In response to the earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010, Ushahidi quickly built an online information resource platform for Haiti, which lets people on the ground pinpoint on a map specific places where help is immediately needed and to provide updates and stories via text, email, tweeting and an online form. The site also provides photos, videos and news about shortages, response and threats.
The earthquake was massive and catastrophic, with Red Cross estimates of 50,000 dead at this writing, and many more displaced and missing. Those on the ground believe one-third of the country's nine million people could need emergency aid (John O'Shea of GOAL). The country, already the poorest in the Western hemisphere, is going to require a huge influx of aid as well as debt relief, and efforts at reconstruction and regeneration in the longer term. These are things that will be managed (hopefully) on a global, governmental and NGO/institutional level. Beyond this, there are also opportunities for citizen action and donation, suggested at aggregation sites such as The Clinton Foundation, the Green Family Foundation, and MobileActive.org*.
But in this case, Ushahidi's site is a bit different. While a comprehensive and managed platform- a great example of the power of media and information to support immediate need in crisis situations- it is nevertheless heartbreaking to read, especially from a distance, aggregating not only necessary resources but also virtual cries for help. People trapped under rubble, families looking for the missing who may not be found, churches and homes and hospitals crumbling. All these calls for help and for action- verified or not- are detailed in the site's Reports section. Because international aid is as of this writing hampered, access to sites such as Ushahidi's platform might be the most effective way for people to activate on the ground. For the rest of us, the Reports unfold the story of the crisis in real-time, through firsthand accounts and requests for assistance from the actual people on the ground and in need, moving us from remote viewers to passive (or perhaps 'active' in the case of a few) participants. Perhaps this lens will work in an way that moves beyond short-term awareness, to influence a sustained reconstruction and regeneration effort and for preventive measures and just treatment that will reduce risks associated with other crises.
(This post excerpted and cross-posted at the Resist Network.)
*Professional affiliation
Showing posts with label participatory media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label participatory media. Show all posts
SXSW Observations
The SXSW Interactive and Film festivals in Austin, Texas, were a whirlwind of ideas and activity, and the small but significant segments devoted to nonprofit and social innovation issues presented food for thought. While most of what I saw left me generally hopeful (perhaps because I didn't hear much about our current economic or funding crises), many of the panels made me think we still have challenges in the social change sector in the way we do our work, how we define it, and how we aim for change. Here are a few brief takeaways from the panels and hallway conversations:
As a sector, we still have work to do to clarify the distinction between charity and social good/systemic change. The "Social Media for Social Good" panel, in particular, led off with stories of fundraising and good deeds on behalf of individuals, as opposed to scalable social change. I'm not making a value judgment against fundraising here (had they titled the panel "Social Media for Fundraising," I would have had less of a problem with the focus-- though I will continue to argue the prevailing system of fundraising needs a major overhaul). But I and a few other attendees later voiced the view that charity is an entry point, not an endpoint, in sustainable social change. In other panels, I heard general discussions of impact measurement, but no discussion on how nonprofits and activists could set up or measure those metrics-- or fundraise to pay for the time and effort it takes to carry out impact measurement. There was little discussion about presenting evidence of change, even in the storytelling panels- and only heard one mention of the need to make a specific connection from engagement to actual change. (With regard to the storytelling panels, most of what I happened to see concentrated on ad-driven and brand-supported storytelling, so I won't discuss that now.)
Similarly, many of the proposed solutions that panelists discussed throughout the festival would largely affect the same socioeconomic strata as the attendees. Besides the panels devoted to mobile applications for social good in developing regions, there wasn't much attention to scaling solutions to other socioeconomic classes. Neither was there much discussion of ground-level innovation and scalability of those solutions, except in those same panels. And as Katrin Verclas of MobileActive.org pointed out, there was far more attention given to development and marketing of more applications and more products, and less to the development of enabling and instilling platforms along socioeconomic fault lines for existing products and services.
On the numerous discussions about social media, it appeared that some people position social media as a discipline itself. To state the obvious, social media is a tool and a platform to enable and enhance communications. I'm not sure why social media is still being pulled out from larger communications strategies (for surely the novelty of social networking is wearing off by becoming ubiquitous?), but if so, we need to start seaming it back in. The only exception to this would be the discussions on access, diversity and participation in social networking. Proposed solutions mostly centered on the creation of affinity groups, which seem to belie the point of integration on the web. If affinity groups connect immediately to larger, cross-participatory groups, this strategy may work. Simply creating silos may solve the access and participation problems-- but this won't go far in terms of integration and the cross-cultural dialogue that the web is otherwise well-suited to provide.
