Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Nonprofit Social Media Data Dilemma

Everyone seems to be all about the world of “big data” right now. And – as a data nerd who gets her professional kicks in that same space – I’m not (even a little bit) complaining. I’ve found in my work with IMPACTS that nonprofits are placing an incredibly strong emphasis on data collection and analysis. Ostensibly, organizations paying careful attention to their social media data may seem an encouraging trend, but in our age of information overload many organizations are misplacing emphasis on the wrong metrics – or misinterpreting the meaning of these metrics. In essence, social media metrics are becoming nonprofit (and even business) fool’s gold.

Social media data is critical to understanding how your organization best engages with the market – and this knowledge is critical to achieving your goals. However, social media data are diagnostic metrics and NOT key performance indicators (KPIs). They inform how your organization is doing on social media…NOT the overall health of your organization. (They are related…but not the same.) Confusing the meaning and rightful application of this data can put organizations on a very arduous, frustrating path. Is a healthy organization active and engaging on social media? You bet. But high engagement numbers on social media mean absolutely nothing if your organization isn’t getting more people in the door, increasing membership renewal rates, facilitating donor-related conversations, or achieving any number of the goals that indicate the solvency and relevance of an organization.

Am I getting too jargon-y with all of this “KPI” talk? Here are some clarifications:

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): KPIs are used to evaluate the ongoing success of an organization or a particular initiative. Success is often defined in terms of making progress toward achieving the strategic objectives that optimize the solvency of an organization. In other words, KPIs have a direct correlation to desired outputs (fundraising, visitation, etc.). For instance, for our nonprofit visitor-serving partners at IMPACTS, we measure items related to market sentiment that include metrics such as reputation (e.g. top-of-mind metrics), educational value, satisfaction, value-for-price perceptions – and other items that correlate directly to the “health” of an organization and its ability to achieve its bottom line objectives.

Diagnostic metrics: Diagnostic metrics are data points that contribute to KPI performance and aid organizations in pinpointing specific opportunities. In the online space, these metrics allow organizations to observe how effectively they are engaging audiences. However, these metrics cannot “stand-in” for KPIs because they are a sub-measurement of assessment criteria (i.e KPIs) that lead to desired behaviors. For instance, on the surface, certain social media diagnostic metrics may look positive, but if they aren’t elevating your reputation (a key driver of visitation), then…well, a “like” is just a “like.” Diagnostic metrics are also helpful for “listening” to audiences, and informing organizations of opportunities for improvement.

Here’s how they work together (flow chart style):

And here are three, critical points to consider concerning social media metrics:

1) Social media metrics do not directly measure your bottom line (so keep them in perspective)

A measurement indicating online reach, for instance, only measures online reach. Just because your organization reached a large number of people with a social media status doesn’t mean that anyone paid attention to it, that it was the right message, or that it strengthened any individual’s connection to your organization. Is does mean that the message had the opportunity to build a bit of affinity among a certain number of people. This is not your bottom line. More meaningful metrics include donor giving, membership acquisitions and renewals, and attendance.

2) Even when social media metrics are high, they can still be at-odds with KPIs (making it HARDER for your organization to achieve its goals)

This is a big one. If you are evaluating the efficacy of your digital strategists and social media community managers strictly by Facebook Insights numbers – knock it off (please). These metrics can be purposefully and even accidentally inflated to the detriment of organizations. “Gaming” this system is child’s play for even the most neophyte of social media professionals.

To cut to the chase: If you’re measuring social media efficacy strictly by social media numbers and rewarding staff based on these metrics, you’re actively setting up your organization to fail. Your team may feel pressure to offer discounts or post superfluous updates that will artificially increase engagement rates (i.e. good for them in terms of their performance evaluation), but these practices will ultimately increase visitor dissatisfaction, devalue your brand, marginalize your mission, and demean your perceived reputation as “expert.” Have you asked yourself this question: If we’re so popular online, how come nobody is coming in person? Chances are that you’ve created ineffective, misleading evaluation criteria based on social media metrics and not true KPIs.

3) You do not control the platforms providing key social media metrics. (They actually control YOU)

TANSTAAFL (pronounced: “TAN – staf –ful”) was a common “word” on campus at my alma mater. It stands for “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” (though it came from science fiction writer Rober A. Heinlein, the term was popularized by Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning University of Chicago professor – hence, the popularity on campus). Sometimes organizations get so caught up with the ability to report numbers that they forget to think critically about social media metrics. Specifically, they forget about the concept of TANSTAAFL as it applies to social media.

Over 15 million businesses, companies, and organizations have Facebook pages and sometimes Facebook metrics have bugs. Actually…a lot of the time Facebook metrics have bugs. At IMPACTS, we attempt to correct for bugs by gathering insight information from several organizations and normalizing it, comparatively…but if you’re a single organization, you likely don’t have this opportunity and you are, well, a wee-bit stuck with whatever information or misinformation Facebook shows you. Organizations that run more than one Facebook page likely know first-hand how common system-wide bugs are for individual pages. If you notice a bug in your Facebook Insights, the best that you can do is contact Facebook and hope – over the course of several months – that they will fix the bug. Here’s a thing to remember: Your organization is using Facebook for free or at a low cost (if you aren’t constantly buying ads, or promoting or sponsoring posts) and there isn’t a direct incentive to fix your Insights bug (that you may or may not know that you have). In short, these metrics should not be the MOST important metrics or the ONLY metrics for your organization.

There’s no doubt that social media measurement is absolutely and increasingly critical to effectively engage audiences and remain relevant with the market. These metrics are NOT unimportant. But with social media metrics being relatively accessible to non-expert evaluators, and absent the considered interpretation and analysis of their “true” meaning, organizations risk confusing isolated data points with KPIs.

Bottom line: Social media is a tool for achieving your organization’s goals. Social media metrics help organizations assess how well they are using these tools. However, these metrics are not the end-all-be-all assessment tool in your organization’s toolbox…and organizations that misunderstand how to evaluate these metrics in terms of larger organizational goals risk confusion, frustration, and may jeopardize their long-term success.

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter!

Posted on May 22, 2013 by colleendilen in Big ideas, Branding, Community Engagement, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Social Media, Technology, Words of Wisdom 2 Comments

Minding Your Ps and Qs: The Importance of Early Adopters in Marketing Your Nonprofit (DATA)

Nonprofit marketers increasingly understand the importance of reach and remaining top-of-mind when it comes to building affinity with potential visitors and donors in the digital era. In a perfect world – one with unlimited resources – we would simply throw money at our marketing channels until everyone heard our message. However, in the real world of finite marketing budgets, many organizations mistakenly target the broadest swath of their market under the misguided notion that maximizing marketing efficacy depends on a “target the majority” strategy.

Instead, the modern nonprofit should understand that the number of people who see your message (i.e. how many) is significantly less important than the imitative value of the people who see your message (i.e. who).

Savvy marketers understand the critical importance of targeting “Market Makers” (as opposed to the broader market) to efficiently generate and sustain sales velocity…and the reasoning behind this strategy is undeniable.

As a friendly heads-up: I’ll warn you all that this post is a little wonkish (bear with me!), but for those of us who don’t have a degree in economics, here’s the play-by-play from an English major with a master’s degree in public administration (read: not math) who gets to see these items in action every day in her work with IMPACTS.

