Why Flickr?

I believe that most non-profits spend too much time preaching to the choir. Flickr is a great website to show what your organization is doing or why it is doing it to people whom you haven’t reached so far.

1. Know your audience

Quality is important

A large group of Flickr users is really passionate about photography. A second important group is people who are looking for free stock photos that they can use in presentations etc. Both groups have in common that they are looking for high quality photos. Respect that and be extremely critical about which photos you share. I ask myself every time “Could this photo be on a postcard or on the front page of a newspaper?” and try to post only those photos that meet this standard. Please note: photos of conferences or internal meetings never meet that standard.

2. Newsworthiness beats quality

This photo attracted 15,000 views - most of them in the fist 24 hours.

The only time when you can forget about quality and simply post whatever you have is when you have fresh, exclusive photos from a breaking news event: when cyclone Nargis hit Myanmar in May 2008, we were the only organization that had current photos from the affected areas during the first few days. As a result, the photos attracted more than 70,000 views in 48 hours.

Update: Please read this post about the impact we had with Flickr after the Haiti earthquake.

To a large degree this was because Yahoo! decided to link to them directly from their news homepage, but I’ve have seen similar, smaller surges when we had photos from other, hard to reach areas. Timing is essential for these kind of photos: to be successful you have to be lucky and fast. Once Reuters and AP get their photographers on location, interest in your less-than perfect pictures will wane fast.

3. Less is more

On Flickr, if someone likes your photos, he can add you as a “contact”. This means that his personal profile page will show your latest photos. However, it will only load a maximum of five photos. I have found that there is no significant difference in extra traffic beyond five photos. Unless the photos are urgent, you will gain more by spacing them out over a few days.

Tip: It seems like you can batch-upload and prepare all photos at once as long as you keep them “private”. I think that the trigger for showing up in your contact’s photo streams is not “last uploaded” but “latest photos that have been made visible.” In other words: I might upload 16 photos at once but then switch them from “private” to “public” four or five at a time over the next days.

4. Understand what you want to achieve

Flickr is not a good tool to fundraise or even to drive traffic to your site. Most people will stay on Flickr and not make that extra click to your donations-form or your site. This can make it difficult to measure impact. I consider Flickr to be a valuable tool to showcase the work of the organization and to increase visibility, particularly with people we normally can’t reach.

In addition, National and local Red Cross Red Crescent societies and branches can take our photo feed (through RSS or the API) to highlight the international work of the organization on their websites without any extra work on their part. I think this a good idea for any non-profit or NGO that has branches.

5. Groups, groups, groups

Almost every time I hear someone complaining that his/her Flickr stream doesn’t attract enough people, the reason is that they are not using groups. Think about it: most people don’t go to Flickr with the intention of seeing your photos. Most of them want to see photos that have a  certain topic and it is in these topical groups that you find your audience. So, if you are an animal-rights organization, upload those puppy-photos to one of the many “dogs” group. If you work in DRC, upload your photos to the “Congo” group etc. I normally add each of our photos to at least ten groups.

Tip: Be on topic, but be different. You want your photos to stand out from the crowd so try to surprise people. Adding Tsunami photos to a “beautiful beaches” group or photos of malnourished children to “children portraits” is absolutely acceptable and can be very effective. Just make sure that they fall within the topic of the group.

6. Appreciate the work of others

You should also consider creating your own group and ask others to contribute to it. As administrator of a group you’ll see a new comment-button under all photos on Flickr, which makes it very easy for you to ask others to add their photo to your group. Ideally this will make them join your group and become a regular visitor and/or contributor. As the size of your group grows it becomes more and more likely that others will be exposed to your issues.

7. Flickr needs attention

I find that traffic to our photo stream falls very rapidly once I haven’t uploaded anything for a few days. Each time I let that happen, I slowly have to work the traffic back up from 40-50/day to 500-600/day, which is realistic for us outside of newsworthy events. This normally takes four or five uploads or about a week.

8. Use creative commons licenses – with care

A good example of the kind of photo to which we assign creative commons licenses. The photo shows our work and the branding is subtle.