The good news is that, despite the economic and cultural challenges we face, I felt a general sense of action and positive movement. The panels I most enjoyed and would revisit are: The Ecosystem of News: Change V2 (Lawrence Lessig inspiring discussion of his newest project, www.change-congress.org) and the three panels devoted to mobile technology and social good, Appfrica; Mobile Web for Good; and Mobile Ubiquitous Banking.
As a sector, we still have work to do to clarify the distinction between charity and social good/systemic change. The "Social Media for Social Good" panel, in particular, led off with stories of fundraising and good deeds on behalf of individuals, as opposed to scalable social change. I'm not making a value judgment against fundraising here (had they titled the panel "Social Media for Fundraising," I would have had less of a problem with the focus-- though I will continue to argue the prevailing system of fundraising needs a major overhaul). But I and a few other attendees later voiced the view that charity is an entry point, not an endpoint, in sustainable social change. In other panels, I heard general discussions of impact measurement, but no discussion on how nonprofits and activists could set up or measure those metrics-- or fundraise to pay for the time and effort it takes to carry out impact measurement. There was little discussion about presenting evidence of change, even in the storytelling panels- and only heard one mention of the need to make a specific connection from engagement to actual change. (With regard to the storytelling panels, most of what I happened to see concentrated on ad-driven and brand-supported storytelling, so I won't discuss that now.)
Similarly, many of the proposed solutions that panelists discussed throughout the festival would largely affect the same socioeconomic strata as the attendees. Besides the panels devoted to mobile applications for social good in developing regions, there wasn't much attention to scaling solutions to other socioeconomic classes. Neither was there much discussion of ground-level innovation and scalability of those solutions, except in those same panels. And as Katrin Verclas of MobileActive.org pointed out, there was far more attention given to development and marketing of more applications and more products, and less to the development of enabling and instilling platforms along socioeconomic fault lines for existing products and services.
On the numerous discussions about social media, it appeared that some people position social media as a discipline itself. To state the obvious, social media is a tool and a platform to enable and enhance communications. I'm not sure why social media is still being pulled out from larger communications strategies (for surely the novelty of social networking is wearing off by becoming ubiquitous?), but if so, we need to start seaming it back in. The only exception to this would be the discussions on access, diversity and participation in social networking. Proposed solutions mostly centered on the creation of affinity groups, which seem to belie the point of integration on the web. If affinity groups connect immediately to larger, cross-participatory groups, this strategy may work. Simply creating silos may solve the access and participation problems-- but this won't go far in terms of integration and the cross-cultural dialogue that the web is otherwise well-suited to provide.
The good news is that, despite the economic and cultural challenges we face, I felt a general sense of action and positive movement. The panels I most enjoyed and would revisit are: The Ecosystem of News: Change V2 (Lawrence Lessig inspiring discussion of his newest project, www.change-congress.org) and the three panels devoted to mobile technology and social good, Appfrica; Mobile Web for Good; and Mobile Ubiquitous Banking.
Summary: "Preaching to the Converted": Engaging Your Audience and Combating Issue Fatigue
I moderated an online discussion on ArtTribesNetwork, on engaging your audience to combat issue fatigue. The discussion participants were from The Fledgling Fund, Cinereach, the Center for Social Media at American University, The Skoll Foundation, Global Grassroots, The Tiziano Project, the NYC Leadership Academy and the Miami International Film Festival, as well as two independent filmmakers (Brian Glazer, Producer of What We Got: DJ Spooky’s Quest for the Commons, and Marilyn Perez) and a social media expert (Howard Greenstein). We fleshed out some interesting ideas during the hour.
The transcript is online at ArtTribesNetwork.com. Here is a brief summary of the discussion:
Causes of issue fatigue
We briefly discussed causes of issue fatigue (also calling it compassion fatigue or psychic numbing). One reason audiences might disengage from a cause is their perception that there has either been no effective activism strategy put into place, or that there is no effective intervention or forward movement arising from activist efforts.