1. No amount of paid media (“P”) overcomes a lack of reviews from trusted sources (“Q”) when it comes to elevating reputation, driving attendance, or securing donations

This model (which I’ve shared before) also demonstrates how dramatically marketing has changed in the last twenty years. Paid media (“P”) used to be the fastest way to reach the most people. Now – thanks to technology – we have more real-time access to reviews from trusted resources (“Q”) than ever before…and the ability to promulgate these views with the press of a touchscreen.

While some organizations seem to be afraid of harnessing the power of “Q“, sophisticated organizations may view this shift as one of the best things happening in the marketing world. We’ve flipped the influence potential from outlets controlled by third-party publishers and broadcasters to one primarily influenced by our own relationships with our audiences! Now, marketers have the opportunity to reach people and foster relationships via a much more effective and influential method (i.e. word of mouth from trusted sources).

2) Certain people have higher “Q” values than others (and thus serve as more trusted resources for spreading your message)

We all have a friend who, when they make a recommendation, we listen. These are the friends whom we consider to be “in-the-know.” They’re the first ones to go to the new, cool restaurant, and the first to sport the season’s best fashion. In marketing-speak, they have a high “Q” values (AKA “high imitative values”). Like positive reviews in The New Yorker or The New York Times, reviews from these high “Q” value folks can make a world of difference for an organization. These folks are likely your “Market Makers” – the trend-starters and experts that get your organization’s ball rolling…and keep it in motion.

Similarly, we probably all have a friend (erm…or two) who, when they make a recommendation, we smile and nod but won’t touch that product with a ten-foot-pole. These people have low “Q” values and, unfortunately, many organizations target these folks just as much as high “Q” folks with their broader marketing strategies. Worse yet, without endeavoring to identify and target “Market Makers,” an organization may be wasting valuable resources on “Laggards” who only adopt a product when it is on the precipice of being passé.

3) The “Q value” of the individuals you target determines the “velocity” of your message (how sustainable it will be over time)

Imagine the adoption model above as a roller coaster. Now imagine that your organization’s goal is to engage the maximum amount of the audience. As anyone who has screamed their lungs out while plunging down the big hill surely knows, the higher up the roller coaster starts, the more velocity the roller coaster has available to propel itself up and over other obstacles. If the ride starts at a height that is insufficient, the cart will not have the requisite velocity to reach its desired destination (i.e. your maximum audience).

In other words, if you start your marketing effort by “marketing to the middle” (i.e. the early majority), then the models suggest that your efforts will only gain the necessary velocity to carry your message through the late majority. Sure – this strategy stands to reach 68% of the audience…but it ignores the most influential Market Makers who promise long-term relevance and sustainability. Perhaps this explains why many visitor-serving organizations have essentially flat-lined their levels of visitation in spite of growing populations levels.

Bottom line: To increase reach and promote your brand most effectively, it is critical that your nonprofit targets Market Makers.

The web and social media allow for personalization. Taking the time and energy to identify and target high “Q” individuals (content creators, online critics) is among the most efficient, impactful, and valuable type of market research available to an organization.

Does this mean that the only folks who should matter in your nonprofit marketing strategy are Innovators and Early Adopters? Of course not. Your organization must be ready to engage other audiences, as that is – of course – the goal of targeting Market Makers: To leverage their imitative behaviors to help you reach broader audiences.

Clearly, not all online audiences are of equal value, yet organizations regularly (lazily?) develop strategies for their online audiences as if they were a single, homogenous constituency. This is akin to developing “a targeted strategy for all things that breathe.” It is time for organizations to think of their online audiences with the same degree of segmenting sophistication that they lend to donors. Identifying your Market Makers, targeting these highly influential persons with your messaging, and trusting their imitative values to amplify your message to the balance of the market are the hallmarks of an efficient and effective marketing strategy.

Who knew that your mother was such a prescient marketer when she told you to mind your Ps and Qs? (Sorry, guys. I had to…)

Posted on May 8, 2013 by colleendilen in Big ideas, Branding, Community Engagement, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Public Service Motivation, Technology, The Future, Words of Wisdom 3 Comments

Inequality: A Nonprofit Social Media Best Practice

“All men are created equal.” No doubt you’ve heard that before, and no doubt I’d have a hard time finding a public-service motivated nonprofiteer who would disagree with that sentiment. I personally agree with it…except when it comes to social media. And if you’re a smart nonprofit organization, you may risk the efficacy of your entire marketing strategy if you don’t understand that inequality of social media followers should be a founding principle in your social media plans.

Simply put, your organization’s fans and followers are not all of equal value to your nonprofit’s relevance and long-term solvency – and treating every ‘like’ the same way means purposely sabotaging your ability to achieve organizational goals through social media. Some types of fans and followers are much, much more important than others in terms of increasing amplification, spurring visitation (if you’re a visitor-serving organization) and inspiring donations.

Like most matters of organizational strategy, social media is about “knowing where your bread is buttered.” Many nonprofit organizations misunderstand the distinct importance of unique online audiences or individuals, and instead, calibrate their efforts to the average “potential supporter.” Forcing striations of unique audiences to a “mean” misses opportunities for deeper, more meaningful engagement with higher-value individuals and wastes precious resources trying to attract folks that aren’t likely to engage with your organization beyond a status “like.”

As a reminder, many of the “rules” of real life (both social and business-related) generally apply to social media – perhaps foremost amongst these truisms being Pareto’s Principle (i.e. the “80-20” rule). Applied to social media, Pareto holds that 80% of your engagement and support will come from but 20% of your audience.

So what audience members should demand most of your social media attention? Pay special heed to these folks:

Members/donors

Sounds obvious, huh? Does it sound so obvious that the person running your social media channels has access to a list of members and donors right now? Probably not. (Quick! Email or print a list and run it over! It’s cool…. I’ll wait here.) If you’re like most visitor-serving nonprofits, membership and marketing/communications operate separately, and this separation often means that this critical (and very simple) little action item has been overlooked… along with several others.

In fact, this overlook is indicative of a necessary shift in how we think about the relationship between marketing and membership in the digital age. As I’ve mentioned before, membership increasingly needs the marketing department to function – not the other way around. However, your organization needs both departments to keep its doors open. Contemplating the role of social media in cultivating donors and members is a must for organizations. Knowing who these supporters are and where their interests lie provides the marketing folks with the information that they need to a) identify these individuals; b) pay special attention to their interactions on social sites; and c) utilize this information to inform content strategy to ensure that these high-value individuals remain actively engaged.

A goal of social media for many organizations is to inspire visitation and cultivate donors (and social media is pretty darn good for that). As a little hint: those who have already proven their affinity through membership or a donation are likely to be those who will support you again and potentially provide ongoing support. If you don’t know who they are and what they like (or you’re missing an opportunity to target specific content to these audiences), then you risk losing this valuable, precious market to a competitor (for-profit or nonprofit) who is paying better attention to their wants and needs.

Influencers

Influencers are bloggers or other content-creators with a high-perceived word of mouth value across a range of personal networks. This is the category in which the elusive and powerful “mommy bloggers” make their appearance for many organizations. If properly cultivated, content creators provide a trusted voice to share your mission messages.

Ample data support the importance of targeting Influencers as a key component of an organization’s social media strategy. For example, 29% of consumers trust blogs over other forms of digital marketing, and blogs are even more likely than Facebook to influence a purchase decision. Influencers aren’t just bloggers. They are also active on other social media platforms. But beware to judge the strength of an Influencer simply by their follower numbers. Influencers with smaller, more focused followings sometimes have more influence than those with a larger following.