I’m a big fan of creative commons licensing and believe that you should license your photos on Flickr accordingly, if you have all the necessary rights. The biggest advantage is that it allows people to spread your message without any hassle on their part. It also means that your photos show up when someone is looking for CC-licensed material using Flickr’s or Google’s image search. However, the important thing is to only license photos under CC that actually contain  your message.

You should also think about how you would feel about seeing your photos in a competitor’s annual report. In our case that means that I only apply a CC license to photos that contain a visible red cross or red crescent emblem. Basically I don’t want another organization to be able to use one of our non-branded photos without having to ask for permission first. I am far more flexible when it comes to photos that are branded, since it is in our interest that these photos are shared as widely as possible.

What I’m missing

What I find disappointing about Flickr is the lack of  integration with Facebook. There are a number of apps, but none of them do what I want. What I’d like to see is something akin to the existing “Blog this” feature in Flickr that would allow me to selective add photos to the album of our Facebook page. I’m also missing a “share this” button that would allow visitors of our photostream to post a link and a thumbnail to their own Facebook news feed.

Related posts:

1. Haiti earthquake: The Red Cross Red Crescent social media response
2. Are Tweets records? Thoughts on Twitter and record keeping
3. Slideshow for your blog: Red Cross Red Crescent photos from Haiti

I’m referring specifically to Chrome OS, Google’s new operating system, and the announcement that Google would dump Google Gears, a service that makes it possible to use services like GoogleDocs offline. In both cases, Google emphasized the importance of cloud computing as opposed to working offline. The idea is that all data, i.e. your spread sheets, your documents, your photos, get stored on remote servers (a.k.a. “the cloud”) and none of it on your machine.

Has Google lost touch with reality?

For most people in the world "cloud computing" is simply not realistic. Photo: Rita Banerji

Cloud computing is a good idea if you live in an urban area in a first world country where wifi connections are ubiquitous and where many people are using computers as little more than terminals. But that’s simply not the case in most parts of the world. Earlier this year, I visited a youth camp in rural Italy. Short of getting on a Sat phone, there was no way to get online. And this was northern Italy, not northern Ethiopia!

Access to technology is key

I think that access to information technology is crucial and can make a real difference in many developing countries. But in most developing countries, internet access is really expensive. I am concerned that by requiring people to be online in order to do things that could be done offline, we are making it harder for the world’s poor to get access to this technology.

Some advantages

Of course cloud computing would have some potential advantages for people living in developing countries as well. If you write all your documents in internet cafes, you’ll use many different computers and being able to store everything at a central location is certainly helpful. Additionally, if you ever worked in a country where  electricity is fickle, you’ll certainly appreciate anything that saves your work automatically. But there is a difference between being able to access and save information online and being required to do so.

The risk: a widening technology gap

Obviously, cloud computing is still a long way off from replacing offline computing. I’m sure that OpenOffice will continue to be available, as will pirated copies of MS Office. But the fact that Google completely dismisses offline use twice within a year, worries me. I’m worried that Google will focus its energy exclusively on users who can afford to be online 24/7 and that this is where innovation will take place. If that happens, then it will become even harder for young people in developing countries to catch up.

Related posts:

1. “The Worldlog”: new blog catalogue for aid and development sites
2. Are Tweets records? Thoughts on Twitter and record keeping

In case you are wondering what this has to do with non-profits: I know many NGOs who produce feature-length advocacy films to state their case against e.g. climate change, human trafficking, dragnet-fishing etc. And I am certain that many of them could be greatly enhanced by an approach like “Us Now”.

1. Make a film project, not a movie

The biggest difference is in what you see as the outcome. Many people consider their work to be done once the final cut has been made and the film has been screened, burned on DVD, uploaded … whatever. Most of the time, the audience is simply seen as a mass of people towards whom you then project a certain message – a classic one-to-many approach.

But if you see your product as a film-project, then this implies that the work is not done after your final cut; it implies that this is something that can be built on.