Another currently relevant reason is the economic crisis that affects our interests at home, which cause audience members to focus less on “distant” issues.
Similarly, issue fatigue hits audiences for causes that are large (hitting vast numbers of people) and/or “removed” from audience members’ daily lives faster than for issues to which they can relate personally or which center on one person in particular.
Keeping issue fatigue at bay
Discussion participants detailed their recommendations for keeping their audiences interested and committed. While you can’t necessarily apply the same questions and strategies to social issue media projects that have disparate or unique goals, the participants did come up with an overarching framework for most social issue media campaigns.
(1) Start with
(a) An exceptionally committed outreach team
(b) Sufficient resources to carry through your outreach and engagement plans
(c) A select, interested audience that will help you move the issue forward by engaging in activism and increase audience numbers by spreading the word, and
(d) Clear outreach goals for each audience segment.
(2) Given that issue fatigue hits when audience members feel disconnected, audience members must feel as if they belong to the movement and feel ownership over the outcome of activist efforts. Our participants talked about the importance of creating a personal, emotional connection to the cause through
(a) Visual imagery,
(b) A strong narrative that focuses on the story of one affected person (be that a witness, victim or survivor), and
(c) The opportunity to contribute through user-generated media.
(3) Social issue media campaigns built on slow, collective and continual action are most effective. The more people are exposed to the message through multiple media, the more likely they'll be to respond and/or take action. Therefore, campaigns must provide a pathway to action through creative opportunities for engagement.
It helps to engage in transmedia efforts, by continually creating and delivering new media, information, technologies and opportunities in order to maintain attention, through multiple distribution channels (traditional as well as digital and online), along with the opportunity to engage personally and collectively, in the real world.
(4) To communicate with your base, participants agreed that web 2.0 tools and social networks create an instant, global audience and deliver media and information most effectively. Digital communications tools are particularly useful for convening people virtually; sharing information, resources and referrals; getting attention; and inviting participation. In addition, you can encourage your audience to promote your message to their contacts in their own words.
(5) Audience members respond when the issue is highlighted in the local or national press, as this keeps driving and creating new interest in the issue.
(6) Finally, audience members also respond when they see their efforts are working. Therefore, participants encouraged providing feedback loops and impact measurements.
The transcript is online at ArtTribesNetwork.com. Here is a brief summary of the discussion:
Causes of issue fatigue
We briefly discussed causes of issue fatigue (also calling it compassion fatigue or psychic numbing). One reason audiences might disengage from a cause is their perception that there has either been no effective activism strategy put into place, or that there is no effective intervention or forward movement arising from activist efforts.
Another currently relevant reason is the economic crisis that affects our interests at home, which cause audience members to focus less on “distant” issues.
Similarly, issue fatigue hits audiences for causes that are large (hitting vast numbers of people) and/or “removed” from audience members’ daily lives faster than for issues to which they can relate personally or which center on one person in particular.
Keeping issue fatigue at bay
Discussion participants detailed their recommendations for keeping their audiences interested and committed. While you can’t necessarily apply the same questions and strategies to social issue media projects that have disparate or unique goals, the participants did come up with an overarching framework for most social issue media campaigns.
(1) Start with
(a) An exceptionally committed outreach team
(b) Sufficient resources to carry through your outreach and engagement plans
(c) A select, interested audience that will help you move the issue forward by engaging in activism and increase audience numbers by spreading the word, and
(d) Clear outreach goals for each audience segment.
(2) Given that issue fatigue hits when audience members feel disconnected, audience members must feel as if they belong to the movement and feel ownership over the outcome of activist efforts. Our participants talked about the importance of creating a personal, emotional connection to the cause through
(a) Visual imagery,
(b) A strong narrative that focuses on the story of one affected person (be that a witness, victim or survivor), and
(c) The opportunity to contribute through user-generated media.
(3) Social issue media campaigns built on slow, collective and continual action are most effective. The more people are exposed to the message through multiple media, the more likely they'll be to respond and/or take action. Therefore, campaigns must provide a pathway to action through creative opportunities for engagement.
It helps to engage in transmedia efforts, by continually creating and delivering new media, information, technologies and opportunities in order to maintain attention, through multiple distribution channels (traditional as well as digital and online), along with the opportunity to engage personally and collectively, in the real world.