A little bit of paying personal attention can go a long way in inspiring affinity. On a personal note, I really like to run. Though my tribe on social media is generally nonprofit and/or marketing folks, Brooks (the running shoe company) pays special attention to me. They send me free running shoes and, in turn, I know that they want some link-love and positive word of mouth when I just can’t help but share a race-related update…and I’ll give it to them willingly. Why? Because they simply let me know that they are paying attention to me. They have mentioned this blog. They keep track of what I like. I feel like they know me. I have purchased far more of their gear as a result of these efforts than the cost of their investment, and just learning a bit about me could not have taken more than five minutes of their time. There’s both a lesson and an opportunity here for nonprofits.

Another personal example? My alma mater’s Twitter account sometimes converses with me and other alumni. Without being asked, I made an online donation last month simply because they occasionally remind me that they are paying attention to me and make me feel like part of a community.

Social media unleashes the same dopamine that is released when you physically interact with someone, and we get a physiological and psychological rush of this feel-good chemical when we share things on social media. Nonprofits may do well to capitalize on this phenomenon to build affinity among those Influencers who can amplify your messages and cultivate more/higher-level visitors and donors. The broad action items are rather simple: 1. Identify these people. 2. Uncover their personal points of connection to your organization. 3. Start a conversation. Good-case-scenario: you’ll have cultivated a potential supporter. Awesome-case-scenario: you’ll have cultivated a socially influential supporter.

Evangelists

Evangelists are folks who have a high level of affinity for your organization’s mission and brand. These people like you (they really like you, not just Facebook-like you) and pay close attention to your content. They think you’re cool, interesting, and just downright important. High-level Evangelists are often also members or donors – and they may be Influencers as well. Some Evangelists may be non-members who are likely to share your message or support your organization with a visit (if you’re a visitor-serving nonprofit), and are ripe and ready for another level of engagement – say, providing support by attending a special fundraising event.

There are varying levels of Evangelists, and this is a broad term that we use for “folks who like you and want to help you.” They do this in different ways: Some may provide financial support, but the most common method of support that I observe is via the re-amplification of your messages. At the risk of over-simplifying this audience, these are your Facebook “sharers” who promulgate your content to their networks.

To be clear, the vast majority of people who “like” you on Facebook or follow you on Twitter (or any other platform, for that matter) are NOT higher-level Evangelists. In fact, most of your audience on social media channels likely falls into a “low-to-mid-level Evangelist” category – occasionally engaging with your organization from time-to-time but without making the brand a clear part of their online identity. To be sure, these lower-level evangelists are important. Content should aim to spark a connection with them to bump them into higher-level categories. However, these folks are not nearly as important as those who speak out about you and consistently let their friends know that they “real-life-like” your organization. Organizations should focus on higher-level evangelists because they are your likely repeat visitors and have potential to lend real-life support – either through valuable word of mouth marketing or future financial contributions.

Among online audiences, real-life donors/supporters, Influencers, and Evangelists are the most important folks to target with your nonprofit PR strategy. The quality of your fans is far more important than the quantity of your fans on social media platforms. If your organization isn’t paying special attention to key audience members, then your social media strategy is likely leaving both money and mission-amplification on the table. And these are things that most organizations cannot afford not to lose. Not all audiences are created equal.

*Image photo credit belongs to nexlevelvision.com

Posted on March 26, 2013 by colleendilen in Branding, Community Engagement, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Social Media, Technology, Words of Wisdom 2 Comments

Marketing Your Nonprofit to Audiences that ACTUALLY Matter

This is a bit of a tough-love post.

The nonprofit sector has lots of hard-working people trying their gosh-darn best to create social change. And, yet, there are still far, far, far too many organizations headed by smart, thoughtful leaders flailing in their attempts to concurrently achieve their missions and ensure their long-term financial futures.

Many of these same organizations have researched their perceived competitive sets to learn from their nonprofit colleagues and peers…and, well, perhaps this is part of the problem. Namely, many nonprofit executives are collecting information and doing everything in their power to keep up with nonprofit-dubbed best practices….and, perhaps that’s why a lot of them are still flailing…and why many will ultimately fail.

As a sector, many nonprofit organizations have confused “pervasive practices” with “best practices.”

These nonprofits are doing it wrong. Our hearts are in the game, but we continue to grapple with the same issues that have always challenged our effectiveness: burn-out, low-pay, fundraiser retention, donor cultivation, long-term solvency, etc. Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Perhaps many of us have been called “insane” for sticking to the hard work that we do but, arguably, too few people call us out for doing the same thing over and over and thinking things are going to change.

I have a proposal of where to start stopping this insanity: Nonprofits must pay significantly more attention to the market. The market – not internal audiences and certainly not other nonprofit organizations – determines your organization’s relevance and long-term sustainability

Here are some friendly reminders that may help your bottom lines of promulgating your mission AND promoting long-term financial solvency:

1) Nonprofits often determine importance but the market always determines relevance

Let’s not undervalue the critical role of our organizations: Many nonprofits are rightfully perceived as “content experts” in their respective fields and, as such, are highly-credible, trusted authorities. In other words, as “experts,” nonprofits often are able to declare “importance.”

However, if the market isn’t interested in your area of expertise or does not find it salient in their lives, they may deem your “importance” to be irrelevant. All too often, nonprofits misunderstand this relationship (or generally misunderstand the role of the public as the ultimate arbiters of an organization’s relevance), and spend significant time and resources essentially “talking at” people with their important voices. These practices don’t amount to dialogue – and they certainly don’t foster the types of meaningful, lasting relationships that we are all endeavoring to develop with our audiences.

A part of even staying alive in the digital era is “showing” and not merely “telling.” Content is king, and building personal connections helps to provide opportunities to prove relevance and open the door to conversation regarding your “important” content. If you make your organization relevant through storytelling, you can help audiences understand what is important and why. But, and again, this is a harsh truth: If you are telling your story and solely explaining its importance without first establishing its relevance, then the market will speak…by not acting.

When evaluating the effectiveness of an organization’s messaging, I always revert to the most basic of marketing principles: What’s in it for the audience? In other words, does my “important” message articulate a personal benefit to the target audience? If your message doesn’t articulate a meaningful personal benefit, then it is likely to be deemed irrelevant.

2) The market determines the means by which nonprofits best communicate (not the other way around)

Many organizations are not adequately investing time and resources into web and social media support – in spite of abundant data that compellingly indicate that these are the most important marketing and communication platforms. Often, nonprofit leaders simply don’t understand social technology platforms (or are scared to dive in), and just keep chugging along trying to create impact through direct mail, brochures, billboards and 15 second spots on drive-time radio…in spite of data clearly indicating that no amount of paid advertising can make up for a lack of word-of-mouth advocacy like that achieved via social media.

Moreover, the more “traditional” marketing channels are considered less trustworthy than real-time communication channels, so sticking to these methods doesn’t do your organization any reputational favors. (And if your methods are so outdated, perhaps the audience may similarly perceive that your message cannot be that urgent. The market won’t wait for you to catch up.)

Here’s the point: You can have the best message in the world, but if you shout it into to an empty room, then it doesn’t matter. Nobody heard it. Instead, go to the room where the party is taking place and share your message through the channel that works best for your audiences and not the channel that makes you most comfortable.

3) The market (not other nonprofits) informs your strategy, so beware of unintentional collusion

Just because other nonprofits are doing something, doesn’t mean that they are doing it right or achieving a desired outcome…or even that they have any special information that you don’t possess. Often, nonprofits become subject to what we at IMPACTS call “unintentional collusion.” In other words, they base their practices off of what other nonprofits are doing, assuming (often incorrectly) that the nonprofit that started the trend either had some sort of “insider knowledge,” or that the decision yielded positive results. Time and time again, this proves untrue.

