Prioritizing Websites vs. Email vs. Online Outreach
Colin Delaney of ePolitics and I did a workshop focusing on Online Communications on a Shoestring at the Craigslist Nonprofit Boot Camp last weekend. It was a good time, and it seemed to go well. I liked the structure we used, which divided up the world of online communications into three parts:
A website tends to be a bit more of a front-loaded investment, but thinking about it as a yearly expense can help to prioritize. For instance, if you have $30,000 worth of time and money to spend on all your online communications, investing $10,000 in upgrading and maintaining your website makes sense to me.
And then another $10,000 in crafting a solid email communications strategy and putting out solid communications? That seems right, or even low - if there's one area that should get more focus than the rest, I'd say it's probably here.
And then lastly, online outreach - so everything from search engine optimization to viral movies or petitions to social networking. This gets the vast volume of the buzz from the nonprofit technology community, and there's no question it should be part of the mix, but I don't know whether it should get more than a third of your online communications energy. The size and mission of the organization might come into play here - a larger organization that's targeting internet-savvy audiences might find that it's worthwhile to invest much more energy in this area, while just maintaining a website and email communications status quo. But a smaller organization might get better return on focusing first on creating a strong website and email infrastructure, before investing in finding new online friends (after all, it's a good website and email strategy that will help keep your friends, after you find them).
What do you think?
- Website (as a home base)
- Email Communication (to talk to your friends)
- Online Outreach (to reach new friends)
A website tends to be a bit more of a front-loaded investment, but thinking about it as a yearly expense can help to prioritize. For instance, if you have $30,000 worth of time and money to spend on all your online communications, investing $10,000 in upgrading and maintaining your website makes sense to me.
And then another $10,000 in crafting a solid email communications strategy and putting out solid communications? That seems right, or even low - if there's one area that should get more focus than the rest, I'd say it's probably here.
And then lastly, online outreach - so everything from search engine optimization to viral movies or petitions to social networking. This gets the vast volume of the buzz from the nonprofit technology community, and there's no question it should be part of the mix, but I don't know whether it should get more than a third of your online communications energy. The size and mission of the organization might come into play here - a larger organization that's targeting internet-savvy audiences might find that it's worthwhile to invest much more energy in this area, while just maintaining a website and email communications status quo. But a smaller organization might get better return on focusing first on creating a strong website and email infrastructure, before investing in finding new online friends (after all, it's a good website and email strategy that will help keep your friends, after you find them).
What do you think?
Subscribe through Feedburner
3 Comments:
It seems to me that you are emphasizing technology over content. Good technology (website, email) can be had at relatively cheap cost. The success of all your communications tools will be measured however by the content and its quality, not just the bells and whistles that you can use. Many small nonprofits don't plan enough for the time and effort required to maintain an internet presence and grow their customer base. Since they fail to invest in a good communications staff, they tend to fall behind and be less attractive as time goes on to their readers and supporters.
Good point, Juny! Certainly - all of these communication aspects require considerably more effort in content than technology. But that effort costs money, right (unless you're using volunteers, but even then it costs money in opportunity costs)? I was thinking that my "rule of thirds" hypothesis includes both time and money, to help focus in on how much effort should be invested on one aspect compared to another.
The inclusion of both money and time should have been made more explicit in the post, given that idealware specializes in discussing technology, rather than the skills based necessary to make all of this wonderful technology work for the organization, rather than the other way around.
Post a Comment
<< Home