(4) To communicate with your base, participants agreed that web 2.0 tools and social networks create an instant, global audience and deliver media and information most effectively. Digital communications tools are particularly useful for convening people virtually; sharing information, resources and referrals; getting attention; and inviting participation. In addition, you can encourage your audience to promote your message to their contacts in their own words.
(5) Audience members respond when the issue is highlighted in the local or national press, as this keeps driving and creating new interest in the issue.
(6) Finally, audience members also respond when they see their efforts are working. Therefore, participants encouraged providing feedback loops and impact measurements.
MediaRights.org article on transmedia activism
MediaRights, a project of ArtsEngine, Inc., maximizes the the impact of social-issue documentaries and shorts within its community by helping filmmakers reach audiences, educators and librarians bring films into their classroom, and nonprofits and activists integrate media into their campaigns. They recently published my article on transmedia activism at their site. Thanks to Kasmore Rhedick, the online editor, for a great editing job.
User-generated mashups changing the face of copyright law
ZDNet published a piece today about copyright law and the need to adapt IP laws to the Internet-driven cultural shift towards user-generated related content and participation. Brad Lichtenstein (friend, colleague, filmmaker, and the original inspiration for my work on transmedia activism), who is active in thinking and writing about the commons, posted a comment on his site about participation and the public domain. Thanks to him for continuing the conversation.
Generating mashups (fair use derivative works) and the use of orphan works are two very pertinent legal issues currently facing social change media. While most people don't dispute the rights of artists and creators over their content and the ways that content is used or disseminated, I wonder if, in thinking about media for social change, we should revisit "fair use" in the context of educational or charitable purpose or some analogous purpuse. (Or if someone already has?). The Copyright Act currently allows for performances of a non-dramatic or musical work in educational or religious assembly contexts. What if that notion were expanded beyond performances to include mashups, derivative content, sampling, or use of orphans works? I'm not certain that would be a popular stance, but perhaps it's worth exploring.
(For more information about legal issues surrounding user-generated content, The Center for Social Media has a number of great papers and discussions on its site.)
Generating mashups (fair use derivative works) and the use of orphan works are two very pertinent legal issues currently facing social change media. While most people don't dispute the rights of artists and creators over their content and the ways that content is used or disseminated, I wonder if, in thinking about media for social change, we should revisit "fair use" in the context of educational or charitable purpose or some analogous purpuse. (Or if someone already has?). The Copyright Act currently allows for performances of a non-dramatic or musical work in educational or religious assembly contexts. What if that notion were expanded beyond performances to include mashups, derivative content, sampling, or use of orphans works? I'm not certain that would be a popular stance, but perhaps it's worth exploring.
(For more information about legal issues surrounding user-generated content, The Center for Social Media has a number of great papers and discussions on its site.)
ResistNetwork: Share your ideas on social change
ResistNetwork has a page seeking ideas for social change, to collect and spread information about websites, online resources, articles or tools. I am part of the team that is curating the page-- the other team members are Jess Tyrrell at Germination, Wai Mun Yoon and Marc Silver. Take a look and send in a message to socialchange@resistnetwork.com.
Participatory Media and Tapping into Technology: Repurposing McKinsey
In thinking about storytelling and content creation to promote social change initiatives, I revisited an article published late last year by The McKinsey Quarterly called "Eight business technology trends to watch." The article details emerging trends in the use of technology—particularly internet-based and related tools—that will continue to transform markets and business in the for-profit sector in the coming years. Four of the detailed trends, grouped under the heading "Managing Relationships," provide a good discussion point and analogy for participatory media for social change agents. These are:
1. Distributing co-creation
2. Using consumers as innovators
3. Tapping into a world of talent
4. Extracting more value from interactions
The article recommends that businesses should proactively shape these trends to increase wealth and economic value by using internet-based technologies, and social networking and communications tools. The authors recognize that technology alone can't unlock value, but must be combined with a new way of doing business, the most relevant of which is to foster "co-creation networks."