If you want to know what works or if something may be a good idea, look to the market and your audiences’ behaviors – not to the average operations of other flailing nonprofits. Nonprofit executives should care what the market is expecting, and not what other nonprofits are doing. For some reason, this seems to be a hard one for many institutional leaders. If the best that you want for your nonprofit is to be mediocre, then aiming for the middle or matching your marketing efforts to industry averages is the way to go. My guess, though, is that this is not what you want for your organization.

When it comes to informing your strategy, use case studies from successful organizations – for-profit and nonprofit alike – that are similar to your own in content, promised personal benefit, and primary audience. In other words, find the best of the best and learn from their examples. (Please note: By “the best of the best” I mean the organizations that are actually achieving their missions and performing well financially…not those organizations who may be getting by on perceptions that don’t align to their current fiscal realities.)

Talk to other executive leaders to discuss the outcomes of their most impactful initiatives, and match their experiences to market data to find out if a similar initiative would work for your organization. If all nonprofits aim to be the best they can be and are contemplative of how to reach their section of the market, then the industry can be elevated. If we all revert to the “average,” we cannot evolve. If we cannot evolve, then we cannot thrive in an increasingly competitive, fragmented world.

Nonprofits don’t seem to have a hard time paying attention to one another or paying attention to their own internal desires but, perhaps ironically, nonprofits are less frequently equally contemplative of the market. As a reminder to nonprofits: You need your followers more than they need you. Pay attention to what they want or you may be left alone on a soapbox self-importantly talking about yourself to a family of tumbleweeds.

*Image photo credit (in order) belongs to Dilbert, Hugh MacLeod, Eloqua and Funny-pics.

Posted on March 13, 2013 by colleendilen in Big ideas, Branding, Community Engagement, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Social Media, Words of Wisdom 9 Comments

Urgent Evolution: Marketing Your Nonprofit to the Audience of Tomorrow (DATA)

There are many reasons why your visitor-serving organization should be marketing to Millennials and other emerging audiences in order to ensure its long-term relevance and solvency. However, the single most urgent reason to target these audiences is that the “historic” museum visitor market is slowly dwindling, and organizations that do not evolve their marketing strategies risk long-term survival.

At IMPACTS, we collect ongoing, nationwide (and crazy-massive) data sets of the US market, and have uncovered the demographic, psychographic and behavioral attributes that tend to suggest one’s likelihood to go to or otherwise support a visitor-serving organization (zoo, aquarium, museum, botanic garden, performing arts organization, etc.). We call folks possessing these indicators high-propensity visitors (HPVs). While individual organizations may have slightly varying HPVs, we’ve found that there are several characteristics that a vast majority of organizations’ audiences share. And we’ve found something alarming: visitor-serving organizations’ (VSOs) “historic” visitors are leaving the market at a faster rate than new HPVs are entering the market, creating a negative substitution phenomenon that does not paint a bright future (or present, for that matter) for VSOs.

In fact, for every one historic HPV that leaves the market, they are being replaced by 0.989 “new” HPVs. Sound like a small difference? These people add up! Keep up your hard work reaching your traditional audiences and – for no fault of your own – negative substitution factors would suggest that an organization currently serving one million annual visitors will attract 946,000 visitors five years from now (that is 54,000 fewer people, and a likely corresponding decline in membership and program participation). This troubling “glide path” also considers that you’ll be doing everything that you can to meet your current audience’s needs, and continue to market to them like exceptional rockstars! This data suggests that the key to long-term organizational solvency is to evolve our engagement strategies to include our emerging HPVs. This means – as an industry – evolving our target audiences.

Though we observe broad negative substitution indicators for VSOs nationwide, the specific data referenced above contemplates VSOs residing within the top 50 metro markets as determined by Nielsen (a cohort representing nearly 70% of the US population).

Why is this happening? Our data points to three primary reasons:

1) Rich, white people are having fewer children.

(Too blunt or refreshingly direct?) For the vast majority of U.S. visitor-serving organizations, this demographic represents their historic visitor. These folks are statistically more likely to have the household income, leisure interests, educational attainment levels, and psychographic profiles that tend to suggest an increased propensity to visit a museum, zoo, aquarium, botanic garden, performing arts venue, etc.

2) The United States population is growing increasingly diverse with folks that aren’t currently planning a visit to your organization.

(I’m going for “charming directness” again!) Museums and other cultural visitor-serving organizations have not yet succeeded in breaking the conceptual barrier of being top of mind destinations for non-HPVs. At IMPACTS, we see disappointingly low perceptions of zoos, aquariums, museums, and performing entities as “a place for people like me” in the minds of emerging audience members. (We call these perceptions “attitude affinities.”) Though select organizations are successfully executing strategies to engage these emerging audiences, the large-scale wave of change that we are seeking may only occur when we can alter the overall perception of VSOs as a sector.

3) Millennials are taking over the market, but VSOs are reluctant and/or slow in figuring out how to attract them.

Millennials can be a gosh-darn confusing bunch for older generations to understand. As digital natives, we simply think differently. If you feel like your organization is always trying to play catch-up to capture this audience, it’s because most VSOs are!

Millennials (born roughly 1980 to 1995) represent the single largest generation in human history (nearly 20 million kiddos larger than the Baby Boomers) and too few organizations are currently cultivating them as donors or even potential visitors. Some aren’t targeting Millennials because older generations just don’t see how they could be that important in driving business (“My kids can’t dictate how I do things!”) Well, most Millennials aren’t kids anymore, and the sheer volume of this generation means that they are already starting the lead the market. Some believe that Millennials just won’t be significant donors so they aren’t cultivating this group (despite evidence that – despite debt and student loans – this generation is incredibly confident about its financial future and may be more financially responsible than older generations). Other VSOs aren’t targeting Millennials because they simply don’t know how or don’t have the proper skillset on staff. (If that’s your thing, here are some baseline pointers for marketing to Millennials). Regardless, this is a demographic that nonprofit organizations simply cannot afford to ignore. As “historic” HPVs – who think and behave in a way that executive leaders understand – leave the market, there will be a void. In fact, this largely contributes to the negative substitution at hand.

In sum, visitor-serving organizations need to evolve their target audience in a big way. And they need to work together to do it soon. Data suggests that many visitor-serving organizations are already observing the challenging effects of negative substitution (e.g. declining attendance levels). Of course, this doesn’t mean altogether ignoring the “historic” visitor that is currently many an organizations “bread and butter”…because, indeed, these people will continue to visit (albeit in increasingly smaller numbers).

Negative substitution quantifies the urgent need to evolve, and moreover, compellingly indicates the risk of “standing still.” In order to foster a change in market perception of VSOs as welcoming and relevant, organizations will need to start adapting their engagement strategies and outreach initiatives. Perhaps you’re thinking, “Really? Another thing that I need to worry about in the midst of so much market change?” The answer is, “Yes.” Let’s start worrying. Let’s evolve.

Posted on February 27, 2013 by colleendilen in Big ideas, Branding, Community Engagement, Generation Y, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, The Future, Words of Wisdom Leave a comment

Trust Your Audience: Data Debunks Nonprofit Social Media Fears

Despite the myriad good reasons to be using social media (including data indicating social media’s leading role in motivating visitation and donor support), some nonprofit organizations and museums have been hesitant to open content-related communications to online audiences. They wonder: What if someone posts something bad about us? What if they use our Facebook page to promulgate viewpoints that are contrary to our mission or practices? What if they say something inaccurate on our expert page?