2. Think “resource” not  ”movie”

If you are looking at the film as a project and not as a 60 minute audio-visual presentation, then the next logical step is that everything that you have collected to produce the film is a resource. In the case of “Us Now” they made the original, uncut interviews available on the site and through YouTube. The BBC is currently working on a similar project called “Digital Revolution” where the rushes are already being made available while the film is still in production.

Both the BBC and “Us Now” offer interview transcripts which helps them with search engines (remember, search engines cannot read videos but love text).

Ideally you would assign meta data to both the text files and the videos so that users can find related interviews from different projects. If you have the resources to go one extra mile, you could even create an interactive transcript for each interview, like they do for the “TED talks“.

The point is, that you are suddenly offering people a resource that they can use in their own work. Think about how many videos were produced about climate change. Now imagine, you could use what other NGOs have already produced on the same topic. If enough non-profits would act like that, then everybody would win. But it obviously requires a change in attitude. Not only do we have to become comfortable with having others use material that we have paid for, we also have to become comfortable with using other peoples materials. I don’t know how comfortable the WWF would be to reuse bits of an interview performed by Greenpeace.

Interestingly, some of the big players are already working together on non-branded joint advocacy videos for big events like the climate change conference COP15.

3. Open a dialogue

This should be a no-brainer to everyone working with social media. You should give people a chance to discuss your topic with you. Obviously, by uploading the video to YouTube as a whole, as well as in parts, you can invite people to post video responses. However, you should find a way to display these on your site as well and not only have them sit on YouTube. Keep in mind though that such a dialogue requires resources. “Us Now” for example obviously doesn’t have those resources which is why this part of their site falls short of expectation. It’ll be interesting to see what the BBC has in store once they have completed their project.

4. Go Creative Commons

In order to achieve maximum distribution, give your film a creative commons license! “Us Now” can be downloaded in any format you can think of – including as a torrent! I don’t know whether that was the intention from the beginning, or whether it just happened, but it shows that once you set you content free, there is no limit to how and where your message might be distributed to.

From advocacy to authority

If you create your next advocacy film according to what is outlined above, you will see that you are suddenly no longer in the business of producing advocacy films, but you are in the business of establishing your organization as an online authority for the topics that your non-profit or NGO is fighting for. And isn’t that one of the reasons you were asked to produce that original advocacy video to begin with?

What do you think? Please share your thoughts below.

Related posts:

1. Would you kiss this sexy tv-presenter?
2. “Us Now” – Can social media help us govern better?
3. What do you want from me, Sarah Silverman?

Here are six reasons why I disagree:

1. There is a difference Oprah and an NGO

„Take a look at the top 100 twitter users in terms of followers. (…)None of them are non-profits. (…) Is the work you’re doing not important enough to follow, or is it (and I’m betting it is) paralysis in decision making in the face of change?“

Seriously? This is like saying it’s NPRs fault that so many people are watching Fox News. Or that the New York Times is  to blame for the success for the National Enquirer. It is a fact that people will always be drawn towards gossip and celebrities. We might lament that fact and wish that they put their time to better use but escapism is an important media function and one that most of the time is better served by light gossip than by the things that most non-profits focus on. And that’s ok.

Not everybody wants to spend his spare time thinking about, for example, the Convention Against Torture. In fact I’d argue that one of the reasons we are getting money from private donors is exactly because they don’t want to deal with this kind of thing. They give us the money so that we take care of it and they can watch Oprah without a bad conscience.

2. We are bigger than you think

A lot of major non-profit organization, like Doctors without Borders, Unicef or the Red Cross Red Crescent, have offices all around the world. In many cases, each of those offices will have their own presence on social media networks. This makes sense in order to reach people with localized messages, in their local language. The Norwegian Red Cross for example has a very active Twitter presence in Norwegian and a Secretary General who even tweets himself. The Syrian Arab Red Crescent posts local information in English and Arabic and Unicef Brasil in Portuguese. And that’s exactly the way it should be.

3. The importance of conversations

Admittedly the total number of all our Twitter-accounts might still be smaller than Ashton Kutcher’s flock followers. And yes, I would prefer it to be bigger. But we should keep in mind that social media is about conversations and not broadcasting.