In the face of the current financial crisis, the tightness of funding to the third sector (which is already stretched for dollars and paid talent) makes it necessary for social change initiatives to create new economical and effective ways of “doing business,” and to be creative and aggressive in minimizing their cash outlay while maximizing their reach and building their audience. But while funding may be low, the social and political will to be engaged and “do good” is strong and continuously growing. (Paul Hawken’s writing on that in Blessed Unrest describes the networks arising from this will to improve societal conditions.) Combine the available technologies with the existing will to do good and business model innovation, and the trends outlined above might be adapted for third sector initiatives to increase return on social change initiatives. Here’s a brief description of how the trends might apply:
1. Distributing co-creation and 2. Using consumers (or, “beneficiaries”) as innovators
Just as corporations have started to harness marketing techniques to inspire product and service innovations from the collaboration between in-house developers and external stakeholders, so too can a social change initiative work with its stakeholders to encourage or solicit innovations in program or service delivery, raising awareness and inspiring action. The first two trends deal with building a co-creation network (and relate to the August 4th post below regarding transmedia storytelling).
The McKinsey Quarterly article notes that the Internet has become a “widespread platform for interaction, communication, and activism. Consumers increasingly want to engage online with one another and with organizations of all kinds.” The Internet and related Web 2.0 technologies have opened up new and cost-effective ways for social change initiatives to communicate with their base to raise awareness and inspire action. You only have to look at the number of causes and groups on Facebook, Twitter and similar sites to see the burst of social networking activity by third sector initiatives. Accessing stakeholders and beneficiaries to foster a co-creation network requires a similar technological effort—and has the added benefit of expanding the engaged audience and moving them from awareness to action. (There is another potential benefit in terms of fundraising organizations, in that engaged audiences are more likely to donate money; an engaged stakeholder is more likely to donate in kind, as well.)
External partners can offer objectivity, knowledge of market trends and insights on the ground—particularly in locations remote from a nonprofit’s corporate office—that can help shape program development and allow nonprofits to delegate and decentralize innovation (and, depending on the structure of the relationship, lessen costs). Companies that involve customers in design, testing and marketing get better insights into customer needs and behavior. Similarly, social change initiatives that involve their stakeholders and their beneficiaries in program design, testing and marketing can inspire “loyalty” and adherence to mission and vision, speed up development cycles and improve accountability. Keystone provides a good example of employing co-creation to work with its beneficiaries in South Africa and the Philippines (where it has ground staff, as well) to create and implement programs that enhance organizational efficacy. Keystone also works with like-minded organizations in strategic collaborative partnerships that have agreed to support testing and application of the model.
There is one caution here, also inspired by the article. In opening up innovation to stakeholders and beneficiaries, you must be sure that you are not overly swayed by “information gleaned from a vocal minority,” and also that you continue to pay attention to both short- and long-range needs of your organization and beneficiaries.
3. Tapping into a world of talent and 4. Extracting more value from interactions
The third and fourth trends allow for more effective work flow, both internally and externally to an organization. In terms of tapping into external talent, interactive technologies allow cost-effective outsourcing to specialists, consultants and independent contractors. “As more and more sophisticated work takes place interactively online and new collaboration and communications tools emerge, companies can outsource increasingly specialized aspects of their work and still maintain organizational coherence.” This could be especially useful to nonprofit organizations, no matter what size, but particularly for small- to mid-range organizations. Because of the problem of financing—and despite what I can see as an increasing number of conversations about the need for more foundation and donor funding to support administrative activities—nonprofit organizations are more stretched than ever. Nonprofit staff members often wear more than one administrative hat to keep within budget. I’m not certain how many nonprofits outsource or off-shore their administrative activities—or even how many create partnerships with other nonprofits to share back office or program/service delivery functions—but since interactive technologies are making it easier and less costly to integrate and manage the work of outsiders, a number of functions (including innovation as described above, and administrative tasks, such as finance, IT or operations) can be outsourced here or abroad by nonprofit organizations.
Relative to enhancing communications within an organization, or between an organization and its external partners, “[t]echnology tools that promote interactions, such as wikis, virtual team environments, and videoconferencing, will enhance managerial innovations—smarter and faster ways for individuals and teams to create value through interactions…” For most social change initiatives that are leanly staffed with personnel who are more mission-aligned than well-compensated, building a smarter, faster operational system will make it easier for them to do their jobs and to focus more on the actual work of social change and program delivery. This combination will also make an organization more attractive to funders, while creating an environment in which program and service delivery can thrive. A nonprofit organization can improve its staff’s productivity in the realm of program delivery while relieving staff members of some of the day-to-day pressures that come along with working in the nonprofit sector, by investing in interactive technologies and the training to have staff and stakeholders adopt and use them.