Data suggests that fears regarding radical trust may be largely unfounded and/or dramatically over-emphasized. Why? Because there is proof that people do not believe everything that they read online. Though this may sound axiomatic or silly to some (“Of course people don’t believe everything that they read online!”), organizations that don’t trust their online audiences to make informed, intelligent assessments often cite this doubt as a justification to not embrace open authority. Simply put, many organizations are frightened by social media and the means by which it empowers online audiences to express their respective points of view – which may be negative about the nonprofit, factually incorrect, or even “irrational.”

The data concerning this reticence to trust is quite clear: Organizations that instinctively move to limit communications - or react to a crisis only when standing on the sidelines is simply no longer an option – are failing their constituents. Here are three things to consider regarding reticence to engage on social media due to fears of opening authority to others:

1. Data suggests that social media is used by the public to gather information to form opinions… and not as a tool to dictate facts

Online audiences visit your social media sites to assess how you react and engage with the public in order to determine their level of personal affinity with your organization. They want to make their own decisions about what they think about your posts…and, similarly, they consider comments from others (and your responses to these comments) as key components of their information-gathering process.

Consider data from IMPACTS regarding the general public’s trust of various marketing channels and note the level of trust that the public ascribes to social media:

I’ve posted this data before highlighting the reach, amplification, trust and overall weighted-values of various information channels. It may well be the single most “expensive to acquire” data freely available to nonprofit organizations on Know Your Own Bone. (Read: I hope that you’ll please take advantage of this free-to-you information that was originally funded by for-profit clients. After all, that’s why I write!)

This data indicates the public’s relatively low trust in social media when compared to other information channels with higher publication thresholds (e.g. newspapers) and “traceable,” credible endorsers (e.g. word of mouth). While the findings suggest that social media is, overall, the most powerful channel as a source for information, it additionally indicates that the public understands that there are some crazy people on social media.

Online audiences do not believe that other fans typing on Facebook walls are writing truisms in stone. While these comments may exist for the world to see, what is more important is how organizations react to these comments…

2. Online interactions establish relevance and transparency… and may clarify negative comments that organizations fear

As described previously, online audiences referencing your website and social media platforms are making decisions about how to feel about your organization. It is important that you are transparent, trustworthy, and authentically engage with these potential online evangelists. Some may even test you like this little lady did in her post on the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History’s Facebook page…

This interaction demonstrates the importance of responding to comments and interactions on your social sites – even, at times, when “negative” comments strike. If the museum hadn’t responded, the public may have perceived that the museum does not pay attention to online audiences, so why bother engaging? Worse yet, such perceived indifference may have actually inspired additional negative sentiment. At the very least, not-yet visitors to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History may consider that perhaps the museum is indeed “really boring” without having uncovered that feedback from this user was not sincere.

Nonprofit leaders need not fear comments such as the one above because being an “online organization” allows for both social media users and the nonprofit to uncover information that may aid other users in determining their level of trust in these communications.

3. Online interactions provide constructive feedback that, if acted upon, may position your nonprofit to evolve and thrive

While some executive leaders may claim to fear comments from less educated audiences than their own employed “experts” posting on social platforms, many may actually be concerned about receiving plain old negative feedback that stakeholders might observe on these same sites. They may fear that these critiques might then resurface in board rooms or donor conversations.

Avoiding feedback by denying a platform for conversation is rejecting low-hanging fruit to aid in the improvement of the organization. For executive leaders or marketing managers for which this is the case, well, you may have bigger issues within your organization than not being active on social media.

As the world changes (new technologies arise, new generations take the lead…), organizations confront numerous challenges. Often, the severity of these changes is correlated with how quickly the organization can evolve and adapt in alignment with changing constituent and stakeholder needs. Organizations that fear feedback may already know that they are behind the times. The solution to this is not to back away, but, rather, to consider embracing the insight that social media interactions may provide for your organization.

Leaders may be surprised how positively a simple, “Thank you for your feedback. We hear you and we’re getting started on fixing that by…!” resonates with online audience members with thoughtful, informative gripes (provided, of course, that you indeed start to address issues that arise and further complaints do not surface that may indicate insincerity). Also, executives and managers may breathe a little more easily knowing that – if a comment is legitimate – your organization probably (hopefully?) has the knowledge required to respond to thoughtful, negative feedback in a considered and helpful manner.

All this is not intended to suggest that negative comments do not have the ability to impact your brand. Instead, it suggests that organizations who fail to actively engage their audiences, do not respond to interactions, and adopt a “hear no evil” position when confronted by a challenging comment are doing themselves a grave disservice by not treating these moments as important customer service (and audience engagement) opportunities. In the end, if an organization rightfully considers thoughtful, negative comments as opportunities to listen, obtain feedback, and improve, and if the public is already considering the veracity of fan comments, what plausible excuse remains for an organization to fear social media?

You can’t argue with crazy. And, you can’t argue with facts. The public has figured this out. Isn’t it time that nonprofit organizations catch-up with the public when it comes to the ways and means by which we communicate with our constituents?

Barely a few weeks removed from our nation’s most recent Inauguration, please excuse me as I play off of arguably the most famous inaugural address in our history to drive an important point home for nonprofit executive leaders: When it comes to social media, perhaps the only thing that we have to fear is fear itself.

Posted on February 5, 2013 by colleendilen in Blogging, Branding, Community Engagement, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Social Media, Words of Wisdom 3 Comments

Thank You and KYOB’s Most Popular Posts of 2012

JOB ALERT: Looking to start off 2013 with a new adventure filled with meaningful social media/marketing/PR work for zoos, aquariums, museums, performing arts and other nonprofit organizations? I’m looking for a right-hand-person to serve as IMPACTS’s Digital Marketing Manager. Interested or know somebody great? Please pass along the job description!

2012 has come to a close and we are all onward and upward toward 2013. It’s been a big year for nonprofit social media best practices in general, so I wanted to take a moment to share the most popular posts of 2012.

…But, first and foremost, I want to say thank you to my incredible tribe of loyal readers. I am so fortunate to be able to share thoughts and practices with such a talented group of hard-working, inspiring people! I am delighted (and usually a tad bit taken aback and still downright amazed by the power of the Internet) every time that I have the privilege meet one of you in person. It happens after I give presentations, after board meetings where I have the opportunity to visit your organizations, and – to my utter amazement – has even happened unknowingly with strangers over dinner conversations! (“There’s this blog about social media in museums and nonprofit organizations. It’s called….” Cut to me going slackjawed, followed by an awkward explanation and a laugh.) I am truly honored and ecstatic to learn that the sharing of the best practices that I observe in my work and travels have proven helpful to the thought leaders shaping the future of the nonprofit sector.

It’s been a big year for KYOB! In terms of content, IMPACTS, the company for which I work, has allowed me even more access to thought-provoking data to share with the nonprofit community. Aesthetically speaking, KYOB received a significant design upgrade by Marissa Sher, and Amanda Megan Miller Photography did all sorts of magic taking branding photos for the re-design. (Thanks to that shoot, I now have four skeletons worth of plastic “bones” living in the closet of my Chicago apartment. Cool or creepy actualization of a metaphor? …Yikes!)

Remember this design layout? It got a major upgrade in 2012!

