Thoughts on Joplin, MO and the believability of change

My heart goes out to all those who have been afflicted in Joplin, MO.  With the videos, the media coverage, the tweets, as well as the nonprofit and humanitarian outpouring of assistance, they have truly been in the spotlight this week.
 
But that’s this week.  In the past weeks and months there have been disasters all over the world – tsunamis, flooding, storms, not to mention - aside from the strange weather - birds falling from the skies, fish dying.  The world didn’t end last weekend but something strange sure is going on – different in the past few years than in the years when I was growing up (I feel like I'm sounding old...).
 
Which brings me to the title of my piece – believability.  Why is it so hard for some people to believe in climate change?  In weather patterns changing?  In conditions all over the world being significantly different now than they used to be?  And by significant, I’m talking in statistical terms, not just the observation that it seems different than it used to be. By real, scientific measures, it IS different. Ice caps are melting.  The alps have less snow.  The list goes on and on.


Yet there are many in the world who do not see this, or believe it.  I attribute that to the influences in their lives.  Influences of people, religion, upbringing, education, geography – the list can go on.  Whatever those influencers are, they seem to be in opposition to the evidence.  Weather and temperature - as we know it - are different.  Geographies are changing.  And this shift is straining people and resources all over the world.

Perhaps it is time we look at the causes of what influences people’s belief systems – why they can’t “see” climate change – weather conditions doing their worst – what it does to humans and to nature.  For it is only by understanding what influences belief systems that we can truly communicate, understand, and – perhaps – move forward - to deal with the world as it evolves into something very different. 

Why Nonprofits Should Care About Losing E.T.

Stories from the L.A. Times, The Seattle Times, and NPR, among others, have described the funding problems of the SETI Institute in Mountain View, CA.  The Institute now lacks sufficient funds to operate the monitoring arm of the Allen Telescope Array, a field of radio dishes that scans the skies for signals from extraterrestrial civilizations.  

According to the Seattle Times, “the timing couldn't be worse,” as “1,235 new possible planets had been observed by Kepler, a telescope on a space satellite.  Fifty or 60 of those planets appear to be about the right distance from stars to have temperatures that could make them habitable.”

Sound familiar?  Ever have funding for a program in jeopardy just when you thought it could do the most good?  

The elephant in the room is the results.  SETI has been around since 1984, with 42 radio dishes scanning deep space since 2007, and not a peep has been heard from E.T.  

What nonprofits can learn from this is that results do matter.  Yes, federal funding is tight.  Yes, California is in crisis.  And yes, there is still a chance that a white knight will appear before June 1^st.  But the big question remains: who else is willing to fund an idea?  A vision?  A goal, no matter how lofty and wonderful – when there is the possibility that there will be no results?

Funders like to see results . They want E.T.  Or at least progress.  

As a nonprofit, be sure that you are the best storyteller of your results – your successes, what you’ve learned along the journey.  The best way to secure and continue funding from donors is to show them how their dollars have made the world a better place.

What Nonprofits can Learn from Skype and MySpace

The activity this week of these two very different sites – Skype and MySpace – may seem unrelated to nonprofits.  But Skype’s sale to Microsoft for $85M and the valuation of MySpace at 25% of its previous value provides some good lessons.

Skype is a nice success story.  It illustrates how being early in the game – helping to create the game – can help you to become a leader.  We use skype as a verb now, the way we use google as a verb.  Skype makes a difference in the way we think about technology and the way we communicate.  While Microsoft (and others) may speculate about possible overvaluation, they now own a certain share of the market and, just as importantly, have kept it away from their competitors.

MySpace, on the other hand, is the story of a site that was in early but had no barriers to entry and, over time, did not change enough to remain “relevant.”  It was copied and “done one better.  So it lost it’s standing as the leader and, though it was “hip” for while, it fell out of fashion.  It was replaced, technologically, and culturally. 

I may have simplified a bit in my summations of each, but I think I got the gist of each right.  The real question is: what relevance does this have for nonprofits?

Like Skype, if you’re providing a service that is unique – if you do something no one else does in an area – crow about it.  Get your constituents to tell their stories.  Record their testimonials.  Grow your fan base.  “Own” your market.  Most importantly, prove your worth.  Show how you’re making a difference.  This is what funders want more than anything else.  Illustrate results.

Don’t fall into the MySpace traps.  Those include being blinded by “popular” programs – what is fashionable at the moment or what others are doing.  Or starting a new program because some funder likes the idea and wants to back it, though it's not on target with your mission.  Stick to the knitting.  Do what you do best.  And stay up-to-date with technology that can help you manage your programs in a cost-effective way.

Being focused on your mission and your results never goes out of fashion and will always be “valued” by your funders.

What Skype and MySpace Teach Nonprofits

The activity this week of these two very different sites – Skype and MySpace – may seem unrelated to nonprofits.  But Skype’s sale to Microsoft for $85M and the valuation of MySpace at 25% of its previous value provides some good lessons.

Skype is a nice success story.  It illustrates how being early in the game – helping to create the game – can help you to become a leader.  We use skype as a verb now, the way we use google as a verb.  Skype makes a difference in the way we think about communication.  While Microsoft (or others) may speculate about possible overvaluation, they now own a certain share of the market and, just as importantly, have kept it away from their competitors.

MySpace, on the other hand, is the story of a site that was also in early but had no barriers to entry and, over time, did not change enough to remain “relevant.”  It was copied and “done better."  So it lost it’s standing as the leader and, though it was “hip” for while, it fell out of fashion.  It was replaced, both technologically and culturally. 

I know I've simplified here with my summations of both cases - but the real question is: what relevance does this have for nonprofits?

Like Skype, if you’re providing a service that is unique – if you do something no one else does in an area –  crow about it.  Get your constituents to tell their stories.  Record their testimonials.  Grow your fan base.  “Own” your market.  Most importantly, prove your worth.  Show how you’re making a difference.  This is what funders want more than anything else.  Illustrate results.

Don’t fall into the MySpace traps.  Those include being blinded by “popular” programs – what is fashionable at the moment or what others are doing.  Or starting a new program because some funder likes the idea and wants to back it (if it is not on target with your mission).  Stick to the knitting.  Do what you do best while continuing to innovate, working out how to do it better.  And stay up-to-date with technology that can help you manage your programs in a more cost-effective way.

Being focused on your mission and your results never goes out of fashion and will always be “valued” by your funders.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy vs. The Nonprofit Times - surprise!

Considering how big the Chronicle of Philanthropy is, next to its competitor, The Nonprofit Times, you’d think they’d make more of their stories available for the general public.  Even the New York Times lets you read some of their stories for free before they ask you to subscribe!  

Times are tough for news outlets – this everyone knows.  Especially in the nonprofit sector.  But the Chronicle should take a lesson from what The Nonprofit Times is doing and learn. 

I’m seeing special television podcasts that are extremely well-done, timely, and informative.  I’m reading articles that are relevant –for free – and I can easily scan current industry data.  I’m able to read back issues on any topic I can find.  Way to go NPT - you're becoming more relevant, more important, and more meaningful.  Oh, and maybe worth subscribing to?

I applaud the changes and efforts that The Nonprofit Times has made (fyi, I have no ties to this publication and never have).  Whether I’m curious about how nonprofits are reacting to Osama Bin Laden’s demise, the latest in cause marketing (i.e. Lady Gaga’s work with the Robin Hood Foundation), or the Average Pay of the Nonprofit CEO, I know where to go.   

If I were the Chronicle, I’d be looking over my shoulder right about now.