1. Distributing co-creation
2. Using consumers as innovators
3. Tapping into a world of talent
4. Extracting more value from interactions
The article recommends that businesses should proactively shape these trends to increase wealth and economic value by using internet-based technologies, and social networking and communications tools. The authors recognize that technology alone can't unlock value, but must be combined with a new way of doing business, the most relevant of which is to foster "co-creation networks."
In the face of the current financial crisis, the tightness of funding to the third sector (which is already stretched for dollars and paid talent) makes it necessary for social change initiatives to create new economical and effective ways of “doing business,” and to be creative and aggressive in minimizing their cash outlay while maximizing their reach and building their audience. But while funding may be low, the social and political will to be engaged and “do good” is strong and continuously growing. (Paul Hawken’s writing on that in Blessed Unrest describes the networks arising from this will to improve societal conditions.) Combine the available technologies with the existing will to do good and business model innovation, and the trends outlined above might be adapted for third sector initiatives to increase return on social change initiatives. Here’s a brief description of how the trends might apply:
1. Distributing co-creation and 2. Using consumers (or, “beneficiaries”) as innovators
Just as corporations have started to harness marketing techniques to inspire product and service innovations from the collaboration between in-house developers and external stakeholders, so too can a social change initiative work with its stakeholders to encourage or solicit innovations in program or service delivery, raising awareness and inspiring action. The first two trends deal with building a co-creation network (and relate to the August 4th post below regarding transmedia storytelling).
The McKinsey Quarterly article notes that the Internet has become a “widespread platform for interaction, communication, and activism. Consumers increasingly want to engage online with one another and with organizations of all kinds.” The Internet and related Web 2.0 technologies have opened up new and cost-effective ways for social change initiatives to communicate with their base to raise awareness and inspire action. You only have to look at the number of causes and groups on Facebook, Twitter and similar sites to see the burst of social networking activity by third sector initiatives. Accessing stakeholders and beneficiaries to foster a co-creation network requires a similar technological effort—and has the added benefit of expanding the engaged audience and moving them from awareness to action. (There is another potential benefit in terms of fundraising organizations, in that engaged audiences are more likely to donate money; an engaged stakeholder is more likely to donate in kind, as well.)
External partners can offer objectivity, knowledge of market trends and insights on the ground—particularly in locations remote from a nonprofit’s corporate office—that can help shape program development and allow nonprofits to delegate and decentralize innovation (and, depending on the structure of the relationship, lessen costs). Companies that involve customers in design, testing and marketing get better insights into customer needs and behavior. Similarly, social change initiatives that involve their stakeholders and their beneficiaries in program design, testing and marketing can inspire “loyalty” and adherence to mission and vision, speed up development cycles and improve accountability. Keystone provides a good example of employing co-creation to work with its beneficiaries in South Africa and the Philippines (where it has ground staff, as well) to create and implement programs that enhance organizational efficacy. Keystone also works with like-minded organizations in strategic collaborative partnerships that have agreed to support testing and application of the model.
There is one caution here, also inspired by the article. In opening up innovation to stakeholders and beneficiaries, you must be sure that you are not overly swayed by “information gleaned from a vocal minority,” and also that you continue to pay attention to both short- and long-range needs of your organization and beneficiaries.
3. Tapping into a world of talent and 4. Extracting more value from interactions
The third and fourth trends allow for more effective work flow, both internally and externally to an organization. In terms of tapping into external talent, interactive technologies allow cost-effective outsourcing to specialists, consultants and independent contractors. “As more and more sophisticated work takes place interactively online and new collaboration and communications tools emerge, companies can outsource increasingly specialized aspects of their work and still maintain organizational coherence.” This could be especially useful to nonprofit organizations, no matter what size, but particularly for small- to mid-range organizations. Because of the problem of financing—and despite what I can see as an increasing number of conversations about the need for more foundation and donor funding to support administrative activities—nonprofit organizations are more stretched than ever. Nonprofit staff members often wear more than one administrative hat to keep within budget. I’m not certain how many nonprofits outsource or off-shore their administrative activities—or even how many create partnerships with other nonprofits to share back office or program/service delivery functions—but since interactive technologies are making it easier and less costly to integrate and manage the work of outsiders, a number of functions (including innovation as described above, and administrative tasks, such as finance, IT or operations) can be outsourced here or abroad by nonprofit organizations.
