Comments on: Causes, MySpace & ideablob

By: David Lynn

David Lynn — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:40:16 +0000

While it would be great if all of these platforms were more altruistic and going in a coordinated direction, I don’t believe that’s likely to occur on any widespread basis. What is more important is that non-profits have the capacity and ability to quickly react to changing environments. This technology world is moving very quickly these days, and non-profits need to be able to change rapidly – or possibly as Amy said, actually help direct the flow.

I do agree with Justin that no-warning shutdowns are inexcusable, but unfortunately may be part of the casualties of our Great Recession.

By: Glenn Fajardo

Glenn Fajardo — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:45:55 +0000

I’m not disagreeing with the “should’s” of Justin’s user-centric world, but I’m left with this thought: What consequences do ideablob/Advanta or Causes incur as a result of these recent moves?

By: Amy Sample Ward

Amy Sample Ward — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:01:19 +0000

Justin, I think you touch on an important aspect of this conversation: social media, is, after all, a strong part of the long tail! Can tools be measured simply by the number of users? Not in the long tail. Unfortunately, social change isn’t necessarily something (yet!) that every single user of the Internet is after. So the tools usage numbers would reflect that.

Thanks for adding to this conversation!

By: justin massa

justin massa — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:18:26 +0000

David-

I’d challenge your notion about “only the strong surviving” being a good thing. When folks are building tools / platforms that rely on the time and energy of innovators and change agents to be successful, they have an obligation to keep them informed and be responsive to their needs. When Causes / Ideablob ended their services, they left those folks in the lurch, without the data to keep in touch with their constituents. They put certain organizations and networks – in the case of Causes, networks and orgs more likely to serve racial and ethnic minorities – at a competitive disadvantage. Inexcusable, in my opinion.

Yes, the platform / tools may not have been the ‘strongest’ (a debatable point), but their strength is in no way a reflection on the folks who chose to use them. In a user-centric world, they committed a mortal sin.

By: Daniel Ben-Horin

Daniel Ben-Horin — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:41:32 +0000

The exchange that Sean aptly quotes between Matthew Bishop and Stephanie Strom is really telling. There are really two different ethos’ in collision. You could call it the commodification of innovation and of collaboration. And what is happening, is an exploration in real time of whether these two manifestations of ‘human potential 2.0′ can be effectively treated as market capital in a more or less traditional way, or whether it is baked into this new wave of collaboration-based innovation that the collaboration be transparent and community-driven.

I don?t know how this will play out. I wouldn?t bet against the forces of commodification. Their resources translate into attractive sites! People were on Ideablob because Ideablob offered attractions and off-the-shelf functionality. We know from our NetSquared experience how hard and expensive that is to accomplish. ‘Causes’ itself depends on numbers and the numbers come from the genius of Facebook and its team in building a functionality that attracted gigamillions.

On the other side of the ledger is the inchoate urge that seems to be bubbling globally to resist being commodified, to resist being controlled, to establish the terms of one?s own engagement.

By: Amy Sample Ward

Amy Sample Ward — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:26:21 +0000

Hi David-

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think there is a difference we need to be clear about in this conversation between nonprofit organizations using the tools, and the companies developing/building/providing the tools. Organizations may be suffering from “mission creep” but nonprofits operate differently than companies building software.

I think you are right that Facebook and Twitter are hot “right now” and that the field of social media is evolving at a fast pace; who’s to say that next year something wont pop up that makes us all forget about the tools we “love” now, right? But, that’s exactly what I’m saying in this post: that because some tools may be hot and others not, and because most social media tools are being provided by companies that aren’t focused on changing the world or making the same social actions that the nonprofit community of users are, that we need to create/find ways to let the community speak and lead in the development instead of following.

Thanks again!

By: David Lynn

David Lynn — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:13:32 +0000

I’m not sure this is a bad thing. The sector should and will continue to evolve, with only the strongest surviving. Too many nonprofits get too far from their core mission, and it’s not sustainable. For instance, if Causes determined that MySpace just wasn’t worth the ROI, then they were right to shut it down, especially if that means they can invest more in the Facebook platform.

In terms of social media and our community, I expect we will continually be forced to adjust and adapt our communications strategies. Right now Facebook and Twitter are hot, but there’s a reasonable chance that in 2010 we’ll completely give up on them and move to something else. Additionally, as the tools are learning to be more and more open, then the cost of switching, or connecting users from one network into another, is nominal.