Of late, I've been giving a lot of thought into how social media can and should fit into nonprofits' marketing and internet strategies. Like the research geek I am, part of my process has been to read a whole lot of the information that's already out there (and there's a *lot* of it).
There's a ton of information, but surprisingly little about how social media tools and tactics fit into any other marketing activity. In fact, many of the info out there seems to imply (or to assert outright) that social media is a revolution in communications that makes all other marketing obsolete. Certainly in nearly everything there's an implication that social media is a different type of thing, which requires a different mindset and priorities.
I have to say, I just don't find this idea that social media is a whole new thing to be helpful. First off, it just doesn't make much conceptual sense to me. The ideas of guerrilla marketing and savvy branding - which have been with us for decades now - focus on crafting a compelling story that supporters will pass on. Familiar, huh? And to me, a really useful base on which to build the case for social media.
And the idea that nonprofits need social media to save them from a broadcast-only marketing strategy, and that otherwise they don't listen to anyone... this is nonsense. Nonprofits have always been particularly good at engaging constituents and listening. Community meetings, pledge-a-thons, house parties, bake sales, volunteers canvassing door to door to spread your message.... all great tactics to engage and listen, all conceptually similar to social media techniques. You don't need online tools to listen to people or to engage them (though they can help, no question).
Not to mention that it's clear that nonprofits need to do more than simply listen. They do have messages that they do want to put out into the world. Social media doesn't replace the need for a very solid website and email strategy. I don't think any credible authority would say differently, but when there's so little focus on how social media fits into these established methods, and so much on how social media is a wholly different thing, we give nonprofits the impression that they should focus their time accordingly: lots on social media, little on websites and email.
And lastly, the social media "revolution" that folks identify links suspiciously to shiny and nifty new tools. Why is creating an online video and posting it on YouTube one of the hallmarks of social marketing, while creating a terrific report which is widely discussed and promoted an old school method? Why do we talk a ton about FaceBook groups as important online communities, and hardly at all about email discussion lists (which often reach a much wider audience)? I don't see any fundamental paradigm shift between these things - the tactics and strategies at work are very similar, it's only the tools that change.
Don't get me wrong. There's no question to me that social media - and the shiny new tools - can provide compelling benefits for many nonprofits. And they engage different audiences than more traditional techniques, which is useful in of itself.
Isn't it more useful, though, to help nonprofits understand how these new tools and tactics fit in, how they're similar, how they can build on what they're already doing, rather than to focus on how *different* social media is from everything else?