Relative to enhancing communications within an organization, or between an organization and its external partners, “[t]echnology tools that promote interactions, such as wikis, virtual team environments, and videoconferencing, will enhance managerial innovations—smarter and faster ways for individuals and teams to create value through interactions…” For most social change initiatives that are leanly staffed with personnel who are more mission-aligned than well-compensated, building a smarter, faster operational system will make it easier for them to do their jobs and to focus more on the actual work of social change and program delivery. This combination will also make an organization more attractive to funders, while creating an environment in which program and service delivery can thrive. A nonprofit organization can improve its staff’s productivity in the realm of program delivery while relieving staff members of some of the day-to-day pressures that come along with working in the nonprofit sector, by investing in interactive technologies and the training to have staff and stakeholders adopt and use them.
Transmedia Activism
One of the members of The Art of Social Change, Brad Lichtenstein, wrote last month at www.onthecommons.org about his newest documentary project, What We Got: DJ Spooky's Quest for the Commons, for which the film's creators are using a transmedia storytelling process to craft the film and its outreach strategy. Transmedia storytelling is a concept first described by Henry Jenkins. In his blog entry, Brad paraphrases the process' definition as: "Transmedia storytelling, also called multiplatform or enhanced storytelling, is storytelling across multiple forms of media. By using different media, it attempts to create "entry points" through which audiences can become immersed in a story franchise's world. The aim of this immersion is decentralized authorship across multiple new media forms like television, movie theaters. video games, the internet, and mobile platforms. By encouraging the sharing of assets and user generated content, transmedia conveys a complex story through numerous media sources."
There is a pure marketing benefit that arises from multiple entry points into a media property-- and in allowing your audience to participate in creating content and new platforms to distribute it. Even more interesting is the door this opens up for cause outreach, though (particularly in the context of this site). Nonprofits and creators of social change media have a challenge in making their content "sticky" and, in a crowded field with limited funding or distribution channels, it takes significant resources and expertise to first, create audience awareness and, second, inspire/prescribe action. There is a real and distinct opportunity for activists to influence action and raise cause awareness by distributing content through a multiplatform approach, particularly in which people participate in media creation. (A multiplatform approach would involve real-world, web-based or mobile content delivery of a variety of possible media, including feature-length narrative or documentary films, short films and clips, streaming or downloadable video, photography, blog posts, articles, spoken word content, exhibits, benefits and events, etc.)
Nonprofits engaged in social change initiatives should view storytelling as a necessary component of mission-fulfillment. (I know, as if the stretched, underpaid staff of any nonprofit doesn't have enough to think about.) It's well-established that for any individual institution, engaging your audience-- whether that's your beneficiaries, funders (existing and potential), board members, community or other stakeholders-- requires that they convey clearly, precisely and artfully what they do, how they do it, where their services/programs are most effective and necessary, and why they should be supported in your efforts to continue or grow their work. In the larger view of systemic change, though, storytelling takes on an even bigger role, where a well-told story creates a shared experience and helps illuminate all the factors (root cause and symptomatic) that effect social change efforts at both the global and local levels, creating a comprehensive, connected, "best practice" view of achieving progress.
Looking at this issue in the simplest of terms, one of the best ways to have people connect to a cause is to expose them to a variety of accessible media properties over a number of distribution channels-- which opens up avenues for dialogue and provides an audience with an educational experience about workable solutions-- and then work with the most creative and engaged audience segment to facilitate the creation of their own content that further explains the cause and inspires action around it. This kind of participatory social change art is not a new concept. The Theater of the Oppressed, a company established in Brazil in the 1960s and 1970s, engaged its audience as "spect-actors" -- participants who could both act and observe-- to learn how to solve social problems and constructively fight against oppression they encountered in their daily lives. (Today, there are still companies that use this theater form, such as the Aarohan Theater in Nepal which creates interactive theater in which the audience analyze social problems they face and act out possible solutions.) Another interesting example is the upcoming documentary Resist. The film's creators have set up the ResistNetwork website to start the film's outreach throughout its making, and to invite people to contribute stories of change that may end up in the final product or ancillary media.
