Comments on: Foundation Transparency: FORGE Update

By: Sean Stannard-Stockton

Sean Stannard-Stockton — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:41:25 +0000

Good question David. Cyber begging is about publicly asking for money. That’s not what Kjerstin did. She went public with a story about how they were in trouble while actively explaining the mistakes they made and why they were correctable. She also then engaged in a rolling, ongoing conversation with people who asked her critical questions. And all along the way, she never lost her cool or got angry at people who criticized her.

She also went through a public vetting with a professional consultant and allowed him to write about her informally as well as let his final report be posted publicly.

Remember, FORGE was an example of “radical” transparency. That made it a useful tool for making a point. But what should nonprofits take away regarding transparency?

I think the key is to realize that being open and honest about your organization, laying out public goals for yourself and sharing the successes and failures in trying to achieve those goals is going to attract dedicated, long term donors who want to build a trusting relationship with you.

Look I know that most nonprofits are working on a worthy cause, so I don’t need them to spend all their time telling me how important their cause is. I want to know if they are actually doing anything about the cause and if they are a trust worthy, robust organization that I can get behind.

Cyber-begging won’t build that trust. Transparency will.

By: David Lynn

David Lynn — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:58:02 +0000

I have a question, which I don’t want to sound negative, but hopefully can avoid the copycats: how do we differentiate Kjerstin’s approach from that of cyber-begging? Which in other personal cases online has worked the first couple times, but then loses the novelty.

There are going to be a lot of non-profits failing in 2009, should they all post saying “Hey, we’re running out of money?” What made FORGE not be cyber-begging but rather transparency, resulting in a positive outcome? Is it just about the people, as the anonymous donor stated, and all of these other machinations are just about networking and making the connection?

In other words, there are some non-profits that I work with that are suffering. What should I point out from this example that they can apply?

Thanks.

–David, San Diego SVP

By: Sean Stannard-Stockton

Sean Stannard-Stockton — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:25:02 +0000

That’s true David, but I think the transparency part is critical. Lots of people tell me their story. FORGE told their to the public, I picked up on it and didn’t become an evangelist until it was clear that FORGE was engaging in a dialog with the public, not just telling a story. But you’re right that social media enables all of it by reducing friction.

A story teller controls the story. FORGE willingly engaged in a non-controlled story that included a number of FORGE critics presenting their issues in public. What FORGE did so well was not just tell a compelling story, but engage in a robust conversation without losing their cool.

By: David Geilhufe

David Geilhufe — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:49:09 +0000

I am struck by how closely this process mirrors the best practices of fundraising.

1. Tell a compelling story
2. Recruit a supporter
3. Make that supporter into an evangelist to their network

Beth Kanter has done this a few times (http://beth.typepad.com/) as have others.

Though the transparency part is interesting, I think the bigger lesson is how blogs and other forms of social media reduce friction in the standard fundraising process, but they don’t really change the basic process.

FORGE got a grant from the foundation because the foundation “knew” tactical philanthropy– even though they just read the blog.

It all boils down to who you know and social media simply reduces the friction of that process.