Here are the 10 most popular posts of 2012 on KYOB:

1) The Millennials are Here: 5 Facts Nonprofits and Businesses Need to Know. The millennials aren’t coming. They’re here now. And the time has finally come when organizations will start to sink or swim based on how effectively they engage this demographic. Here are five fast facts that nonprofit and business leaders must embrace in order to effectively manage, market and operate their organizations

2) The Top 5 Mistakes That Nonprofits Make When Attempting to Engage Celebrities. Want to know how to increase your chances of getting noticed by celebrities in order to secure a public relations appearance? Here are five mistakes that nonprofits often make when reaching out to celebrities and what you need to understand when considering your ask.

3) The Importance of Social Media in Driving People to Your Museum or Visitor Serving Nonprofit (DATA). There’s a lot of conversation about the ROI of social media and confusion about how to explain its importance to executive leaders. Need help? Here’s some data behind how social media drives attendance to visitor-serving organizations (zoos, aquariums, museums, botanic gardens, theaters, etc).

4) How Generation Y will Change Museums and Nonprofit Membership Structures. Because online engagement is increasingly critical for buy-in among all generations, it must be applied not only to marketing, but also to fundraising. Membership teams, in particular, will need to re-work their operations and offerings in order to sustain and grow their number of supporters. In fact, IMPACTS has already uncovered the need for museums to revise how they tell the story of membership benefits.

5) 40 (More) Ways Nonprofit Zoos, Aquariums, and Museums are Engaging Audiences Through Social Media. Here are 40 (more) ways that nonprofit zoos, aquariums and museums are engaging audiences using online platforms.

6) 5 Critical Nonprofit PR Strategy Tips for Marketing to Millennials (DATA) Here are five critical insights into the millennial mindset (and increasingly, the general public’s mindset) that should be integrated into an organization’s public relations strategy.

7) Generation Y and Inheritance. It’s Time to Have a Talk Data suggests that there’s a rather significant expectation delta between millennials and their parents when it comes to how much money millennials expect to get in inheritance. Here’s what we asked, and here’s what we found.

8) Why Offering Discounts Through Social Media is Bad Business for Nonprofit Organizations. Offering discounts through social media channels cultivates a “market addiction” that will have long-term, negative consequences on the health of your organization. When an organization provides discounts through social media it trains their online audience to do two not-so-awesome things…

9) Web and Social Media Play Leading Role in Public’s Decision to Visit a Museum (STUDY). When comparing how folks get their information about leisure activities, it’s not even close: web and mobile platforms (including social media) are disproportionately influencing your museum’s visitation and attendance.

10) Death By Curation: Why the Special Exhibit Isn’t So Special Anymore. It’s no secret that a true blockbuster exhibit can boost a museum’s attendance to record levels. However, a “blockbuster” is rare, and the fact that these blockbusters spike attendance so dramatically is an important finding: Blockbusters are anomalies – NOT the basis of a sustainable plan.

Thanks again to everyone for making 2012 a great year! The nonprofit community is facing a time of incredible change, and I am eager to share experiences, best practices, and market information as we move forward. I hope that you’ll all do the same as your organizations respond and evolve.

Cheers to working together to better prepare ourselves and nonprofit organizations around the globe for a better, brighter future. Here’s to a wonderful, challenging, and inspiring 2013…

Thank you!

Colleen Dilenschneider

Posted on December 31, 2012 by colleendilen in Blogging, Branding, Community Engagement, Generation Y, Jobs, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Social Change, Social Media, Technology, The Future 2 Comments

Social Media: The Every-Department Job in Nonprofit Organizations

So, this “Internet” thing? It’s here to stay. It’s perhaps a hefty statement, but in this age of increased transparency and digital communication, your marketing team may well be the single most valuable department in your organization. (I’ll explain…)

Marketers aren’t increasingly important because they are necessarily smarter or have more talent than do the valuable resources in your organization’s other departments. It’s because the job of the communications, marketing and public relations professional has evolved from being a single funnel to media outlets streamlining promotional messages on behalf of an organization, to serving as several funnels to different, targeted demographics based on content from several different departments in a manner that achieves an organization’s long-term goals. Today, great marketers in visitor-serving organizations show the world how every other department shines. (And when they do it well, they shine, too)

It’s no secret: As I’ve said before, social media does not belong to the marketing department. It’s critical to open up communications between your marketing department and other departments. Your organization will need all of these connections in order to succeed in attracting visitors, building affinity for your brand, connecting people to your cause, and securing donors. Consider this. Here are six critical keys to social media success, and all six rely on cooperation with other departments:

1. Killer content (Marketing needs Education)

Engaging content is the key to success in social media. Content is currency. Engaging content keeps organizations top-of-mind and increases reputation – a key driver of visitation. It keeps your nonprofit in folks’ Facebook newsfeeds and gets you re-tweeted, shared and liked. It increases your reach and online audience. Content drives interaction, which drives affinity, which drives support. Arguably the best place to find this engaging mission-related content is from your organization’s scientists, educators, and interpreters. They are natural suppliers of fun-facts – they can uniquely tell you when behind-the-scenes activities take place, and they generally provide the “wow factor” for education-based content. Moreover, because many members of this department are public-facing, they already know what visitors consider interesting. Without the Education Department, marketers would have nothing to share except updates on their morning meeting about media ad buys… and, fortunately, they know better than to tweet about that!

2. Community management (Marketing needs Visitor Services)

Did you know that 42% of individuals using social media expect answers to the questions that they ask online within one hour? This is often made difficult because many nonprofit organizations (and shockingly, several museums) still “go dark” on the weekends (typically, the busiest times for museums)! Social media is increasingly a platform for customer service – and timeliness counts. Marketers must rely on an organization’s Visitor Service team in order to provide important information regarding pressing customer service questions. We call this “social care” and it is critical online. Nielsen has released their 2012 Social Media Report . Take a look at some of their findings:

3. Cultivation of evangelists and supporters (Marketing needs Fundraising)

I just lied for consistency purposes. In reality, Fundraising needs Marketing. Online giving continues to grow by 13.1% year over year, and online giving currently accounts for 6.3% of total giving. BUT organizations do a disservice when they assume that online giving is the only type of giving strongly connected to marketing. Web platforms and social media are the single most powerful marketing channels used for obtaining information – including gaining information for making visitation or giving decisions. Even if someone gives in-person, over the phone, or by mail, chances are that the connection was strengthened by digital communications. Marketing and Fundraising Departments can (and should!) work together to make lists of potential evangelists who are likely to spread the organization’s message, and social media can help identify folks with an existing affinity for the organization with the inclination and/or propensity to become members or donors. I’ll be so bold as to highlight an increasingly-relevant truism: Marketers don’t need fundraisers to be successful at marketing, but fundraisers need marketers to be successful at fundraising. In my experience, “old-fashioned” fundraisers hate this…but, generally, when you take stock of the current condition, “old-fashioned” fundraisers aren’t succeeding right now.

4. Unique initiatives (Marketing needs Exhibits)

This ties back to killer content. Exhibits teams have access to important, exclusive information that can pique online interest. They know when there’s a big, wrapped mystery being delivered on the loading dock, which animals are giving birth, why exhibits are placed where they are, and (like their colleagues in the Education Department) they know a nice bit about how people learn. Most importantly, they can facilitate unique initiatives like online animal-baby naming contests and help arrange special programs/experiences that can be value-adds as prizes for online engagement (Related note: Please don’t offer discounts over social media. The short-term, “subsidized” bump in engagement has significant, long-term, negative consequences for nonprofit organizations.) Exhibits teams can help allow for open authority opportunities that increase reputation, open conversation and “make everyone a curator.”