To have a nonprofit's stories heard and to have an audience connect with cause, nonprofits should think about whether they can conceive and execute on a multiplatform approach. Leaving aside the question of funding (there are still relatively few funders who support media outreach initiatives with any consistency), a nonprofit would need a clear, defined, sustainable strategy and the attendant resources to create appropriate, compelling content and distribute it. As Brad points out in his blog, his journey through this process of transmedia storytelling has changed him from a filmmaker to a content producer. Nonprofits dealing with social change don't need to get into the business of content production or multiplatform distribution-- but it is a digital world now. It's likely time to add storytelling to the task list.
Republished from The Art of Social Change, at ArtTribesNetwork.com (http://www.arttribesnetwork.com/group/theartofsocialchange/forum/topic/show?id=1996069%3ATopic%3A7220 )
There is a pure marketing benefit that arises from multiple entry points into a media property-- and in allowing your audience to participate in creating content and new platforms to distribute it. Even more interesting is the door this opens up for cause outreach, though (particularly in the context of this site). Nonprofits and creators of social change media have a challenge in making their content "sticky" and, in a crowded field with limited funding or distribution channels, it takes significant resources and expertise to first, create audience awareness and, second, inspire/prescribe action. There is a real and distinct opportunity for activists to influence action and raise cause awareness by distributing content through a multiplatform approach, particularly in which people participate in media creation. (A multiplatform approach would involve real-world, web-based or mobile content delivery of a variety of possible media, including feature-length narrative or documentary films, short films and clips, streaming or downloadable video, photography, blog posts, articles, spoken word content, exhibits, benefits and events, etc.)
Nonprofits engaged in social change initiatives should view storytelling as a necessary component of mission-fulfillment. (I know, as if the stretched, underpaid staff of any nonprofit doesn't have enough to think about.) It's well-established that for any individual institution, engaging your audience-- whether that's your beneficiaries, funders (existing and potential), board members, community or other stakeholders-- requires that they convey clearly, precisely and artfully what they do, how they do it, where their services/programs are most effective and necessary, and why they should be supported in your efforts to continue or grow their work. In the larger view of systemic change, though, storytelling takes on an even bigger role, where a well-told story creates a shared experience and helps illuminate all the factors (root cause and symptomatic) that effect social change efforts at both the global and local levels, creating a comprehensive, connected, "best practice" view of achieving progress.
Looking at this issue in the simplest of terms, one of the best ways to have people connect to a cause is to expose them to a variety of accessible media properties over a number of distribution channels-- which opens up avenues for dialogue and provides an audience with an educational experience about workable solutions-- and then work with the most creative and engaged audience segment to facilitate the creation of their own content that further explains the cause and inspires action around it. This kind of participatory social change art is not a new concept. The Theater of the Oppressed, a company established in Brazil in the 1960s and 1970s, engaged its audience as "spect-actors" -- participants who could both act and observe-- to learn how to solve social problems and constructively fight against oppression they encountered in their daily lives. (Today, there are still companies that use this theater form, such as the Aarohan Theater in Nepal which creates interactive theater in which the audience analyze social problems they face and act out possible solutions.) Another interesting example is the upcoming documentary Resist. The film's creators have set up the ResistNetwork website to start the film's outreach throughout its making, and to invite people to contribute stories of change that may end up in the final product or ancillary media.
To have a nonprofit's stories heard and to have an audience connect with cause, nonprofits should think about whether they can conceive and execute on a multiplatform approach. Leaving aside the question of funding (there are still relatively few funders who support media outreach initiatives with any consistency), a nonprofit would need a clear, defined, sustainable strategy and the attendant resources to create appropriate, compelling content and distribute it. As Brad points out in his blog, his journey through this process of transmedia storytelling has changed him from a filmmaker to a content producer. Nonprofits dealing with social change don't need to get into the business of content production or multiplatform distribution-- but it is a digital world now. It's likely time to add storytelling to the task list.
Republished from The Art of Social Change, at ArtTribesNetwork.com (http://www.arttribesnetwork.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)