By favouring specific content channels over a one-size-fits-all approach we are able to serve and connect with our audience better. That is not a weakness, that is a strength.

4. Online is not always the answer

“Where are the big charities, the urgent charities, the famous charities that face such timely needs and are in a hurry to make change? Very few of them have bothered to show up in a big way. (…) It’s easy to buy more stamps and do more direct mail, scary to use a new technique.”

I’m a huge fan of online fundraising. But it’s not always the right answer. I recently spoke with representatives of a big, rich European Red Cross Society and they told me that most of their individual donors are over 50 years old. In addition, independent statistics for that country show that many of the people in this age group aren’t comfortable with using online media and that there is an enormous amount of mistrust regarding the security of online transactions.

During that meeting we spoke about online fundraising and discussed ways to use online tools to attract new and younger donors. But if direct mail works and brings in money – why would I advise them to abandon it?

5. Eager for improvement

“Non-profits, in my experience, abhor change.”

Almost any response I have read about Seth Godin’s post said “Others are worse!” While that might be true, I don’t even accept the premise because it is simply not my experience when dealing with our 186 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

I’ve recently been to a big meeting of the International Red Cross Red Crescent Movement where my workshop was packed with representatives from almost 50 different countries, all eager to learn about social media, to exchange experiences and to discuss how they can use web based tools to solve concrete problems. The point is, they are investigating how these tools can help them do their job better – not how to make changes for the sake of change.

6. Not being first is not always bad

I would agree with Seth Godin if he had said that a lot of non-profit organizations, particularly the big ones, are slow to accept new technologies. However, that can be a good thing. I don’t think non-profit organizations have to be early adopters. I think that it’s quite alright for us to watch and see for a little while while the for-profit organizations take the first steps and figure out what works and what doesn’t. After all, if a for-profit organization fails in their endeavours then normally only money is lost. If a humanitarian organization invests money into a failure, then the money spent on that failure will not be available elsewhere and as a result a family somewhere in the world not might get a mosquito net or a child will not get a vaccination. That’s a big responsibility.

Obviously that argument cuts both ways. In cases where a technology is proven and can save money it should be adopted as soon as possible. We are for example increasingly using WebEx instead of face to face meetings. Another good example is the recent launch of an elearning platform (is open to everyone) that will help us cut costs for standardized trainings.

On the other hand, I’m glad that we never invested anything into Second Life, when that was the next big thing a few years ago. Waiting and only investing in technologies that have proven themselves is just good and responsible management.

Seth Godin says he’s upset. Well, so am I!

What do you think? Please leave a comment and share your thoughts.

You might also want to take a look at these two responses – and comments – to Seth Godin’s post:

• Beth Kanther: Seth Godin’s Non Post About Nonprofits: Deers in the Headlights?
• Allyson Kapins: Does Millions of Followers Mean You’re Changing the World?

Related posts:

1. Flickr for non-profits – 8 lessons learned
2. Haiti earthquake: The Red Cross Red Crescent social media response
3. Social media staff guidelines for the International Red Cross Red Crescent (IFRC)

It also got me thinking about whether we are asking the wrong people for advice, if we are  inviting the McKinsey’s and KMPG’s of this world to assist us with our problems.

I highly recommend you watch the video before you read on:

What I find most interesting about this presentation is that Dan Pink shows that intrinsic motivators are not only stronger than external motivators (like money) but make people more efficient:

“It’s an approach built much more around intrinsic motivation. Around the desire to do things because they matter, because we like it, because they are interesting, because they are part of something important. [That] new operating system (…) resolves around three elements (…):

• Autonomy, the urge to direct our lives,
• Mastery, the desire to get better and better at something that matters,
• Purpose, the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves.

If you are working for a non-profit organization and recognize yourself or your co-workers, please raise your hand.

Let’s look at the three elements and how they are part in the day-to-day life of most non-profits:

Purpose: This is where most non-profits excel since almost all non-profits are driven by a mission to improve the world in some way. It is this purpose that keeps people working long days and night and even work for free. The hundreds of millions of volunteers who contribute their time without getting paid are testament to how motivating this sense of purpose can be.