5. Ability to experiment (Marketing needs Executive Leadership)

Social media and online engagement best practices and measurements evolve, so goals need to evolve, too. For instance, most of the museums that I work with don’t have a real budget for Facebook aside from human capital or full-time equivalents (read: someone’s time). However, Facebook’s recent changes to Edgerank (Facebook’s status-delivering algorithm) have made the platform more pay-to-play with promoted posts and sponsored stories. Now, organizations would be wise to consider that maximizing engagement on Facebook may require a sustained monetary investment. It also makes compelling content from various departments even more important. In sum, social media isn’t about evolution…it’s about revolution. Changes are nonstop, big and fast. Leaders need to embrace the inevitability of change.

Also – and much more importantly – executive leadership buy-in is a key element to creative engagement. The best, most-famous examples of online engagement in museums (think Museum of Science and Industry’s Month at the Museum, or Indianapolis Museum of Art’s Online Dashboard, or museum directors betting artwork on the superbowl) required not only permission, but a willingness on leadership’s part to take on these initiatives. To take engagement to the next level, marketers need to understand that yesterday’s “how-to” manual is already obsolete. To have permission to innovate better practices in this rapidly evolving space, marketers need to be talking to leadership.

6. Human Tone (Marketing needs Human Resources)

Social media policies are best practices in organizations. In the digital era, folks want to know the people behind the computer screens. This also means that audiences can be drawn to staff members with their own online brands. These brands and real-life experts can be very helpful for organizations seeking to increase their respective reputations. Here are some famous ones in the museum world. However, organizations also risk having folks say inappropriate things online, share private information about an organization, and occasionally display less-than-awesome online behavior. The Human Resources Department plays a critical role in managing staff members’ online behaviors – they are a marketer’s “safe harbor.”

We do our organizations a grave disservice when we shrug and call communications – and especially social media – “Marketing’s job.” Increasingly, social media is everyone’s job (at least parts of it). Successful organizations understand the need for everyone to participate in the overall communications effort. Marketers don’t merely communicate, they collaborate. We aren’t solely about content, we’re about connection. And, the best amongst us understand that we can’t do it alone. Our success – indeed, the success of our organization – is a product of giving EVERYONE in the organization the most important job. We’re all marketers.

Photo edit based on meme by KSB

Posted on December 12, 2012 by colleendilen in Big ideas, Branding, Community Engagement, Education, Exhibits, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Social Media Leave a comment

How Generation Y is Changing Museum and Nonprofit Membership Structures (DATA)

Looking for a copy of the address that I delivered at the Iowa Museum Association Conference last week? You can find it here.

Millennials (folks roughly between the ages of 18 and 33) are the largest generational segment of the U.S. population. This generation has different values and mindsets than those of the generations that preceded them – and they are far too large in number for museums and nonprofit organizations to ignore. Organizations that are not marketing to millennials are not only missing an opportunity to reach a new audience, but failing to engage the audience that will increasingly dictate their organization’s operations for the next 40 years (at least).

But it isn’t just marketing departments that have begun incorporating changes to appeal to Millennials. The changes must be incorporated into a larger community relations and nonprofit PR strategy. Because online engagement is increasingly critical for buy-in among all generations, it must be applied not only to marketing, but also to fundraising. Membership teams, in particular, will need to re-work their operations and offerings in order to sustain and grow their number of supporters. In fact, IMPACTS has already uncovered the need for museums to revise how they tell the story of membership benefits.

While conducting research on behalf of a prominent visitor serving organization (VSO) with a conservation-related mission, IMPACTS uncovered an interesting finding. We asked respondents a series of questions related to identifying what they consider to be the primary benefits of membership to the organization. Once compiled, we found that sorting frequency of mention and strength of conviction information uncovered a telling divide between potential members above and below age 35.

Free admission was the pronounced, primary benefit of membership for both age groups. However, benefits two–through–five on the lists do not have any additional commonalities. Moreover, the type of benefits are very different.

Extant data indicate that members of Generation Y are public service motivated and appreciate a feeling of belonging and connectedness with one another and with a cause. This is consistent with the responses gathered from millennials in the data above. Instead of being interested in the more “transactional perks” of membership, this generation desires a feeling of connectedness with a broader social good.

Because members of Generation Y want different things from museum membership than generations before them, museums will need to adapt how they are selling memberships – or at least work to increase connectivity-to-a-cause vibes. Would a person considering membership to your organization feel that they are “making a positive impact” more than simply receiving “advance notice of upcoming activities?” Museums and visitor serving organizations must sell memberships by focusing more on their public services and social responsibilities than the traditional, more transactional benefits that motivated membership in the past.

Posted on October 30, 2012 by colleendilen in Branding, Community Engagement, Management, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Public Management, Public Service Motivation, Social Change, Social Media, Technology, The Future 5 Comments

40 (More) Ways Nonprofit Zoos, Aquariums & Museums Are Engaging Audiences Through Social Media

Since the creation of this blog, I’ve published several posts that simply list online initiatives taking place in zoos, aquariums and museums (ZAMs). These posts have garnered a good bit of traffic and served as the basis for research for several books and articles written regarding museums and social media. Unsurprisingly, ZAMs are currently as creative as ever before (if not even more so) in utilizing social media and social technology to build relationships, increase positive reputation, remain relevant, and engage potential visitors. (Like these examples? I often share my favorites and current happenings on my Facebook page if you’d like to follow along!)

And now, 40 (more) ways that nonprofit zoos, aquariums and museums are engaging audiences using online platforms.

In no particular order…

1) 100 Toys (And Their Stories) That Define Our Childhood. The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis is in the midst of their fun initiative: 100 Toys (And Their Stories) That Define Our Childhood, wherein members of the online community can write in memories and vote for their favorite toys. The pool has been narrowed down to 20 (currently also displayed on-site at the museum), and folks are still voting to uncover which iconic toy receives the gold, silver, and bronze medals.

2) Go, go aquariums on Instagram! There are only four so far: National Aquarium, Aquarium of the Pacific, the Birch Aquarium at Scripps, and Newport Aquarium. (Want to see zoos and museums on Instagram, too? Here’s a collection)

3) Thinking with The Thinker. If you find yourself lost in thought, check out The Monterey Museum of Art’s Facebook album, The Thinker, for a good laugh and some self-awareness.

4) Wikipedia in the galleries.Talk about open authority in museums! In October of 2010, the Brooklyn Museum included Wikipedia into their exhibition on women and pop art, Seductive Subversion. The museum offered iPads throughout the gallery and encouraged visitors to check out Wikipedia pages on artists featured in the exhibition.

5) Help find New York’s cutest baby! Wildlife Conservation Society is having a show-down amongst its entities (Bronx Zoo, Queens Zoo, Prospect Park Zoo, and the New York Aquarium) and is on a quest to determine who has the cutest little animal in town. They’ve turned to online audiences to uncover the favorite.

6) #MuseumOlympics. While the Olympics were taking place in London this year, #museumolympics took place on Twitter. Museums posted hilarious, witty, and downright amazing sports-themed images from their collections.

7) April Fools! The Monterey Bay Aquarium celebrated April Fool’s Day by surreptitiously changing their Facebook Timeline photo and homepage image to the one below…

8) The first Pinterest contest. The first zoo, aquarium, or museum to create engagement from a Pinterest contest? That was San Diego Zoo’s ask for folks to create tiger-themed pin boards for a chance to meet the big cats up close.

9) Wrapping in Instagram and Foursquare. And San Diego Zoo is still experimenting with social media engagement through contests. For their Nightime Zoo China Celebration, they are holding contests on Pinterest, Instagram, and Foursquare.

