The Greater Cincinnati Foundation (OH): GrCinciFdn
• The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (CA): Hewlett_Found
• Conrad N. Hilton Foundation (CA): hiltonfound
• The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc. (MD): hjweinbergfdn
• The James Irvine Foundation (CA): IrvineFdn
• John S. and James L. Knight Foundation (FL): knightfdn
• The Kresge Foundation (MI): kresgefdn
• Lilly Endowment Inc. (IN): lillyendowment (private)
• Lumina Foundation for Education, Inc. (IN): LuminaFound
• The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (IL): macfound
• Marin Community Foundation (CA): MarinCmtyFdn
• The McKnight Foundation (MN): McKnightFdn
• Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (MI): mottfoundation
• The Michael and Susan Dell Foundation (TX): msdf_foundation
• The New York Community Trust (NY): NYCommTrust
• The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (NJ): RWJF
• Silicon Valley Community Foundation (CA): siliconvalleycf
• Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (NY): SloanFoundation
• John Templeton Foundation (PA): templeton_fdn
• The Oregon Community Foundation (OR): TheOregonCF
• The San Francisco Foundation (CA): tsff
• The Wallace Foundation (NY): WallaceFdn
• The William Penn Foundation (PA): WilliamPennFdn
• W. K. Kellogg Foundation (MI): WK_Kellogg_Fdn