Autonomy: Non-profits give their employees considerable more autonomy and responsibility than you’d normally have in the corporate world. In part, this comes from a lack of resources. But that is not an entirely bad thing because it allows people with drive and initiative to quickly punch over their weight. I mean, we have sent interns to represent the organization at meetings with the UN (and told them not to mention that they are interns) – how great is that if you are fresh out of university?

Mastery: This is probably the element where most NGOs fail and one of the reasons that so many people leave disillusioned after a few years. (For an excellent book that describes how and why someone got completely disillusioned with humanitarian aid, read “The Road to Hell” by Michael Maren.) The nature of most organization’s mission is such that it can never be fulfilled. And while your particular skills might improve, the mountain of work will stay the same.  The paradox is that many people choose to work for non-profit organizations because the mission is such a big challenge.

Now … if the above is true and if non-profits manage to instill a sense of purpose, autonomy and mastery into their employees, than this suggests, based on the experiments that Dan Pink describes, that non-profits are actually more efficient and productive than they are given credit for. Maybe the tasks are just so big that it doesn’t look like it.

Why business consultants might be bad advisors

Looking at Dan Pinks discussion about left-brain activities versus right-brain activities I would argue that the work of most non-profit professionals requires far more right-brain (creative/conceptual) thinking than in most other industries. After all, what could be more complex than to “fight poverty”, “stop global warming” or “alleviate human suffering”?

But whom are non-profits asking for advice when they are in real or perceived trouble? Most frequently they get some business consultant who more likely than not has mainly optimized companies that have fairly repetitive routine tasks: Build a car, build more cars, build more cars cheaper.

One notable exception seems to be Accenture who has its own non-profit branch.

But aside from this positive example, I think we have to ask ourselves the question: can these consultants really understand an industry like ours? Are they really the right advisors? Because in my experience their advice frequently limits creativity and autonomy, i.e. the very thing that motivates people to get out of bed in the morning.

Do you agree or disagree? Do I have a point or have I gone off the deep end? Please share your thoughts with me and leave a comment.

Related posts:

1. Six reasons why Seth Godin is wrong about non-profits
2. From advocacy to authority – how to create an open source documentary to help your cause
3. Why “quick wins” are a myth in social media

Great chance for high level exposure

The World Log

The site is still a bit buggy (sometimes the user interface switches to Swedish so you have “Läs mer” instead of “Read more”) but if you have anything to do with aid or development, then you should definitely add your RSS feed to the World Log. The site will be presented at the “European Development Days 2009” (22 – 24 October) which is hosted by the Swedish government so this is a great chance to get some high level exposure.

You might also want to schedule some specific blog posts for those days since new blog posts get immediately highlighted on the world map.

I like the World Log but here a few things that could be done better imho:

• If you offer geo-location, include an option for the city as well as the country. My blog-posts for example show up all over Switzerland, which is a bit weird. Particularly since none of them show up in Geneva where I actually live.
• Include a filter for languages. Currently, while you can browse content by topic and country, you cannot specify which language(s) you want to see.
• There is no sense of community. The site feels like it was mainly set up as something pretty to be shown at the European Development Days – a “web 2.0 backdrop”. There is no sense of community, there is nothing you can actually do on the site except add your RSS feeds. There isn’t even a feedback-form or contact information! Considering that the European Development Days are quite high-profile, that still makes it worth my time to add my RSS feed (the complete registration process only takes two minutes) but it’s a lost opportunity.
• Monitor the submissions. Currently anyone can add any RSS feed to the catalogue. And while I’m a great fan of openness, I think it would be good if the worldlog team would at least take a look at each blog before it is being admitted to the catalogue.  I’m frankly quite worried that some very hateful people will flood the site on the launch day.

Update (24 September 2009): The Worldlog is now (finally) on Twitter as well (@theworldlog) and quite responsive to comments.

Related posts:

1. Why “RSS to Facebook” is bad for you
2. What do you want from me, Sarah Silverman?
3. Flickr for non-profits – 8 lessons learned