10) History with a side of pie. Colonial Williamsburg’s History is Served provides super fun 18th century recipes for the 20th century kitchen.

11) Making it easy to connect. The Brooklyn Museum makes it easy for folks to find their online engagement platforms by highlighting their social media channels on a single community page. They even recognize key contributors to the site on their posse page.

12) Engagement-driving “content regulars.” Every Friday, the National Aquarium writes an Animal Update blog post and shares colorful pictures from the updates on Facebook. Sound simple? Yes, but it’s also effective. These Facebook posts – along with their Amazing Animal of the Week posts (on Mondays) – drive high and reliable applause and amplification rates (i.e. they get liked and shared a lot).

13) A mobile app that facilitates a trip through time. The Museum of London created Streetmuseum, a mobile application that allows users to go through the streets of London and see what present-day scenes/locations looked like back in history, offering a window through time. You can continue this journey by checking out related historical objects in the museum.

14) Starting early on Generation Z. Is there anything cooler or more interactive for kids than Whitney Museum’s For Kids site? Kids can make their own profiles, take polls, and converse in their own forums!

15) Putting visitors on YouTube for a good cause. The Georgia Aquarium got their visitors involved in this youtube video by giving them the opportunity to explain how they feel about World Oceans Day.

16) Learning through online games. The Detroit Historical Society created Building Detroit, an interactive online game that allows audiences to choose their own adventure and play a role in building a city.

17) Sharing timely off-line experience online. These lonesome cockroaches could be spotted looking for some love in early February in hopes of securing a valentine. If you spotted them, took a photo, and posted it on their Facebook page, the Wildlife Conservation Society entered you to win a box of chocolates for your honey (or perhaps for you to share with your new friends, the roaches) on valentines day.

18) An online auction. Need ideas for fundraising online? The Clearwater Marine Aquarium is holding a live online auction to raise money to support the institution’s animal rescues, rehabilitations and releases.

19) Fundraising through Kickstarter. The New Museum in New York has raised well over $300,000 online through Kickstarter. Check them out!

20) Foursquare still has a following! To promote their summer evening music series, the Penn Museum offered free drinks to the first ten folks to check in on foursquare.

21) Looking to the public to choose the next subject for a work of art. The National Museum of American History asked the public to vote on which of five iconic American figures should be memorialized in a new biographical portrait by Robert Weingarten, a noted photographic artist. After more than 11,000 votes cast and a lot of great conversation, the winner was Celia Cruz.

22) Sharing silliness (and some seriousness, too). It’s a classic, but this list really must include “I went to MoMA and…”

23) Selecting and rewarding “insiders.” Similar to the California Academy of Sciences Nightlife Insiders initiative a while back, the Carnegie Science Center put out applications and has chosen six CSC Insiders who are highly connected on social media. They have access to special programs and experiences on the condition that they share their honest assessments with their online audiences and serve as online evangelists.

24) Rewarding online audiences without de-valuing your product. Offering discounts to your zoo, aquarium, or museum is a bad idea for many important reasons, but the Pittsburgh Zoo managed to reward their online audiences with a value-add instead of a discount. They hold Facebook Fan Nights wherein they open the zoo in the after-hours exclusively to social media followers.

25) Engaging in citizen science. The Georgia Aquarium is conducting some sweet citizen science by using social media to seek volunteers who have recently been SCUBA Diving in the Florida Keys in order to assess the state of coral reefs and gain information regarding public awareness of conservation programs.

26) Mobile scavenger hunts. GoSmithsonian Trek allows visiters to solve challenges, explore exhibits, and uncover fun facts on their mobile phones using this app.

27) Facilitating sharing with a mobile app. Speaking of innovative mobile apps, ArtClix, created by the High Museum in Atlanta allows users to see cutatorial details of works of art ans facilitates social sharing of photos online.

28) Current baby-naming contests. They are almost low-hanging fruit for zoos and aquariums now, and there are plenty of great examples. Want to check a baby-naming contest that’s happening right now? The Shedd Aquarium is naming their Pacific White-Sided Dolphin calf and the San Diego Zoo is currently naming their baby panda.

29) Telling stories to earn donors and support conservation. The National Aquarium understands that engagement is all about storytelling and relevance. Their website features the true stories of ten animals that the Aquarium has rescued and rehabilitated in order to show potential donors what kind of impact they can make. The Aquarium also used GiveCorps to encourage online donations so that they can build a new Seal Pool to rehabilitate seals.

30) Using Facebook to allow for a deeper connection for special interest. The Tennesse Aquarium maintains an active Facebook page for their Conservation Institue. This page offers another level of information for folks more interested in science and conservation (and next-level evangelists) than those that might like the Aquarium’s page.

31) Enjoying the mission from your mobile at home. Museums are continuing to find ways to bring experiences and information to folks through technologies with which we are most familiar. For instance, MoMA’s ‘Dial-A-Poem‘ brings users ecstatic language on the go on their mobile phones.

32) Mastering Pinterest. Zoos and Aquariums mastering Pinterest? With 2,073 followers and counting, the Monterey Bay Aquarium is rocking the repins. Here’s a list of some of the early-adopting museums that hopped on this online platform first.

33) Interactive online tours. Can’t make it to Amsterdam? The Secret Annex Online allows you to take an interactive tour of the Ann Frank House.

34) Wikipedians supporting museums. The GLAM-WIKI project supports GLAMs (galleries, libraries, archives museums) and other institutions who want to work with Wikimedia to produce open-access, freely-reusable content for the public. Like the idea behind Wikipedia, the GLAM Wikipedians themselves are transparent, accessible, and highly-connected as they help lead institutions into an age of open authority. Proof of their connectivity? A picture I took of this group during a dinner together at AAM2012.

35) Using personal branding to promote the museum. Many ZAMs have staff members, CEOs, and other leaders with a strong social media presence. Here’s why your museum needs you to have a personal brand and here’s a look at two museum CEOs blowing it out of the water. Some of my other favorites are ZooKeeperRick of the San Diego Zoo, Anthony Brown of the San Francisco Zoo (who is also doing a great job showing us his role at the zoo on Instagram), and Dr. Lynda Kelly of the Australian Museum.

36) Using the web to keep folks posted while the museum… um… moves. The Guggenheim Museum launched the BMW Guggenheim Lab which is a moving mobile laboratory traveling to nine major cities worldwide over six years. The main way to follow it and keep updated on this cool initiative? The web.

37) Asking the public for strategic direction. The Smithsonain put out a call to action on YouTube for online audiences to “Voice Your Vision.” The initiative invited folks to create their own videos and create content to share with the SI. They received many insightful responses, including this one.

38) Let online audiences “dig in” to information that interests them. Speaking of the Smithsonian, this week they launched a new campaign called Seriously Amazing which features an interactive new site that allows users to sort questions thematically and explore topics.

39) Showing folks why they should pay you a visit. XLVI Reasons to visit the Indianapolis Museum of Art are right here.

40) A completely crowd-sourced exhibit. The Walters Museum just finished displaying Public Property, a participatory exhibit curated entirely by the public. First, the public voted on the title (“Public Property”, then chose the theme (“creatures”), and finally chose which artworks they wanted to see at the museum.

Posted on September 24, 2012 by colleendilen in Branding, Community Engagement, Education, Exhibits, Marketing, Museums, Nonprofit Marketing, Nonprofits, Social Media, Technology 3 Comments

1 2 3 Next »